8 ms·

I would want to analyze the inverse in order to see the issue from at least two different sides: How does it benefit local Mexicans? For example, having addit

I would want to analyze the inverse in order to see the issue from at least two different sides: How does it benefit local Mexicans? For example, having additional money in their economy: in the hands of tourist businesses, services businesses, industrial product (vehicle?) sales, grocery sales, etc. Additionally, how does it affect the culture? For example, I'm a 100% remote software engineer. I love talking about Business & IT, and encouraging people to learn accounting & web app development, for example. And I speak Spanish, so I chat about it with locals. Most aren't interested, but occasionally I encounter some. Where ever I go, I enjoy talking to people about how they can be self taught engineers (or self-taught in many domains, really). I encourage people to research the skills in high demand in their country, region, state, and city. Why? Because it worked for me: Someone encouraged me to grow my skills-- So did research and saw I could become a software engineer without a degree, and lo and behold: I taught myself (mostly) via online video series, ebooks, chatrooms, forums, and 3-4 in-person classes (statistics, databases). So, for me personally, I proactively intend to benefit the local economy where ever I go-- not just by buying what people are selling and thereby supporting their businesses, but also supporting them by encouraging their career & skill growth.

Ekaros 4y ago
If the additional money in economy was so great shouldn't Silicone Valley be absolute paradise for everyone? Clean, safe and everyone housed. There is lot of money in property there. So it must be perfect for everyone?
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>How does it benefit local Mexicans? Let me flip the script on you. How did rich Arabs, Asians and Russians buying US, London, Vancouver, etc. realestate benefit the average American/local? How much of their investment money ended up in the Average Joe's pocket? How much was his life improved from that added money? If you answer me this, I will eat my own hair. I'm tired of this trope that real estate economic colonialism somehow benefits the locals so much, they should be damn grateful they're being priced out of their own countries/cities by richer foreigners because "they're spending their money here instead of back home". No! You can try to spin it as some benevolent trickle down economics, but it only benefits the asset owning/rent seeking class and the middle men who make a living by taking a cut on real estate deals (banks, building developers, realtors, lawyers, notaries, etc.), basically those wo are already in the top 10%, if not even higher. The rest, mostly get shafted, as that's where the trickle down ends and the only effect they will experience is housing becoming even more unaffordable for them. As much as you want to think you're helping, it doesn't improve the country at large, it just increases inequality. The rich get richer, while the poor will be poorer. Otherwise Thailand, Vietnam and other expat enclaves for Westerners would be out of poverty by now. But that's not how this works. You don't get a poor country out of poverty by housing rich foreigners.
- nine_zeros 4y ago
  The economic benefit is only realized when the international buyers of the property actually live in the country they buy into. Their presence in the country allows more businesses to prop up, creating jobs and a higher standard of living. The reason why Russian and Asian wealth hasn't been great for America is because America allows investment but not residence but other countries are allowing both.
  - colpabar 4y ago
    Does it though? A few years ago, google opened an office in a relatively boring area of my small city, which is on the border of an area with a lot of low-income residents. Now, that place is full of nice restaurants and super expensive high rise apartment buildings. It's a nice place now. But you know who I never ever see there anymore? The people that were living there before google came!
    - tormeh 4y ago
      If they owned their homes that’s because they cashed out. If not then sorry, a chance of displacement is a part of renting, so you gotta live with it. Also: Build more housing - zoning delenda est.
      - colpabar 4y ago
        > If not then sorry, a chance of displacement is a part of renting, so you gotta live with it. But you understand that these people are renting because they have no other choice, right? And I don't think "they cashed out" is the only explanation - there's also the possibility that they could no longer pay their property taxes. Your comment comes across as extremely tone deaf to the reality that a lot of people will always have to rent because they cannot afford to buy, because the only new things that get built are extremely expensive "luxury" apartment buildings.
        tormeh 4y ago
bushbaba 4y ago
As houses sell for more, rent also increases. This caused services and labor costs to go up. This causes inflation but most wages don’t go up by the same amount, making people poorer. Just look at Silicon Valley.

Ekaros 4y ago

If the additional money in economy was so great shouldn't Silicone Valley be absolute paradise for everyone? Clean, safe and everyone housed. There is lot of money in property there. So it must be perfect for everyone?

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

>How does it benefit local Mexicans? Let me flip the script on you. How did rich Arabs, Asians and Russians buying US, London, Vancouver, etc. realestate benefit the average American/local? How much of their investment money ended up in the Average Joe's pocket? How much was his life improved from that added money? If you answer me this, I will eat my own hair. I'm tired of this trope that real estate economic colonialism somehow benefits the locals so much, they should be damn grateful they're being priced out of their own countries/cities by richer foreigners because "they're spending their money here instead of back home". No! You can try to spin it as some benevolent trickle down economics, but it only benefits the asset owning/rent seeking class and the middle men who make a living by taking a cut on real estate deals (banks, building developers, realtors, lawyers, notaries, etc.), basically those wo are already in the top 10%, if not even higher. The rest, mostly get shafted, as that's where the trickle down ends and the only effect they will experience is housing becoming even more unaffordable for them. As much as you want to think you're helping, it doesn't improve the country at large, it just increases inequality. The rich get richer, while the poor will be poorer. Otherwise Thailand, Vietnam and other expat enclaves for Westerners would be out of poverty by now. But that's not how this works. You don't get a poor country out of poverty by housing rich foreigners.

nine_zeros 4y ago
The economic benefit is only realized when the international buyers of the property actually live in the country they buy into. Their presence in the country allows more businesses to prop up, creating jobs and a higher standard of living. The reason why Russian and Asian wealth hasn't been great for America is because America allows investment but not residence but other countries are allowing both.
- colpabar 4y ago
  Does it though? A few years ago, google opened an office in a relatively boring area of my small city, which is on the border of an area with a lot of low-income residents. Now, that place is full of nice restaurants and super expensive high rise apartment buildings. It's a nice place now. But you know who I never ever see there anymore? The people that were living there before google came!
  - tormeh 4y ago
    If they owned their homes that’s because they cashed out. If not then sorry, a chance of displacement is a part of renting, so you gotta live with it. Also: Build more housing - zoning delenda est.
    - colpabar 4y ago
      > If not then sorry, a chance of displacement is a part of renting, so you gotta live with it. But you understand that these people are renting because they have no other choice, right? And I don't think "they cashed out" is the only explanation - there's also the possibility that they could no longer pay their property taxes. Your comment comes across as extremely tone deaf to the reality that a lot of people will always have to rent because they cannot afford to buy, because the only new things that get built are extremely expensive "luxury" apartment buildings.
      - tormeh 4y ago

bushbaba 4y ago

As houses sell for more, rent also increases. This caused services and labor costs to go up. This causes inflation but most wages don’t go up by the same amount, making people poorer. Just look at Silicon Valley.