6 ms·

The market structure for land and its methods of entitlement are certainly wonky and need reform ... but I'm pretty sure we're "wage slaves" because the labor m

The market structure for land and its methods of entitlement are certainly wonky and need reform ... but I'm pretty sure we're "wage slaves" because the labor movement was successfully killed off in the 50s red scare along with the rise of classical liberalism in the 60s which poo-poos collective action, devalues communal capital, and encourages uncoordinated individual action. So when the productivity gains that were promised in the 50s came in the 80s there was no labor movement to force a shorter work week, so instead there were layoffs and bigger profits on top. We never got the promised 20 hour work week of the 50s because collectively we forgot and abandoned the multi-generational labor struggle which got us the 40 hour one. These things aren't going to just get handed out.

branchless 10y ago
Unions for sure are part of the picture, but I'd rather take a further step back from this and give people the right to refuse to work. I'm not talking about the right to sit around all day of your life, but the right to say "you are working me too hard, I'm out for a bit". But people cannot do this because we live in a world of very efficient economic rent extraction through land prices. When productivity rises land prices rise, handing over all gains to the banks. Our generation are, thanks to tech, far more efficient than the 1960s. Yet now both parents must work for the same (or worse) house. Computing power brought us many things, it also brought banks, the ability to track vast amounts of electronic debt. At a time when we came off the gold standard allowing unconstrained fiat issuance. I'd like to see the shoe on the other foot - employees who are not under constant financial pressure due to high rents demanding that employers pass on most of their surplus value. edit: cannot reply to your comment as faux hacker news "you're submitting to fast about usury" here it is: The main cost of "housing" in urban areas is the land. Construction has improved massively since 1960s as has materials construction, yet here we are with housing at record of income multiples.
- bluGill 10y ago
  >Yet now both parents must work for the same (or worse) house. That isn't true. Houses built in the 1960s that have only had basic maintenance done to them are available and they are a lot cheaper than newer houses. It turns out most people don't want to live with a house that looks like the 1960s. People like bigger kitchens and houses when we can afford them. Once the house gets a little bigger we like to see things like brick on the front (I'm not sure if this is styles changing or a longer term pattern of people deciding the houses of 1990 are big enough and now we want pretty not more space). The result is perfectly nice houses in old neighborhoods are available for cheap if you are willing to live in them. Despite the above I recommend you not buy those old houses: they are not energy efficient and so either heating/cooling will eat your paycheck or you will spend a lot fo money in upgrades you won't get back.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    >It turns out most people don't want to live with a house that looks like the 1960s. I do. >Despite the above I recommend you not buy those old houses: they are not energy efficient and so either heating/cooling will eat your paycheck or you will spend a lot fo money in upgrades you won't get back. Ah, and there's the problem: not freezing in the winter.
  - shostack 10y ago
    Welcome to the Bay Area where tiny 50+ year old homes in decent (read: not crime ridden) neighborhoods with only so-so schools go for $1.2+. And those are often ones needing a lot of work. The trade off is a very healthy job market, phenomenal weather, a great liberal culture and great food.
    - branchless 10y ago
      So who's made most money out of the bay area? The wealth creators or the land owners? I'd bet the latter.
  - hx87 10y ago
    The 1960s were pretty close to the nadir in quality for residential construction in North America. Most of the old growth forests were already gone by that point, and builders had yet to learn how to build durable structures with younger and engineered woods. Combined with primitive insulation, nonexistent air-sealing, and an extreme carpeting fetish, this lead so some of the worst residential structures ever built.
- kristopolous 10y ago
  That's due to financialization of housing, it's a subject of scholarly work; do a web search for a nice rabbit hole.
  - branchless 10y ago
    Yes agreed 100%, housing has been financialised. Or more specifically land has.
Shivetya 10y ago
I seriously have issue with calling us wage slaves and such, let alone claiming its because of the failed labor movement. we are slaves to our uncontrolled passions that marketers have ruthlessly and easily exploited having us believe we need something we cannot afford. we allow ourselves to be convinced that our life would not be as fulfilling without the latest fad/gadget/etc. If people paid in cash for what they want, put off such purchases for three or more days, and bought a home one income could support, there would less "slave to wages" than people think
- mrec 10y ago
  > If people [...] bought a home one income could support I think GGP's point was that those are becoming hard-to-impossible to find in many places, especially places with decent-paying jobs. I don't agree with him that this was a deliberate conspiracy by employers to keep workers oppressed; I think it has far more to do with an out-of-control financial sector and governments addicted to over-loose monetary policy. But blaming people's "uncontrolled passions" for wanting a stable home, one they might actually be able to pay off one day, is a bit silly. (Disclaimer: this is a view from London, which while it might not be quite the absolute worst for housing is pretty damn close to it. YMMV.)
  - kristopolous 10y ago
    Businesses extracting profit from the labor of its workforce isn't a conspiracy. It's fully disclosed to children in school and I don't think anyone challenges it. Now if the question is whether they try to maximize profits, once again, this is not a secret or a back room conspiracy, this is how it works. As an employee, enter into every negotiation knowing this.
    - mrec 10y ago
      > Businesses extracting profit from the labor of its workforce isn't a conspiracy. I'm not sure you who you're arguing with. What I said was > I don't agree with him that this was a deliberate conspiracy and branchless' GGP comment I was disagreeing with wasn't about "extracting profit from the labor of its workforce" in general, it was about "The whole point behind high land prices is to prevent most people achieving financial independence."
suchajoke333 10y ago
Agreed. There are some interesting motions right now, that could be tipped to usher back a labor movement in a quick way. The calls for a general strike on Feb 17, for one. The internet can be used to organize labor movements globally. It just needs a little push at this point. No where near as hard to organize compared to when folks had to be in the same place. A completely peaceful demonstration against the status quo could be achieved if enough folks simply... stopped going to work.
wyager 10y ago
We never got the 20 hour work week partially because people actually want to reap the benefits of that increased productivity, like smartphones, better food, etc. It's much cheaper to live at a 1950s standard of life. We are also forced to spend more in many cases; taxes are higher, EPA vehicle regs are stricter, etc. I am effectively forced to give away ~40% of my work time to federal and state governments (not including taxes on the employer side, like payroll taxes), and I don't make much as a student.
- branchless 10y ago
  Nope these things are all cheap. Land prices dominate. I agree the state is part of the problem: the goverbankment.
  - MagnumOpus 10y ago
    Yes, land prices dominate. And who owns all that land? Not the goverbankment, but the people who are willing to work 2x50 hours per week to get the house with the 100 acre garden. Land is a competitive good, land near commercial hubs is scarce and eventually goes to the highest earners in relative terms. If you want to cut working hours for everyone, the government has to mandate it - otherwise people will always be willing to work a smidgen more than you for the better house. The government here is part of the solution, not the problem. (Unless you are talking about municipal zoning and NIMBYism which is certainly part of the problem.)
    - branchless 10y ago
      I don't agree with this vision of people as slavish consumers. I think given the choice people would not work extra hours. If they did they could purchase a house. They would gain no advantage from buying multiple if we taxed land. If people add more value I have no problem with them having a bigger house / more stuff. I have a problem with being forced to work for my landlord.
mason240 10y ago
There is some serious tone-deafness in calling IT work slavery.
- branchless 10y ago
  We are talking in general, why assume it's IT workers?
  - mason240 10y ago
    Sure, but it still holds just as true.

branchless 10y ago

Unions for sure are part of the picture, but I'd rather take a further step back from this and give people the right to refuse to work. I'm not talking about the right to sit around all day of your life, but the right to say "you are working me too hard, I'm out for a bit". But people cannot do this because we live in a world of very efficient economic rent extraction through land prices. When productivity rises land prices rise, handing over all gains to the banks. Our generation are, thanks to tech, far more efficient than the 1960s. Yet now both parents must work for the same (or worse) house. Computing power brought us many things, it also brought banks, the ability to track vast amounts of electronic debt. At a time when we came off the gold standard allowing unconstrained fiat issuance. I'd like to see the shoe on the other foot - employees who are not under constant financial pressure due to high rents demanding that employers pass on most of their surplus value. edit: cannot reply to your comment as faux hacker news "you're submitting to fast about usury" here it is: The main cost of "housing" in urban areas is the land. Construction has improved massively since 1960s as has materials construction, yet here we are with housing at record of income multiples.

bluGill 10y ago
>Yet now both parents must work for the same (or worse) house. That isn't true. Houses built in the 1960s that have only had basic maintenance done to them are available and they are a lot cheaper than newer houses. It turns out most people don't want to live with a house that looks like the 1960s. People like bigger kitchens and houses when we can afford them. Once the house gets a little bigger we like to see things like brick on the front (I'm not sure if this is styles changing or a longer term pattern of people deciding the houses of 1990 are big enough and now we want pretty not more space). The result is perfectly nice houses in old neighborhoods are available for cheap if you are willing to live in them. Despite the above I recommend you not buy those old houses: they are not energy efficient and so either heating/cooling will eat your paycheck or you will spend a lot fo money in upgrades you won't get back.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >It turns out most people don't want to live with a house that looks like the 1960s. I do. >Despite the above I recommend you not buy those old houses: they are not energy efficient and so either heating/cooling will eat your paycheck or you will spend a lot fo money in upgrades you won't get back. Ah, and there's the problem: not freezing in the winter.
- shostack 10y ago
  Welcome to the Bay Area where tiny 50+ year old homes in decent (read: not crime ridden) neighborhoods with only so-so schools go for $1.2+. And those are often ones needing a lot of work. The trade off is a very healthy job market, phenomenal weather, a great liberal culture and great food.
  - branchless 10y ago
    So who's made most money out of the bay area? The wealth creators or the land owners? I'd bet the latter.
- hx87 10y ago
  The 1960s were pretty close to the nadir in quality for residential construction in North America. Most of the old growth forests were already gone by that point, and builders had yet to learn how to build durable structures with younger and engineered woods. Combined with primitive insulation, nonexistent air-sealing, and an extreme carpeting fetish, this lead so some of the worst residential structures ever built.
kristopolous 10y ago
That's due to financialization of housing, it's a subject of scholarly work; do a web search for a nice rabbit hole.
- branchless 10y ago
  Yes agreed 100%, housing has been financialised. Or more specifically land has.

Shivetya 10y ago

I seriously have issue with calling us wage slaves and such, let alone claiming its because of the failed labor movement. we are slaves to our uncontrolled passions that marketers have ruthlessly and easily exploited having us believe we need something we cannot afford. we allow ourselves to be convinced that our life would not be as fulfilling without the latest fad/gadget/etc. If people paid in cash for what they want, put off such purchases for three or more days, and bought a home one income could support, there would less "slave to wages" than people think

mrec 10y ago
> If people [...] bought a home one income could support I think GGP's point was that those are becoming hard-to-impossible to find in many places, especially places with decent-paying jobs. I don't agree with him that this was a deliberate conspiracy by employers to keep workers oppressed; I think it has far more to do with an out-of-control financial sector and governments addicted to over-loose monetary policy. But blaming people's "uncontrolled passions" for wanting a stable home, one they might actually be able to pay off one day, is a bit silly. (Disclaimer: this is a view from London, which while it might not be quite the absolute worst for housing is pretty damn close to it. YMMV.)
- kristopolous 10y ago
  Businesses extracting profit from the labor of its workforce isn't a conspiracy. It's fully disclosed to children in school and I don't think anyone challenges it. Now if the question is whether they try to maximize profits, once again, this is not a secret or a back room conspiracy, this is how it works. As an employee, enter into every negotiation knowing this.
  - mrec 10y ago
    > Businesses extracting profit from the labor of its workforce isn't a conspiracy. I'm not sure you who you're arguing with. What I said was > I don't agree with him that this was a deliberate conspiracy and branchless' GGP comment I was disagreeing with wasn't about "extracting profit from the labor of its workforce" in general, it was about "The whole point behind high land prices is to prevent most people achieving financial independence."

suchajoke333 10y ago

Agreed. There are some interesting motions right now, that could be tipped to usher back a labor movement in a quick way. The calls for a general strike on Feb 17, for one. The internet can be used to organize labor movements globally. It just needs a little push at this point. No where near as hard to organize compared to when folks had to be in the same place. A completely peaceful demonstration against the status quo could be achieved if enough folks simply... stopped going to work.

wyager 10y ago

We never got the 20 hour work week partially because people actually want to reap the benefits of that increased productivity, like smartphones, better food, etc. It's much cheaper to live at a 1950s standard of life. We are also forced to spend more in many cases; taxes are higher, EPA vehicle regs are stricter, etc. I am effectively forced to give away ~40% of my work time to federal and state governments (not including taxes on the employer side, like payroll taxes), and I don't make much as a student.

branchless 10y ago
Nope these things are all cheap. Land prices dominate. I agree the state is part of the problem: the goverbankment.
- MagnumOpus 10y ago
  Yes, land prices dominate. And who owns all that land? Not the goverbankment, but the people who are willing to work 2x50 hours per week to get the house with the 100 acre garden. Land is a competitive good, land near commercial hubs is scarce and eventually goes to the highest earners in relative terms. If you want to cut working hours for everyone, the government has to mandate it - otherwise people will always be willing to work a smidgen more than you for the better house. The government here is part of the solution, not the problem. (Unless you are talking about municipal zoning and NIMBYism which is certainly part of the problem.)
  - branchless 10y ago
    I don't agree with this vision of people as slavish consumers. I think given the choice people would not work extra hours. If they did they could purchase a house. They would gain no advantage from buying multiple if we taxed land. If people add more value I have no problem with them having a bigger house / more stuff. I have a problem with being forced to work for my landlord.

mason240 10y ago

There is some serious tone-deafness in calling IT work slavery.

branchless 10y ago
We are talking in general, why assume it's IT workers?
- mason240 10y ago
  Sure, but it still holds just as true.