It's been a while since Megan lived in NYC

it seems.

A number of years ago, I was discussing rent control with someone who had managed to snag a government-subsidized co-op. "But you have to understand," he said earnestly, in response to my eminently reasonable economic arguments, "If it weren't for rent control, someone like me couldn't afford to live in Manhattan."

... what? Rent control and government-subsidized co-ops are very different things. One is a way to prevent landlords from price-gouging, the other is a system whereby the state or city obtained ownership or control of decent buildings in order to provide some employees with affordable housing near where they work. Whether the gov't sectors that have this option deserve it or make fair use of it are fair questions in response, but not Megan's.

My response, though I never said it out loud, was a puzzled "So what?" Living in Manhattan is not a civil right. It's ludicrous to think that we should construct an elaborate regulatory system that degrades the housing stock and helps push the vacancy rate down to 2%, all so that averagely paid government workers can afford a two bedroom apartment near Lincoln Center. If you want to live in Manhattan, you should prepare yourself for a job that will pay you enough to do so. Or you can do what I did, and cram yourself into 400 square feet of cave-like space on the first floor of a building where the hot water supply ranges from temperamental to nonexistent. But the idea that the government has a duty to reallocate the very limited supply of attractively located Manhattan apartments to . . . well, to the kind of people who know the guy who allocates the supply of attractively located Manhattan apartments . . . seems so transparently awful that I was struck dumb.

I, too, am struck dumb. First question is, what does Megan consider affordable? My last place in Manhattan was a 400 sq feet cave, and it was 1800 a month. People told me I was getting a good deal, and they were tragically correct. (I now live in Brooklyn, and pay less for about 3 times the space.) And this was almost 2 years ago. There are no affordable places in Manhattan anymore, unless you mean section 8 housing that a whitey like Megan has never heard of.
Second, while a person like Megan might not notice the difference, the lack of housing non-corporate or rich family types can afford in Manhattan is changing the borough. My last place was on the LES, and when I got there it was a DFH friendly area, the home of Tonic, and generally one of the few areas of the city you could wander around high as a kite and not feel like anyone cared. Now it's a Sex and the City set. Tonic was closed to keep the owners of the new glass monstrosity next door happy, and ABC no rio is almost a museum piece. Lots of yuppies and bridge and tunnel crowds trying to feel hip. And, no, Williamsburg and its hipsters aren't really much better, but their bars and music are. Megan may be glad for the change, but Manhattan isn't the place it once was.
Getting back on topic, you gotta love Megan saying "If you want to live in Manhattan, you should prepare yourself for a job that will pay you enough to do so." Cause, y'know, if everyone just picked themselves up by their bootstraps and..... how the hell does she convince herself of this crap? Does she really think everyone can just buckle down and train themselves at night instead of sleeping and suddenly have the connections and skills required for the near six figure income you need for Manhattan these days?
I could go on, and, hellishly, this is all just a set-up for Megan to argue against taking economic consequences into consideration when discussing how to set up a carbon tax, but I can't do it. The fall of Manhattan and Megan's employment at The Atlantic are bad enough individually. I can't deal with both at once.