When you say “force demand to spread out more”, what policies do you propose, and how confident are you that this is both easier to accomplish than the YIMBY solution and leads to better outcomes?
My default (weak) assumption is that a policy requiring more explicit force is more likely to produce unintended negative consequences as well as greater harm if unpopular. So a ban on A has a higher bar to clear for me to be on board than a subsidy of B over A. My initial reaction to the sentence “force demand to spread out more” is both worry at how heavy-handed that sounds at first blush, as well as confusion as to what the upside of this is over the YIMBY solution, besides preserving the utility of some currently-exurban houses/land that would otherwise go unused. That’s good, but I don’t see why it’s so good that it justifies not pursuing greater density instead, since as you say the money is already in the city.
I don’t want to get into reasons for desirability of suburban vs high-density areas, which is a topic of its own, but clearly a lot of people prefer to live in lower-density areas than NYC.
Here are some actions I support based on the above model:
More antitrust action. I think America has oligopolies that are bad for consumers anyway, and corporate consolidation means more centralization of corporate leadership in a few top cities—and then every layer of managers wants to live close to the layer above them. I support breaking up many big companies.
If a department/subsidiary of a company is localized to a region, the management of that department/subsidiary should be legally required to live and work in that region, rather than where the top corporate leadership is. (Apart from that being partly zero-sum competition, I think companies act largely according to the desires of management, so forcing middle management to do things it doesn’t want to can improve overall welfare.)
Remote work being an option should, in some cases, be legally required. I think management sometimes forces workers to come to an office just for its own self-gratification.
When you say “force demand to spread out more”, what policies do you propose, and how confident are you that this is both easier to accomplish than the YIMBY solution and leads to better outcomes?
My default (weak) assumption is that a policy requiring more explicit force is more likely to produce unintended negative consequences as well as greater harm if unpopular. So a ban on A has a higher bar to clear for me to be on board than a subsidy of B over A. My initial reaction to the sentence “force demand to spread out more” is both worry at how heavy-handed that sounds at first blush, as well as confusion as to what the upside of this is over the YIMBY solution, besides preserving the utility of some currently-exurban houses/land that would otherwise go unused. That’s good, but I don’t see why it’s so good that it justifies not pursuing greater density instead, since as you say the money is already in the city.
I don’t want to get into reasons for desirability of suburban vs high-density areas, which is a topic of its own, but clearly a lot of people prefer to live in lower-density areas than NYC.
Here are some actions I support based on the above model:
More antitrust action. I think America has oligopolies that are bad for consumers anyway, and corporate consolidation means more centralization of corporate leadership in a few top cities—and then every layer of managers wants to live close to the layer above them. I support breaking up many big companies.
If a department/subsidiary of a company is localized to a region, the management of that department/subsidiary should be legally required to live and work in that region, rather than where the top corporate leadership is. (Apart from that being partly zero-sum competition, I think companies act largely according to the desires of management, so forcing middle management to do things it doesn’t want to can improve overall welfare.)
Remote work being an option should, in some cases, be legally required. I think management sometimes forces workers to come to an office just for its own self-gratification.