5 ms·

So you lost out due to people exploiting our flawed system which pushes all productivity gains to land speculators. Then you went and got a rental. Christ. Pe

So you lost out due to people exploiting our flawed system which pushes all productivity gains to land speculators. Then you went and got a rental. Christ. People just love rentier activity. What is better than money for nothing!

jcoffland 11y ago
Clearly you've never been a landlord.
- branchless 11y ago
  Many landlords have made a lot of cash for themselves using leverage by sitting on property which is forcing up land prices. I think that's undisputed. I know landlords always harp on about how hard their (chosen) path is but land prices have rocketed in SF due to this mentality. His post intimates it was a core reason for leaving. Then off he goes and joins those who let the plebs work for them once they can get a down-payment together.
  - eclipxe 11y ago
    Don't hate the player...
    - branchless 11y ago
      No, we are responsible for our actions. If we have a horrible system of exploitation it is incumbent upon people to avoid this. The USA has a real problem with ethics that stems from the simple problem "it's just business". "Yeah I kicked him in the face and robbed his family, but it's just business" seems to be an acceptable sentence there. It covers a multitude of ethical sins. And let's not cop out of this with "but who decides what is ethical" - you do. This guy didn't like being exploited by high rent in SF. It also seems impossible for people in the USA / UK to imagine a world where, although they are satisfied and have plenty, they would actually forgo having even more money for ethical reasons. Thinking "yes, I could holiday in luxury and exploit my fellow man" seems fine to them. No, hate the player.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - dreamdu5t 11y ago
        > "Yeah I kicked him in the face and robbed his family, but it's just business" seems to be an acceptable sentence there. No, kicking someone in the face and robbing his family is illegal. It is not "just business." Unless you're trying to equate owning property and renting it out to kicking people in the face and robbing their family...
      - eclipxe 11y ago
        Who is to say that he exploited the tenets in his rentals? Maybe he provided fair market value rents? Just because he's a property owner doesn't make his actions bad.
  - nosuchthing 11y ago
    Our laws facilitate the leaching of labor to land owners (feudalism). If it were easier to build a surplus of housing, this wouldn't be such an issue but between NIMBYism, zoning, local municipal red tape, and the near zero incentive from developers to build inexpensive housing units in mass quantities near urban centers, than this issue will remain siphoning any surplus of wealth from labor in cities (Silicon Valley, NYC, etc). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11158398 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11158398 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10442929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10442929
    - jackcosgrove 11y ago
      Restrictions on construction and density drive the housing crisis in the Bay Area more than the desirability of the area or the economic opportunities, in my opinion. For example, if you can fetch a salary in Austin that is similar to one in San Jose, then opportunities between the two cities are the same. If you can live in a cool neighborhood in Brooklyn that has the same amenities as one in SF, then desirability is the same. The difference is that Austin has far fewer restrictions on development, geographical and legal, than SV. In the second case Brooklyn has far more legacy housing units than SF. In both cases the supply of housing is more in line with demand. The high cost of housing in the Bay Area is partly due to geographical limitations, partly due to the attractiveness of the area and its amenities, partly due to economic opportunities, partly due to speculation, and lastly partly due to restrictive zoning and development laws. One of these five factors - which are not exhaustive - is much easier to rectify than the others. Reforming common law property rights, which is what the land tax proposes, is much, much harder than reforming local laws against density and development.
dang 11y ago
Personal attacks—which you started here and continued downthread—are not allowed on Hacker News. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't do this. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11197766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11197766 and marked it off-topic.

jcoffland 11y ago

Clearly you've never been a landlord.

branchless 11y ago
Many landlords have made a lot of cash for themselves using leverage by sitting on property which is forcing up land prices. I think that's undisputed. I know landlords always harp on about how hard their (chosen) path is but land prices have rocketed in SF due to this mentality. His post intimates it was a core reason for leaving. Then off he goes and joins those who let the plebs work for them once they can get a down-payment together.
- eclipxe 11y ago
  Don't hate the player...
  - branchless 11y ago
    No, we are responsible for our actions. If we have a horrible system of exploitation it is incumbent upon people to avoid this. The USA has a real problem with ethics that stems from the simple problem "it's just business". "Yeah I kicked him in the face and robbed his family, but it's just business" seems to be an acceptable sentence there. It covers a multitude of ethical sins. And let's not cop out of this with "but who decides what is ethical" - you do. This guy didn't like being exploited by high rent in SF. It also seems impossible for people in the USA / UK to imagine a world where, although they are satisfied and have plenty, they would actually forgo having even more money for ethical reasons. Thinking "yes, I could holiday in luxury and exploit my fellow man" seems fine to them. No, hate the player.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - dreamdu5t 11y ago
      > "Yeah I kicked him in the face and robbed his family, but it's just business" seems to be an acceptable sentence there. No, kicking someone in the face and robbing his family is illegal. It is not "just business." Unless you're trying to equate owning property and renting it out to kicking people in the face and robbing their family...
    - eclipxe 11y ago
      Who is to say that he exploited the tenets in his rentals? Maybe he provided fair market value rents? Just because he's a property owner doesn't make his actions bad.
- nosuchthing 11y ago
  Our laws facilitate the leaching of labor to land owners (feudalism). If it were easier to build a surplus of housing, this wouldn't be such an issue but between NIMBYism, zoning, local municipal red tape, and the near zero incentive from developers to build inexpensive housing units in mass quantities near urban centers, than this issue will remain siphoning any surplus of wealth from labor in cities (Silicon Valley, NYC, etc). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11158398 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11158398 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10442929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10442929
  - jackcosgrove 11y ago
    Restrictions on construction and density drive the housing crisis in the Bay Area more than the desirability of the area or the economic opportunities, in my opinion. For example, if you can fetch a salary in Austin that is similar to one in San Jose, then opportunities between the two cities are the same. If you can live in a cool neighborhood in Brooklyn that has the same amenities as one in SF, then desirability is the same. The difference is that Austin has far fewer restrictions on development, geographical and legal, than SV. In the second case Brooklyn has far more legacy housing units than SF. In both cases the supply of housing is more in line with demand. The high cost of housing in the Bay Area is partly due to geographical limitations, partly due to the attractiveness of the area and its amenities, partly due to economic opportunities, partly due to speculation, and lastly partly due to restrictive zoning and development laws. One of these five factors - which are not exhaustive - is much easier to rectify than the others. Reforming common law property rights, which is what the land tax proposes, is much, much harder than reforming local laws against density and development.

dang 11y ago

Personal attacks—which you started here and continued downthread—are not allowed on Hacker News. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't do this. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11197766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11197766 and marked it off-topic.