Did rents in Palms go up because they built housing or because it's a great location in a city with increasing rent almost everywhere?
Or in other words, is there any econometric evidence that building housing increased rents in Palms, or could we be confusing correlation with causation?
Exactly. You can't just look at two data points in a system with hundreds of confounding variables, many of them unquantifiable and say "aha! This simple linear equation of supply and demand, that they teach in middle school, is correct!"
Another factor is smaller households. People are staying single longer and waiting longer to move in with partners, creating more demand for housing even without population growth.
> the quality of available clothing across the world have fallen
Do you have a source for this? Anecdotes along the lines of "they don't make 'em like they used to" are incredibly common but often fail to stand up to scrutiny.
Circumstantially, the dominance of fast fashion, produced quickly and sold cheaply, suggests that some aspect of production is more "efficient" than historically so. I've seen YouTube fashion experts explain exactly how (lower quality fabrics, simpler and less durable sewing, cuts that use less fabric than would be so in higher quality garments), and while I'm not experienced enough to corroborate, they were convincing.
And zoning restrictions are part of the reason why housing prices "always go up." Constrained supply is exactly and precisely what makes housing a profitable investment.
One of many reasons. Supply is also constrained because people are buying it as an investment. It’s a feedback loop.
If I were extremely rich and had a lot of properties to rent in California, I’d look at relaxed zoning laws as an opportunity to buy even more properties.
Usually I would agree, but the amount of distortion depends on what portion of DOGE savings are one-off (eliminating grants and contracts) and what portion are recurring annually (workforce reductions).
If DOGE savings are one-off then it would be fair to present alternatives according to their lifetime debt impact, since the presented DOGE numbers would already be "lifetime."
And TFA states "Please note: only grants and contracts posted on the doge.gov website with receipts are counted towards the total saving value. For this reason, the total savings value on the doge.gov website may appear larger, however due to the lack of supporting receipts, this value is unverifiable." So it looks like DOGE's recurring savings are (mostly?) not included here since they are undocumented.
I understand that the total impact should be compared, which is fine. But I take issue with how the narrative is presented. If your point is to convince me that me cutting down my smoking habit is far better than me canceling my car purchase, then you need to be a little more upfront and clear about the fact that it will take almost 30 years worth of cigarettes to have a similar impact.
Building housing lowers the cost of housing. Requiring some accounting of $ saved on brickwork -> $ spent on homelessness is just another bureaucratic hurdle, which is ironically exactly what TFA is complaining about.
Conflating free parking with a childhood core memory, a lake trip with your immigrant father, feels a little disingenuous to me. But I think you understand the core idea: by making something cheap or free, we incentivize the activity but we spend communal resources (tax dollars, or some rival good like space downtown, or space on a lake) to do so. But we as a society get to choose what to incentivize. Cars have externalities (traffic, the space they take up, pollution, their being required is expensive for working families) that other forms of transport don’t, so people are rethinking the various ways we incentivize driving.
It does wrap automatically if you keep typing. I agree the user experience is not great with that, the word you're typing should always be directly over the guide text.
Or in other words, is there any econometric evidence that building housing increased rents in Palms, or could we be confusing correlation with causation?
reply