This sounds like a sort of Malthusian trap like argument. The economy is de-materializing while continuing to grow so I don’t think this paradox is a stable truth.
To be clear, you as the shareowner can't legally do this. The company took the decision to be publicly listed in the US, and one of the consequences of that is that shareholders can only buy and sell their stock in accordance with the rules of the exchanges and the SEC. It's not normally a big downside: trading halts are rare and short.
I can see why somebody might view that as a counter argument intuitively, but as somebody who cares about the problem in a real, practical sense, it's immediately obvious to me that the point isn't to criticise the city's vacancy rate in a void, but to compare it to the potential waste. In a city where prices are disgustingly high and homelessness is appallingly common, the vacancy rate becomes much more sensitive to pragmatic criticism. Simply pointing out that other cities have a higher rate doesn't affect the criticism. Perhaps those other cities wouldn't benefit as much from lowering the vacancy rate. Perhaps those other cities would benefit a comparable amount, and we should hold them to the same criticism rather than declaring the criticism invalid.
> Simply pointing out that other cities have a higher rate doesn't affect the criticism.
Sure it does. Houston has a higher vacancy rate, and much more affordable housing than San Francisco. This strongly suggests that the vacancy rate is a red herring.
Yea, exactly. Housing price increases and low vacancy rates "should" be correlated (eg, not enough supply in the market) and in fact are, which the original article's argument completely ignores and instead implies that the right vacancy rate is 0. If those circumstances ever happen, good luck finding a place to live.
It's basically impossible to increase housing utilization to 100%. It's pointless to even try. 10% is a healthy vacancy rate. Build 110% of the housing your city needs.
A vacancy rate of 10% is an occupancy rate of 90%. To house everyone with a 90% occupancy rate, you need to have 100 / 90 in available housing stock, which is 111.1% of occupation requirements.
If you only build 110% of what is needed, and no one is homeless, the vacancy rate would be 9.1%, or ( 1 - 100/110 ) .
The point still stands. Cities need more housing than strictly required for residents.
Thank you. Could you box up my discounted dopamine hit for carry-out, please? I might need some smug satisfaction later, possibly while driving, when it's not so easy to go online.
housing is a market so low vacancy == price increases. That's the actual story. This is the case in markets more generally (eg, wage increases tend to be higher when unemployment is low).
This author made a small amount of fame a few years back (2012) claiming the dx format is dead. He was obviously wrong about that. He’s wrong about this, too.
I must have missed the memo that the prosumer and enthusiast photographer groups are drying up. I know a oddly large number of enthusiasts and would-be pros around town and they all own DSLRs.. Half of my good friends own expensive Sony point and shoots..
Nikon's stock is down over 2013 but I'm not seeing the end days reflected in that. AMD was down for ages but computers didn't go out of fashion.
I recon smart phones will kill for-purpose cameras the same year they kill the PC gaming industry.
> Nikon's stock is down over 2013 but I'm not seeing the end days reflected in that.
I would not point to Nikon as the DSLR bellwether (and I'm a Nikon shooter). Nikon has moved into mirrorless at a glacial pace. The Nikon 1 system was a joke. If I didn't have so much Nikon glass, I would have moved on to Sony years ago.
The new Nikon Z bodies give me hope, but the Z6 and new Z50 made some weird decisions particularly around memory cards. The Z6 uses the XQD which are super expensive and the Z50 eschewed dual slots which I make use of in d7100. The new Z mount also means I'm probably going to end up replacing many of my lenses anyway.
I'd suggest 90-100% creating software; 0-10% algorithms. The percentage on algorithms should be directly applicable to what you're working on. In practice, algorithmic knowledge primarily helps when dealing with performance issues or complex architectural decisions.
I wouldn't suggest totally ignoring algorithms, but it's at best secondary. Being proficient at solving performance problems or architectural issues are very valuable skills in the marketplace. That said, even those are mostly practical and about pattern recognition (which you get from writing software).
