5 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoWelcome 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 agoSo who's made most money out of the bay area? The wealth creators or the land owners? I'd bet the latter.
- hx87 10y agoThe 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 agoThat's due to financialization of housing, it's a subject of scholarly work; do a web search for a nice rabbit hole.
- branchless 10y agoYes agreed 100%, housing has been financialised. Or more specifically land has.