I don't love how this WSJ article starts. It seems to place the blame on technology companies for "pumping the west coast full of choking traffic and expensive homes."
But I do really like these charts:
They show the gap between the increase in labor force and the increase in housing supply across the various cities in Silicon Valley.
The solid line is the percentage increase in labor force since 2010 and the dotted (bottom) line is the percentage increase in housing units since 2010.
The darker the color, the bigger the gap.
Many new jobs. Lots of wealth created. Not nearly enough housing. And yes, there have also been a number of negative externalities.
The full article is definitely worth a read. It's about Google's development plans for downtown San Jose.
Charts: WSJ
We all know the story: Much of the world is becoming increasingly less equal thanks to the new knowledge economy. Using data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the NY Times (Emily Badger and Kevin Quealy) recently published this interesting piece on "4 decades of inequality" in American cities. This is what the findings look like:
We are in West Virginia now, where the only kind of housing that we have come across is -- not surprisingly -- low-density, detached, and single-family. Indeed, approximately 75% of the residential land across the entire US is estimated to be zoned for detached single-family homes. Using data from UrbanFootprint, the NY Times recently published a series of city maps outlining the percentage of land dedicated exclusively to this housing type.
I don't love how this WSJ article starts. It seems to place the blame on technology companies for "pumping the west coast full of choking traffic and expensive homes."
But I do really like these charts:
They show the gap between the increase in labor force and the increase in housing supply across the various cities in Silicon Valley.
The solid line is the percentage increase in labor force since 2010 and the dotted (bottom) line is the percentage increase in housing units since 2010.
The darker the color, the bigger the gap.
Many new jobs. Lots of wealth created. Not nearly enough housing. And yes, there have also been a number of negative externalities.
The full article is definitely worth a read. It's about Google's development plans for downtown San Jose.
Charts: WSJ
We all know the story: Much of the world is becoming increasingly less equal thanks to the new knowledge economy. Using data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the NY Times (Emily Badger and Kevin Quealy) recently published this interesting piece on "4 decades of inequality" in American cities. This is what the findings look like:
We are in West Virginia now, where the only kind of housing that we have come across is -- not surprisingly -- low-density, detached, and single-family. Indeed, approximately 75% of the residential land across the entire US is estimated to be zoned for detached single-family homes. Using data from UrbanFootprint, the NY Times recently published a series of city maps outlining the percentage of land dedicated exclusively to this housing type.
In 1980, the United States was relatively flat in terms of wage inequality (except for maybe Fairfield). In fact, inequality in a place like Binghamton, New York was about the same as in New York City. But thanks to decline in the former and growth in the latter, New York City is now a much more unequal place.
Economic growth is usually considered a good thing, but inequality is not. Emily and Kevin rightly call attention to the fact that -- according to the above charts -- these two things seem to come together as one package. See New York, Chicago, San Francisco, San Jose, Washington, D.C., and so on.
The other takeaway from these charts is the way in which inequality seems to correlate with metro area population. We know that as the population of a city increases it tends to also become more productive. And so what we are seeing here are those urban agglomeration benefits accruing to some, but not all.
There's a lot that can be inferred from these charts.
In some cases, such as on residential corner lots in Portland, duplexes are allowed. But generally speaking, the pink corresponds to detached single-family housing. About 15% of residential land in New York City is zoned for this, compared to about 94% of the land in San Jose. Interestingly enough, none of the residential land in Manhattan is zoned to accommodate detached single-family housing.
In 1980, the United States was relatively flat in terms of wage inequality (except for maybe Fairfield). In fact, inequality in a place like Binghamton, New York was about the same as in New York City. But thanks to decline in the former and growth in the latter, New York City is now a much more unequal place.
Economic growth is usually considered a good thing, but inequality is not. Emily and Kevin rightly call attention to the fact that -- according to the above charts -- these two things seem to come together as one package. See New York, Chicago, San Francisco, San Jose, Washington, D.C., and so on.
The other takeaway from these charts is the way in which inequality seems to correlate with metro area population. We know that as the population of a city increases it tends to also become more productive. And so what we are seeing here are those urban agglomeration benefits accruing to some, but not all.
There's a lot that can be inferred from these charts.
In some cases, such as on residential corner lots in Portland, duplexes are allowed. But generally speaking, the pink corresponds to detached single-family housing. About 15% of residential land in New York City is zoned for this, compared to about 94% of the land in San Jose. Interestingly enough, none of the residential land in Manhattan is zoned to accommodate detached single-family housing.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
