Checksum: 15420
Lines: 22
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utfyzx!sq!msb
From: msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader)
Date: Mon, 29-Feb-88 20:34:41 EST
Message-ID: <1988Feb29.203441.28146@sq.uucp>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: rent review
References: <1988Feb24.140628.28040@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <1433@looking.UUCP> <1988Feb26.225840.21116@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <1437@looking.UUCP> <1988Feb28.002014.29461@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: msb@sq.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Distribution: ont
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto


> This is a good point, but I still insist that $1000/mo+utils for a
> 2bdrm apt on a family income of 32K/yr, corresponding to a family
> where only one spouse works, is plain too high. So the rent dictated
> by the free market is too high for the average person.

So what?  The average person doesn't get to live where they like,
but only where they can afford to.  If enough average people can't
afford to live close enough to Toronto to work there, the population
will decline and the rents will come down -- or else wages will rise
so that more people can afford to live here.  The free market can regulate
city populations as well as prices.

(At least, it can as long as there aren't a significant number of people
who are too poor or unemployable to go where the market dictates.)

In short: if rents are unaffordable in a free market, it is because
many people think that living in the area in question is very desirable,
and that makes it something worth making sacrifices for.

Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc.,		"For want of a bit the loop was lost..."
Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com				 -- Steve Summit