3 ms·
> A relatively small number of people are able to generate a relatively large amount of profit; this is the nature of the software industry. This makes sense,
by FartyMcFarter 8y ago
> A relatively small number of people are able to generate a relatively large amount of profit; this is the nature of the software industry.
This makes sense, but does it explain the issues?
You mentioned yourself that people working in software are a "relatively small number of people". Can they have such a big impact on everyone else?
- i_am_proteus 8y agoWhen they geographically cluster in sufficient numbers to out-compete everyone else for a limited housing supply, they certainly can. And it looks like they have.
- yonran 8y agoIt’s not the inequality of capital ownership that is the problem. It’s the inequality of land ownership (specifically zoned housing capacity). A few thousand hundred-millionaires hardly hurt people any more than a few thousand millionaires. But a few million middle-class homeowners hurts when they are not allowed to share their land with the landless. So the most worrysome inequality is the numbers of landed vs. landless, not millionaires vs. ten millionaires or hundred millionaires.
- sqrt17 8y ago> when they are not allowed to share their land with the landless. this seems to be aggravated by zoning laws and NIMBYism in the US where localities will not tolerate high-density housing that is an eyesore but provides little homes to people who'd otherwise not have one (or have to pay higher prices than they otherwise would)