People who believe any of these reasons except for the first one probably believe GWB brought down the WTC.
Agreed. Assholes are much more impactive when population density is high.
In Canada, it does work this way. As I mentioned upthread, the city dweller who lives on “used” land in a “used” house does subsidize our suburbs. Where I live in Montreal I can pay 350 to 400k for a 1700 sq ft house with a driveway but no garage. If I go 10 or 20 km out, for the same price I can probably buy a 2200 sq ft house with a two-car garage. And our municipal taxes are based on the assessed value of the house and property, so the effect is amplified. Meanwhile, because I can (and do) bus, bike or walk to work or to anything else if I want. I could live without a car. There would be a few inconveniences resulting from that but they could be mitigated by a bit of planning.
And, as I also mentioned upthread, I think that taxes should be based on resources used so that the we all would have to pay for the resources we use.
Depends what you mean by assholes. Nuts with bombs have more impact for sure, but nuts with ideas get more easily drowned in the noise I think.
I have a question.
Supposedly, what things cost at some level represents resources used to make it.
It cost bigger bucks to live in a city than out in the burbs.
What does that imply?
Emphasis mine.
The price of something also reflects its opportunity cost. The opportunity cost of land in high density areas is higher than the opportunity cost of low density areas, typically.
Which implies that cities make more productive use of land than suburbs.
No, that implies they are better places to find a better paying job. Of course places that pay better tend to drive up “costs” of everything there because there is extra money floating around there…so, I guess its a chicken and egg thing either way you look at it.
But that is not the same as being more efficient in terms of physical resources used.
I’ll throw this out.
Cities are most very likely MORE efficient when it comes to resources used to move people around in their day to day living (though I recall a Cecil column where he notes just how crappy mass transit is when you get down to the nitty gritty).
On the OTHER hand, the amount of engineering needed DEAL with providing services for, say an apartment complex in a big city, is staggering, compared to say, throwing up a bunch of double wide trailers in the middle of Bumbfuck, Alabama.
Why are they better places to find a better paying job?
I have another question of my own:
I buy an apple for 1$. Transporting it costs me 2$. I could sell it to John for 4$ or to Mary for 5$. I sell it to John for 4$.
As far as my venture is concerned, what is the opportunity cost of the apple?
Part of what it implies is demand. My nephew and my daughter both got their own apartments recently (within a couple of weeks of each other). Both are in NYC, and in fact, both are in Queens. They are less than 10 miles from each other. Both are in two-story buildings (not large complexes) , built at least 70 years ago (probably older). But my daughter pays about $500 a month more than my nephew, even though his apartment is twice the size of hers. It’s not because my nephew’s landlord’s expenses are lower than my daughter’s - it’s because my daughter’s landlord can get a higher rent because the neighborhood is more popular.
This is an interesting way to look at it. Houses and apartments in NH don’t cost more than the US average because it’s rural, they cost more than the US average because the location is desirable and somewhat close to jobs that pay well (whether that’s in the tech sector in the south of NH or just the outer range of the greater Boston area). Unfortunately the county level data I’m looking at is from a proprietary source so I can’t link it, but that above-average cost of living in NH is predictably carried by Hillsborough and Rockingham counties. The property taxes are high because of the whole no income or sales tax thing; overall tax burden is average to below average depending on what metric you prefer.
I’m not trying to cast any aspersions on the great state of New Hampshire - it’s a state that comparatively has its shit together, which I admire, and NH is a net “giver” of federal tax money - it’s just not a great example in this situation… because even beyond the above, absolute cost of living isn’t really the point here.
The argument is that it currently costs $X to live in the city, and $Y to live in the suburbs or wilderness or what have you. $X may be higher, or $Y may be higher, depending on if you’re talking about NYC or Detroit. In most cases, if the suburbs were paying the true proportional cost of the road networks, the utility networks, and other public services, $Y would be higher than it is currently, and $X would be lower than it is currently. There are lots of reasons for this, most of which we’ve already hit two or three times in this thread. I say this as someone who is currently benefiting from the effect, living in an inner suburb, and as someone who grew up rural. It’s not a preference thing, it’s just cold, unfeeling statistics.
Noisy and inconsiderate people impact far more people in the city. A loud party at 3am on a tuesday can ruin the next day for many people. Humans werent meant to live in a high density environment.
The confounding thing is that most cities are similar to Dallas, in that the city proper is ringed by a set of suburban cities, and in some cases, there’s a second set further out. So, for example, I live in Dallas, 12 miles outside of downtown. I could live up to 4-5 miles north of where I live and be in Richardson. Then past that, Plano for several miles, then Allen, then eventually McKinney at some 25-30 miles outside of downtown. They’re all independent cities- any costs of providing services are taken care of by them, and are all similar to those that Dallas provides. If Dallas was to charge the suburbs significantly more, they’d just drive those people slightly further out, into Richardson, Garland, Mesquite, Carrollton, Plano, Addison, etc…