5 ms·

Why stop your argument at rent? The cost of living is higher for everything in the city! Food, concerts, clothes all higher! That doesn't make free-riders out o

• estearum 15d ago
  The cost of everything being higher is principally due to rent (in particular land rents). Food, concerts, clothes, coffee, all of them have a "land upon which this was retailed and sold + land upon which the person behind the counter lives" line item. In high-COL areas, this invisible line item makes up a gigantic portion of any bill you pay anywhere. I'm not sure what the rest of your comment is about? That's fine if you have that preference. Expressing that preference generates negative externalities on the people who do live in the city, and you should have to internalize those costs to whatever degree possible. Your rents, by the way, do not just pay for your house and land. Your rent pays principally for location. So the idea that you're not engaging in rent arbitrage because you wouldn't want to pay the same amount to have the same unit in Tribeca is nonsense. The question is: would you pay more to have the same house, land, surroundings, and also have immediate access to city amenities and jobs. The answer to that is already empirically yes. Because you pay the cost you do for your current house, land, surroundings, then you pay an additional cost (an insufficiently internalized one) to commute into the city. Time, tolls, stress, vehicle ownership, parking, etc. So obviously the exact same set of facts minus the commute, despite being physically impossible, would be a more preferable product. Or to put it another way: would you pay more than $0 to have a teleportation portal from your home in the suburbs to your work in the city. My suspicion is yes.
  • RhysU 15d ago
    > I'm not sure what the rest of your comment is about... You said I live where I live to arb rent. I said, no I simply prefer where I live. > Would you pay more to have the same house, land, surroundings, and also have immediate access to city amenities and jobs. No. I prefer the collective surroundings and amenities of the 'burbs over those of the city. It's why I left during early Covid--- right about the time Rick Moranis was sucker-punched. > Or to put it another way: would you pay more than $0 to have a teleportation portal from your home in the suburbs to your work in the city. My suspicion is yes. Sure, who doesn't love a portal? But I would pay more than $0 for a portal to anywhere on the planet. Can my portals be like the ACME-brand black circles from Looney Tunes, the ones you throw on the wall? > Expressing that preference generates negative externalities on the people who do live in the city... ...by choice. Most everyone who lives in the city chose to live in the city BEFORE the congestion pricing and therefore ACCEPTED all those externalities. You really didn't expect traffic when you chose to live in Manhattan? Congestion pricing is a pure cash grab from NJ residents, retroactively justified by making me an other-ed villain. The tri-state is a powerhouse because we all cooperate through the free market, not because of punative transportation barriers. Congestion will gradually return and the city will be just as much a traffic snarl in 20 years as it was before. In the long run the city will still be traffic-y (because it's a city!), the MTA will still be underfunded because its fares are irrationally low, and we will all be poorer for this frictional government intervention. Until that certain eventually, enjoy the crosstown busses running faster. When's the last time you personally took one? I haven't since Moranis took that hit to the face. --- Thank you for the discussion. I am going to cut it off here because, as you can tell, it makes me stupid angry when someone tells me that I free ride on NY given what I pay in taxes+fees to this state in which I do not live.