undefined | Better HN

0 pointsiamnothere2mo ago0 comments

Well technically that’s true, in the same sense that the only way to roll back inflation is demand destruction (and an extended recession or depression).

The problem with this is that you can’t forcibly reduce population. Halting growth in one area just displaces it. This can be a good trade if the area into which growth is displaced is underdeveloped with few other potential uses. But it can also create Atlanta or Houston style sprawl, or destroy natural areas that would be better to preserve.

Japan is an unusual example because most job opportunities are in a handful of areas. You can get impossibly cheap properties in the countryside but there are few jobs or young people. Properties in the city keep getting more expensive because of demand and because building codes are constantly evolving to keep up with new developments in earthquake protection. There are older urban properties available for cheap outside of trendy areas, but the cost of renovation is often too high to be worth it. There’s also a cultural stigma around older properties.

0 comments

cyberax2mo ago

> The problem with this is that you can’t forcibly reduce population.

We don't need to. The population growth in the Western world is mostly over, the US will likely peak at barely +10% to the current population numbers. Europe is likely already at or near the peak number.

And Tokyo managed to get a bubble within a country with a _falling_ population. Not just stagnant like in Europe, but actually numerically decreasing.

> Halting growth in one area just displaces it.

That's EXACTLY what we need. The US already has 1.1 houses per household, except that they are not where the demand is.

So the fix is to shift the demand, not try to satisfy it. Ironically, this is exactly the same method that urbanists propose to fight congestion: instead of just adding more lanes to busy roads, you shift people to other modes of transportation.

How can this be done? Exactly like we did it with pollution: tax negative externalities, incentivize clean technology. For cities: tax dense office space (cap-and-trade can also work), incentivize work-from-home, incentivize offices in less dense cities, etc.

This doesn't even have to be a huge policy shift.

iamnothereOP2mo ago

Interesting theory, although I don’t know if US based remote work will continue to be as common as it is now. The policies you suggest also seem difficult politically since most environmentalists seem to want more density, not less.

If the combination of AI, declining returns on service and knowledge-based work, and national security priorities create a resurgence in manufacturing then factory towns may make a comeback.

cyberax2mo ago

> Interesting theory, although I don’t know if US based remote work will continue to be as common as it is now.

During the pandemic, some research had shown that something like 70-80% of jobs can be remote.

The kicker is that remote work is less efficient. So in the long run and on average, companies with in-office jobs outperform fully remote companies. This is just like the situation with pollution: a company that spends money on waste recovery is less competitive than a company that can just dump toxic sludge into a nearby river.

And just like with pollution, centralized regulatory changes are needed so that all companies are affected similarly.

> The policies you suggest also seem difficult politically since most environmentalists seem to want more density, not less.

Yet they are misguided because they keep looking at the very tip of an iceberg. It's just one example out of many (see: nuclear power plants).

To give an example, light rail is more efficient than individual EVs. So it's great that Seattle is building light rail, right? It'll result in fewer "headline" CO2 emissions.

But then you realize that Seattle is going to spend $180B ("B", as in "billion") to build about 50 miles of tracks. It's more than the yearly GDP of 130 countries! All these resources could have been spent on something else, perhaps on building more renewable generation.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsiamnothere2mo ago0 comments

Well technically that’s true, in the same sense that the only way to roll back inflation is demand destruction (and an extended recession or depression).

0 comments

cyberax2mo ago

> The problem with this is that you can’t forcibly reduce population.

And Tokyo managed to get a bubble within a country with a _falling_ population. Not just stagnant like in Europe, but actually numerically decreasing.

> Halting growth in one area just displaces it.

That's EXACTLY what we need. The US already has 1.1 houses per household, except that they are not where the demand is.

This doesn't even have to be a huge policy shift.

iamnothereOP2mo ago

If the combination of AI, declining returns on service and knowledge-based work, and national security priorities create a resurgence in manufacturing then factory towns may make a comeback.

cyberax2mo ago

> Interesting theory, although I don’t know if US based remote work will continue to be as common as it is now.

During the pandemic, some research had shown that something like 70-80% of jobs can be remote.

And just like with pollution, centralized regulatory changes are needed so that all companies are affected similarly.

> The policies you suggest also seem difficult politically since most environmentalists seem to want more density, not less.

Yet they are misguided because they keep looking at the very tip of an iceberg. It's just one example out of many (see: nuclear power plants).

To give an example, light rail is more efficient than individual EVs. So it's great that Seattle is building light rail, right? It'll result in fewer "headline" CO2 emissions.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse