3 ms·

I'm not sure your math pans out - the issue, AFAIK, isn't rich people within the same city owning multiple flats, it's rich people worldwide. The report cited i

I'm not sure your math pans out - the issue, AFAIK, isn't rich people within the same city owning multiple flats, it's rich people worldwide. The report cited in the first link states 167,700 UHNWI worldwide. If, on average, each of those have one flat in NY, that's 20% of the NY housing, which is pretty far from a drop in the bucket. It also seems utterly unreasonable that only 3% of the world's UHNWI own housing in NY. > The more inequality we have, the fewer rich people there are and the smaller this problem becomes. I think this simplifies to the point of uselessness. On the basic level, yes - fewer rich people, fewer rich people living in housing. But, definitely not fewer rich people owning housing, and definitely definitely not fewer high-rent places, where we can define "high rent" as taking up most of your income. Then there's considerations for housing growth - as inequality and population rise, housing demand increases, but ability to pay for that housing does not, so why would you expect any additional to be built, given the increased cost of the land due to the increased demand for that land? To be clear: I don't know if your prediction would pan out, because I can imagine how easily the situation gets crazy complicated.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Yes, if every single rich person owns a flat in NYC, that might make NYC unaffordable. They might also do the same in London and SF. That only leaves the entire rest of the world to live in. If the rich concentrate, they can only harm a small number of locations. After all, there aren't very many of them. Then there's considerations for housing growth - as inequality and population rise, housing demand increases, but ability to pay for that housing does not, so why would you expect any additional to be built, given the increased cost of the land due to the increased demand for that land? Well, I'd expect additional housing to be built because developers are clamoring to do exactly that. They are just not legally permitted to do so in a few of the highly desirable locations (e.g. NYC, SF, Paris).
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  So in other words, rather than adjusting tax policy to achieve a more egalitarian society and a price for the roof over your head that could be described as "fair" you think everybody else - the people who do all the actual work - should get the fuck out of New York and London.
areyousure 10y ago
> that's 20% of the NY housing (167,700) / (3.4 million) is 1/20, not 20%?
- RangerScience 10y ago
  You are correct. I fucked that up - did the reverse operation, which yields "20".... So the reasonable follow up is then: If it's 5% of the housing, that's the housing liquidity supposed to be at? Seems like the best comparison point.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Yes, if every single rich person owns a flat in NYC, that might make NYC unaffordable. They might also do the same in London and SF. That only leaves the entire rest of the world to live in. If the rich concentrate, they can only harm a small number of locations. After all, there aren't very many of them. Then there's considerations for housing growth - as inequality and population rise, housing demand increases, but ability to pay for that housing does not, so why would you expect any additional to be built, given the increased cost of the land due to the increased demand for that land? Well, I'd expect additional housing to be built because developers are clamoring to do exactly that. They are just not legally permitted to do so in a few of the highly desirable locations (e.g. NYC, SF, Paris).

crdoconnor 10y ago
So in other words, rather than adjusting tax policy to achieve a more egalitarian society and a price for the roof over your head that could be described as "fair" you think everybody else - the people who do all the actual work - should get the fuck out of New York and London.

areyousure 10y ago

> that's 20% of the NY housing (167,700) / (3.4 million) is 1/20, not 20%?

RangerScience 10y ago
You are correct. I fucked that up - did the reverse operation, which yields "20".... So the reasonable follow up is then: If it's 5% of the housing, that's the housing liquidity supposed to be at? Seems like the best comparison point.