This article doesn't propose a meaningful solution. If a shortage of rental properties is driving up the cost of rent, wouldn't moving more people into the city make demand and therefore rent even higher?
I agree. The article's premise seems to suggest that if we just pray to the Free Market Fairy that increased demand will ultimately lower costs instead of allowing owners of finite resources to jack up the prices even more. Yes, more renters will increase the need to build more housing but the last ten years should have demonstrated to anyone paying attention that this is no guarantee of lower costs. If they can build more and jack up the prices because of high demand then they win in both directions.
However, the article serves to highlight a significant problem to wealth disparity that people seem content to ignore: the cost of living is skyrocketing in ways that we can't or sometimes won't track and housing costs is one of them. Moving to more affordable areas typically means accepting huge cuts in pay, negating the reason why you moved in the first place. I hear housing prices in Detroit are really cheap, but I wouldn't hold out hope of finding much work there. Long commutes aren't very healthy or feasible either if you're struggling for money, especially with the way public transportation is starved for funds and resources.
I think ultimately the problem is that in society the middle and working class do not have a powerful voice representing their interests. In the old times they had unions. The threat of work stoppage was enough to guarantee that wages would keep pace with the cost of living. Now unions are marginalized and the middle class is fighting among themselves for table scraps. If wages had kept pace with productivity gains the high cost of rent wouldn't be nearly as acute as it is now.
I agree. The article's premise seems to suggest that if we just pray to the Free Market Fairy that increased demand will ultimately lower costs instead of allowing owners of finite resources to jack up the prices even more. Yes, more renters will increase the need to build more housing but the last ten years should have demonstrated to anyone paying attention that this is no guarantee of lower costs. If they can build more and jack up the prices because of high demand then they win in both directions.
However, the article serves to highlight a significant problem to wealth disparity that people seem content to ignore: the cost of living is skyrocketing in ways that we can't or sometimes won't track and housing costs is one of them. Moving to more affordable areas typically means accepting huge cuts in pay, negating the reason why you moved in the first place. I hear housing prices in Detroit are really cheap, but I wouldn't hold out hope of finding much work there. Long commutes aren't very healthy or feasible either if you're struggling for money, especially with the way public transportation is starved for funds and resources.
I think ultimately the problem is that in society the middle and working class do not have a powerful voice representing their interests. In the old times they had unions. The threat of work stoppage was enough to guarantee that wages would keep pace with the cost of living. Now unions are marginalized and the middle class is fighting among themselves for table scraps. If wages had kept pace with productivity gains the high cost of rent wouldn't be nearly as acute as it is now.