<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>ZoomerCretin</author><text>Because these restrictions are a net-negative on the entire economy of the United States. If no metro areas blocked housing between 1964 and 2009, GDP would be 50% higher than it is today. (&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nber.org&amp;#x2F;papers&amp;#x2F;w21154?utm_campaign=ntw&amp;amp;utm_medium=email&amp;amp;utm_source=ntw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nber.org&amp;#x2F;papers&amp;#x2F;w21154?utm_campaign=ntw&amp;amp;utm_medi...&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The authors estimate that if New York, San Francisco, and San Jose had housing regulations—rules about where you can build, how tall you can build, how much parking you need, and so on—that didn’t protect cute houses and instead were equivalent to the median US city in the period between 1964 and 2009, the US economy would be 9.5% bigger right now, or grow 0.21% more annually. That’s would be a big deal for wages, for the public debt, and for prosperity in general.&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;qz.com&amp;#x2F;402763&amp;#x2F;new-york-and-san-fransiscos-insane-housing-prices-are-dragging-down-us-growth&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;qz.com&amp;#x2F;402763&amp;#x2F;new-york-and-san-fransiscos-insane-hou...&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;p&gt;The average worker&amp;#x27;s income would increase by $9,000 per year  if the Bay Area and New York City relaxed their zoning laws. (&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theregreview.org&amp;#x2F;2018&amp;#x2F;06&amp;#x2F;14&amp;#x2F;somogyi-zoning-codes-gdp&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theregreview.org&amp;#x2F;2018&amp;#x2F;06&amp;#x2F;14&amp;#x2F;somogyi-zoning-codes...&lt;/a&gt;)</text><parent_chain><item><author>rank0</author><text>One thing I don’t understand about the housing debate is why any specific area needs to be “affordable”&lt;p&gt;If I can’t afford to live in an area, it seems to me the solution is to live somewhere else.&lt;p&gt;Maybe I’m missing something. I’m open to new ideas here but I really don’t get it.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>California plans to turn the screws on NIMBY cities</title><url>https://fullstackeconomics.com/how-california-plans-to-turn-the-screws-on-nimby-cities/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>hypersoar</author><text>Every city relies on a bunch of cheap labor. Dishwashers, janitors, cashiers, cleaners, landscapers, baristas, gig workers, and on and on. Is it healthy for a city to need all of these people while denying them a place in it? We have this gross dynamic of essentially telling large swaths of people that they&amp;#x27;re around only to be the help and that they don&amp;#x27;t belong.</text><parent_chain><item><author>rank0</author><text>One thing I don’t understand about the housing debate is why any specific area needs to be “affordable”&lt;p&gt;If I can’t afford to live in an area, it seems to me the solution is to live somewhere else.&lt;p&gt;Maybe I’m missing something. I’m open to new ideas here but I really don’t get it.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>California plans to turn the screws on NIMBY cities</title><url>https://fullstackeconomics.com/how-california-plans-to-turn-the-screws-on-nimby-cities/</url></story>