“Two full-time workers earning Tokyo’s minimum wage can comfortably afford the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in six of the city’s 23 wards.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/11/opinion/editorials/tokyo-...
Bullshit. Tokyo's average unit costs $1m now. They managed to create a bona-fide property bubble in the middle of declining population: https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/surging-tokyo-property-...
The NYT article is (of course) a one-sided social engineering story, full of half-truths and outright lies.
> The flood of investment drove the average price for a new condominium in central Tokyo up 60% to a record 129.6 million yen ($865,000) in the first half of this year, according to the Real Estate Economic Institute.
Prices surged. Before the surge, professionals had this dream of owning. So your own article refutes your nonsensical statement that Dems housing can "never" be affordable.
Can you conceive of a cyclical nature to markets that affects pricing? Or is it that now that they went from affordable to less affordable, it means that purchasing will forever be changed now?
Or you assertion of "declining population"? Maybe on the national level, but it's not true of Tokyo!
https://www.statista.com/statistics/608585/japan-tokyo-popul...
And what is the difference in cost between renting and owning? Perhaps renting is affordable, but ownership is extremely expensive becuase of irrational speculation or temporary macro factors?
TL;DR your own article refutes your central hypothesis that housing can not be affordable in dense cities.
You're literally repeating the joke.
A doctor asks a nurse:
- Was the patient sweating prior to death?
- Yes.
- Good, that's a good sign.
> Or you assertion of "declining population"? Maybe on the national level, but it's not true of Tokyo!
Indeed. And that's my point. Tokyo, like a leech, is sucking the life from its surroundings.
> And what is the difference in cost between renting and owning? Perhaps renting is affordable, but ownership is extremely expensive becuase of irrational speculation or temporary macro factors?
No. They are not temporary. The prices will not fall, they have been steadily growing for the last 2 decades.
That's one of the main reasons why housing is so expensive in the United States. We paternalistically decide that 760 square feet is the absolute minimum amount of livable space for a one-bedroom apartment, and instead force people who can't afford that much space to split a 1200 square foot apartment with three people.
Adults are more than capable of deciding for themselves how big of an apartment they would like to live in. Banning 60 square meter apartments doesn't help people who can't afford the legal mandated minimum.
It's not. And this is the total space, including the bathroom and the kitchen.
> That doesn't mean literally every apartment is that small
You are right, some are even smaller: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/03/business/tiny-apartments-...
And all while just a hundred miles away, beautiful historical houses can be bought for literally nothing. And that's with a rapidly declining population.