The Portuguese can no longer afford to live in Portugal

> or example, if you own three ordinary apartments in Lisbon, you can live in one of them and easily make a good living by renting out the other two as holiday apartments. Because cleaning services, guys who do repairs, etc., are cheap in Portugal, this involves almost no work. Moreover, the net worth of your property will continually increase while you do (almost) nothing.

I'm a bit conflicted on this. I definitely see what you're saying (and often repeat it myself).

But it should be noted: property is simply an asset like any other. If there's easy and outsized returns to be had, the demand for this asset would increase, pushing up the price to the point that the returns on the asset are in line with returns of other assets which have similar risk/effort profiles.

To say that one can make money 'doing nothing' owning any asset (that has a positive return) is true. But that's not per se some kind of economic or political problem, it's a normal feature.

Of course to absolutely do nothing and still earn enough to live off of, means you must have earned enough money to purchase a large amount of assets. Supposing rental income of 5%, and supposing rent is 25% of someone's wages, and supposing a 20% tax rate on your returns, you'd essentially need to purchase assets worth 100 times what someone spends on rent.

(ex: if you need 40k to live on, spend 25% or 10k on rent, you'd need 100x that or 1 million returning a 5% return that's taxed 20%, leaving 40k in net income.)

Amassing 100x your rent is no easy feat, and in fact it means that someway, somehow, you've provided 100x your rent in value, without spending a penny of it, and saved it all, then poured it into an asset (incurring risk and requiring some level of commercial effort), and then, yes, you could start to approach doing 'nothing'.

For many that's a life's worth of work. Buying such assets is really no different from putting in an equivalent amount of money into a retirement fund, and that fund in turn buying assets like companies. Whether it's companies that buy and rent out cars, or real estate, or produce and sell, the people owning these enterprises through their retirement fund are 'doing nothing' while others are working.

But the important part to note is that anyone has access to this system. Every person can, proportionate to their income (based on their economic value to society) buy assets.

In fact, I'm able with a click of the button not to just buy a part of a in Portugal, but rather the biggest and most successful company on the planet: Apple. I can buy a small part in it, and profit when many of the planet's smartest and most educated people build & sell some of the most cutting edge consumer technology day in day out. Whilst doing: nothing.

So I don't really see a structural problem with this system. What is problematic is the stuff around it. For example, in some countries real estate goes untaxed and is subsidised, and is bailed out when things go bad. Subsidised private profits, and socialised public losses. It's unfair and a failure of markets and governance. Another example is that swathes of people indeed inherit value to the point they've never done any contribution to the world to get into a position to 'do nothing', rather than work to retire off of the fruits of their labour, they could in effect retire from work before ever even starting. This is where the system breaks down and must be balanced, again by e.g. taxing inheritance and balancing things out.

Finally, markets work when price & profit signals can balance supply & demand. If there is a shortage of bread, demand outpaces supply, the price rises, and overnight new bakeries will pop up bringing down the price. In real estate high prices often do not trigger new supply in many countries, either due to geographical limitations (e.g. the mountains of Taiwan limiting buildable space, or simply the fact physically there is a limited area we consider to be 'downtown new york' for example), but more often due to political limitations (NIMBYism). Because in real estate markets in many areas do not naturally solve the problem, government intervention is needed to ensure more equitable and fair outcomes moreso than in other types of markets. Again here I see a role for stronger taxation on outsized profits and some income support for groups otherwised pushed out of neighbourhoods.

Even if that's your angle, Prop 13 is bizarrely overbroad. If you just wanted to protect long-term residents from needing to move:

* Remove its application to commercial property

* Remove its application to second/vacation homes

* Remove its application to inherited property

* Only apply the restriction if the increase would be burdensome on the household's income

* Only apply the restriction once someone has lived in the house for a significant amount of time, e.g. 5+ years.

or you could just legalize building anything other than single family dwellings. there's a lot of room in between quarter acre lot suburbia, and a crowded favela! look up "missing middle housing". the problem is purely a matter of restrictive zoning.

I'm from Rome and your example is cherrypicked bs.

Yes, very central touristic areas are expensive but half a million can get you 3 room apartments you can go to center by feet, even less would be enough.

That's the price you would pay, e.g. in Ostiense.

> ... The workers will have worse and worse living conditions until they're reduced to effective serfdom.

Both outcomes are possible; it basically depends om whether the high productivity of the most expensive cities is truly exceptional - in which case it won't benefit most workers - or something that can be readily replicated in the rest of the country. We've mostly seen examples of the former in places like the Bay Area: there's only a limited number of Big Tech unicorns around at any given time, after all. But the latter is a theoretical possibility, perhaps driven by more ubiquitous sorts of sustained technological change and innovation.