There are many negative externalities of mass migration that are borne by the locals while benefits mostly accrue to a handful of... shysters.
There are many negative externalities of mass migration that are borne by the locals while benefits mostly accrue to a handful of... shysters.
I urge you to understand that housing prices in Seattle are largely driven by supply inelasticity, more than anything.
If the premise was true, we'd have seen large drops in rent/home prices after mass layoffs (we didn't).
Also, it would be hard to explain the prices finally falling in Seattle for the last few months, which aligned perfectly with the largest supply since Feb 2014.
Obviously supply matters most but that doesnt mean demand isnt still a significant factor.
Would you say that supply and demand share some kind of economic relationship?
I think it’s pretty clear that Immigration has a direct strain on housing. It’s been a big problem in Canada too. Of course if you just keep building to increase the supply, that would be desirable.
Supply inelasticity comes from increased demand. Much of that demand in the past 20 years has come from the increase in Tech workers. A significant % of those tech workers are foreign workers. Places like Bellevue, Redmond, Bothell, etc. have dramatically changed in ethnic makeup.
What are some of the other "many negative externalities" you mention?
I feel like we could have the best of everything if you we just built more housing to keep up with demand.
Look at how people vote with their wallets: there is an enormous demand for housing in places like Brooklyn. That doesn't mean we need to turn the whole nation into Brooklyn, but I think (given the massive demand) why shouldn't we have a few more places like Brooklyn, i.e. dense urban areas?
Most places in the US have a remarkably low population density; we can definitely greatly expand the housing supply with a little infill and still have lots of suburbs.
A benefactor decided to solve the housing crisis, created a development company. Gave up 2 years later. Stating the legal burden to get permits was the biggest financial obstacle. We are ready to build from the start, 2 years later we still couldn't build and spend most of our capital in lawyers in hope to get any approval.
So, I am not sure if that housing argument alone makes that a better outcome for America (and workers).