Hacker News Reader

Comment by NonNefarious | Hacker News Reader

I agree about the housing speculation, but I challenge the (oft-repeated) assertion that this has caused homelessness. If you could afford to pay SOME rent in an area that got more expensive, then you can move to a less-expensive area and pay the same rent.

View on HN

Who's paying for the move? How does the move affect commutes and how close is the new dwelling to essential services?

If you were already in the lowest priced area and that became too expensive, where do you go?

How many people are ejected from "the lowest-priced area?" I guess we can exempt all of them, then.

But nowhere in L.A. County (for example) is the lowest-priced area.

And regardless of where the next one might be, are we really to believe that living on the street is a better choice?

Assuming no economic frictions whatsoever, which in reality is not the case, especially when it comes to someone moving their entire life away from their social network and their familiar surroundings.

So your thesis is that people decide to become homeless to retain their social network?

My thesis is that economic frictions cause cases of homelessness that were theoretically avoidable. Their current social network isn't the only friction. Low IQ, mental health issues, no familiarity with COL or opportunities or people in other locations. These are other frictions. All the stuff that gets in the way of people making an optimal decision.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com