Wages up in CO since pay transparency passed. Anything on the horizon in Mass?Submitted by bostexa t3_ycstn2 in massachusetts
big_whistler t1_itpbq29 wrote
Reply to comment by xAboveNBeyond in Wages up in CO since pay transparency passed. Anything on the horizon in Mass? by bostexa
The solution is build more housing. Increase supply to keep up with demand.
Unfortunately nobody wants to lower their property value by having new denser buildings near them, or competition for renters. No landlord wants rents to go down. So they’ll fight every development and slow it down. Every time someone complains about losing the character of their neighborhood just know they’d rather you be homeless.
BannedMyName t1_itpjran wrote
And by build housing, we don't mean 1m+ McMansions and 3k+ a month luxury apartments. Contractors only care about big profit operations now.
Mo-Cuishle t1_itpub7q wrote
Luxury apartments are fine, pressure is still taken off existing housing. The only thing that matters is density.
Elementium t1_itpwmm0 wrote
Haha bullshit. I can talk of my town for instance.. Sturbridge is becoming a weird Frankenstein's monster of Luxury apartments going up (who the fuck would pay 2k+ a month to live in sturbridge) and the old poorer townies who they're trying to push out.
And these aren't even going up in the good part of town. Normal people still need a place to live and pushing them out of a normally affordable place to make investment properties isn't going to help.
Mo-Cuishle t1_itpyizs wrote
You can't make rich people be poorer. If they want to live somewhere they will. Either they're going to out-bid the places that the townies live in now or they'll rent the nice new luxury places. Only in one situation do you have more total housing per sqft and less pressure on the housing market.
It's a studied fact that any kind of densified housing reduces overall rent prices in an area.
FitzwilliamTDarcy t1_itq18d0 wrote
It’s amazing how people get so hung up on the term luxury condos/apartments. It’s still supply plain and simple as every single study indicates.
hatersbelearners t1_itpub7z wrote
Can't have state housing either bc cOmMuNiSm
wise_garden_hermit t1_itqsumc wrote
Where, exactly, should builders cut costs in order to make new construction affordable?
Shnikes t1_itr2njl wrote
Of course people don’t want to lower their property value. Especially if they just bought a house. No one wants to be upside down ona mortgage. Even more so if they’ve done work. I’m not talking landlords though just home owners living in their own homes.
ChainmailleAddict t1_itqauh1 wrote
Honest question, will large businesses like Zillow and BlackRock buying up houses make making new houses worthless? It sounds like kicking the can down the alley. We absolutely have enough houses, they're just being bought up by rich greedy bastards.
wise_garden_hermit t1_itqsl2d wrote
Vacancy rates are very low. There just aren't that many unoccupied homes. Even these companies buying property are largely renting them out. They aren't sitting empty.
The ability of these companies to make money is premised on a low supply of housing in high-demand locations. If housing supply increases, both market rents and housing values should fall or at least track below inflation, leading to these companies putting their homes on the market.
There aren't enough houses. Boston has been adding high-paying jobs like crazy, and those people need to live somewhere.
fireball_jones t1_itpspij wrote
A lot of the houses in my town were funded by the business in town. Unfortunately today a business can go almost anywhere so they can fight over the space and force the workers to deal with housing.
MrRileyJr t1_itprh7r wrote
The actual solution is to move west, not build upward, but nobody wants to do that.
Edit: Stop just downvoting and provide solutions and reasons you don't agree. How do you expect conversations or for people to change their opinions otherwise?
thisabadusername t1_itpybww wrote
“Run away from your problems”
MrRileyJr t1_itq25vm wrote
That is not at all what I'm saying, but if that's what you want to believe then go ahead. I feel like not enough people are considering the problems with having so many people in a small area, when there is PLENTY of land to the west not being developed or lived in.
The Eastern part of the state is absolutely saturated with people, the west not so much. We need to start spreading out more, and it's embarrassing a state as smart as this can't see that.
charons-voyage t1_itqifi4 wrote
High speed electrified rail connecting the boonies to Boston would be so good for this. Imagine a 90 min train ride from the Berkshires to downtown. It would definitely stabilize housing costs in the region, though prices in “cheap” areas may go up and “expensive” areas may go down.
MrRileyJr t1_itqv084 wrote
This is one of the reasons I always bring this up. Expanding westward would provide a lot of benefits, and also push for innovations like high speed rail to happen (we all know the state won't do it unless pressured).
big_whistler t1_itww5ag wrote
You make a good point. MA is too small to be ignoring so much of it.
MrRileyJr t1_itx01el wrote
By size Massachusetts is the 45th largest state. We're ignoring far too much of a very small state, while being both very comfortable and somehow encouraging of that.
UncleCustard t1_itq2kco wrote
Move west? Like western MA? I used to have to work in Boston just to afford a place in Springfield. 3 hours of driving a day was shit.
MrRileyJr t1_itqus7z wrote
Yes, and with remote work being a much bigger thing now that gets rid of the commuting argument.
UncleCustard t1_itro9b5 wrote
Lol, no. I work remotely. They ask you where you live and your pay is based on the location of where you live and the cost of living of that area. So you won't be getting good pay if you work remote in that part of the state.
MrRileyJr t1_itrsw8b wrote
And I know quite a few people that work remotely for companies in other states but live here and get paid well.
Is this a big issue? This isn't something I've heard of most places doing.
UncleCustard t1_itrtuia wrote
You can get paid well depending on your field. But if the goal is to make the most money you can in your field, you have to live in a place with a higher cost of living.
MrRileyJr t1_itrw9rr wrote
None of what you have said has made a good argument against my initial point that to solve the housing/rent problem you need to expand west & not always build up. It would also solve or help alleviate many other issues. All of your points hinder on personal opinions and the company (and everything is on a company by company basis).
UncleCustard t1_itrxg0u wrote
Moving west is only going to create a bigger problem. More traffic going east in the AM and more going west in the PM. Remote work isn't prevalent enough to fix that. You basically said "move where the job market doesn't pay well or drive 3 hours a day to make a good paycheck." If remote work was the solution your idea MIGHT play out well. But it's not the solution.
MrRileyJr t1_its0qq9 wrote
No matter what is done it will cause temporary discomfort and annoyance to somebody, no way around that. If traffic is the biggest issue you foresee then it is a fairly weak one, traffic will always exist and this would actually spread it out more.
The only valid point of your argument is that out west there aren't as many jobs that pay well...but there are some & overall that's a self-fulfilling prophecy because nobody wants to move out there and force that to start happening. There are still jobs though, and remote work is becoming more and more prevalent. All the issues people have with the western half of the state would start to disappear or get significantly better if it had more people moving out there.
There's no easy solution for all the issues the Eastern half of the state has, but people ignore one of them simply because of some crappy mindset. If people refuse to do things that would actually help the situation or offer solutions that make sense then wtf are you doing?
So tell me, what is the solution?
PS: Way to put words in my mouth.
UncleCustard t1_its1luu wrote
Solution? More people should get abortions. We should have incentivized you genetics. Do not give tax breaks to those who have children. Tax them at a higher rate. 5% per child. Use that money to fund the infrastructure we need to support them. Those who don't have kids should get tax breaks. Extra week of vacation. Special lanes on the roads. Discounts on utilities.
MrRileyJr t1_its96oj wrote
I wish I could say this response was a surprise...
Anything actual to add?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments