Market Urbanism

Liberalizing cities | From the bottom up

“Market Urbanism” refers to the synthesis of classical liberal economics and ethics (market), with an appreciation of the urban way of life and its benefits to society (urbanism). We advocate for the emergence of bottom up solutions to urban issues, as opposed to ones imposed from the top down.

E-books for everyone!

By

The era of liberals writing e-books about market urbanism is upon us! I knew about Matt Yglesias’ upcoming “Kindle Single” The Rent is Too Damn High, but Ryan Avent’s The Gated City took me by surprise. Ryan’s book has a “print length” of 90 pages, costs $1.99, and despite the name “Kindle Single,” can be downloaded to pretty much any computer or smart phone.

I haven’t read it yet, but I’m going to download it soon. Consider this an open thread to discuss the book(s).

Comments

  1. Let me know how it is. (I do not own a Kindle, a Nook, or any similar device, and have no intention of acquiring one. They are to browsing at a bookstore what driving is to walking on a commercial street.)

  2. It’s pretty good – he focuses a lot on more macro productivity issues than micro land use regulations, which is probably for the best since I spend so much time focusing on micro issues. Essentially his argument is that one reason the economy has been slowing these past few decades is that we don’t allow our most productive and high-wage cities like SF and NYC to grow, so low-wage Sunbelt cities get all the growth, and national average wealth stagnates.

    You don’t need a Kindle to read it – you can download a free Kindle app for just about any electronic device. I read it on my MacBook, but Amazon has Kindle apps for most smartphones, too.

  3. He ignores differences in the cost of living.  How is a worker better off in SF or NYC if his wages are 50% higher but the cost of living is 60% higher?  How is an employer better off if his workers are 50% more productive but his cost of doing business is 60% higher?

  4. Cost of living is largely due to housing (and commercial property) costs, which would presumably be brought down by his policy recommendation, which is to allow more supply growth in tight urban real estate markets (i.e., all urban real estate markets).

  5. But he can’t assume that if the cost of living fell significantly, productivity would not also fall significantly.  If these cities became more affordable they would become more attractive to the lower-wage, lower-skill industries and workers that have been fleeing to cities like Houston and Phoenix to escape the high costs of cities like SF and NYC.

  6. Fair enough… but, serious question: has economic growth actually been slowing down? (Well, productivity growth was terrible from 1973 to 1995, for debatable reasons, but it’s not as if the anti-density regulations suddenly changed in the 1990s. We see suburbanization of poverty and urban gentrification, but the net movement of population back to the city is only noticeable if you know where to look.)

    My recollection is that US economic growth has basically been constant since the late 1800s. There are good periods (1950s-60s) and bad periods (2000s), but on average the trend is pretty consistent. If your null hypothesis is trend-stationary growth, the actual GDP numbers are different from the null by a statistically insignificant amount.

Trackbacks

Meta