121–130 of 550 posts
Is it the wages or that shitty one bedroom apartments go for $2000+
Why not both? Wages are too low and rents are too high. The common factor: the capital class screwing over the working class.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's worth being precise about this because it's a really important point. Most people who we call "landlords" are simultaneously a landlord and a property manager. Property management is an important and productive job. But the vast majority of such people's financial outcome is actually from being a landlord , that is doing literally nothing except holding a piece of paper granting them monopoly on a plot of land.…
> If you remove landlords (but keep property managers, developers, etc In this scenario, who owns the property? And if you are advocating that everyone should own their home, what is the point of a property manager? What about the people who do not actually want to own their home?
Nobody would be allowed to rent out a space they owned because it would turn them into a landlord. All of the rooms people rent out to others would go away. You wouldn’t be able to rent a private house from someone, you’d have no choice but to live in government owned housing developments.
This would be incredibly unpopular if implemented because it wouldn’t resemble the utopian fantasy it’s supposed to represent. It’s a vacuous idealism in the same category as “billionaires shouldn’t exist” that serves as a placeholder for an unspecified utopian government-run economy. The details are never specified, you’re just supposed to imagine it works and nothing is lost as a tradeoff.
The problem is absolutley that housing is too expensive, which of course a bunch of realtors are not going to point out. Increasing wages will not fix the housing crisis, and will just drive prices higher. How convenient for a bunch of realtors...
I’m not sure how or why this article got published by an organization that should, given its very nature, understand economics. The article doesn’t paint them or their members as people I’d trust in either side of a major financial transaction.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's worth being precise about this because it's a really important point. Most people who we call "landlords" are simultaneously a landlord and a property manager. Property management is an important and productive job. But the vast majority of such people's financial outcome is actually from being a landlord , that is doing literally nothing except holding a piece of paper granting them monopoly on a plot of land.…
> If you remove landlords (but keep property managers, developers, etc, which are all different jobs sometimes played by the same people) You need to be specific about what you mean by “remove landlords” because that’s a nonsensical statement by itself. Some party must be responsible for the investment to produce the property. Some part must own the property. The most charitable interpretation of what you’re trying t…
You could, for instance, require people who own habitations to actually live in that location. You could tax people who own property they do not actually live in very aggressively until they would be willing to sell for less to avoid the tax burden. You could have a system which taxes aggressively and builds lots of houses and gives it to people who own it as long as they live there.
There are quite a lot of ideas between "government owns everything" and "let vampire landlords do unlimited rent seeking."
As it happens, I think there is quite a lot to be said for the free market solution of just letting supply meet demand more or less freely, but I think your interpretation really is not the most generous one.
The problem is absolutley that housing is too expensive, which of course a bunch of realtors are not going to point out. Increasing wages will not fix the housing crisis, and will just drive prices higher. How convenient for a bunch of realtors...
This is true though?
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The common criticism is his prediction about the internet: https://web.archive.org/web/19980610100009/http://www.redher... > By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's.
I wasn't aware that he put a "2005" deadline in his prediction. Taking this into account, he probably wasn't wrong actually, at least in terms of net impact: in 2005 most of the moderate positive economic impact of the internet would have been offset by the significant negative economic impact of the dot com bubble and subsequent crash.
Not the latest date at which the Internet was still on par with the fax machine.
Is it the wages or that shitty one bedroom apartments go for $2000+
In 1970 a $300/month apartment would be ~$2000/month in today dollars. I do think rents are too high as productivity and supply chains are much more efficient. I think in the 70s we were still using black pipe for gas, iron septic lines, and copper pipes for water. But, I don't think new builds or renovations are cheaper inflation adjusted (harder to estimate). Cost of money (inflation), building, and maintenance is…
Median rent in the us today is around $1,750, or around $21,000/year. Today's median income in the us is around $89,000. So, housing cost has nearly doubled, while wages have only risen by about 5%. And that's just housing. I'm sure the math for healthcare and education costs is even more grim.
[flagged]