4 ms·
"therefore landlords take that x% and call it cost of living" is even less convincing
by Kronen 6y ago
"therefore landlords take that x% and call it cost of living" is even less convincing
- ethanbond 6y agoPhrased another way: High productivity areas are high rent areas. Do you dispute that?
- squeaky-clean 6y agoIf disagree with it. High income areas are high rent areas. Is a coal mine in West Virginia really "less productive" than a tech firm in SanFran?
- ethanbond 6y agoYes, in the economic sense of productivity, it is. Your high income = high rent is the same statement as what I’m saying. The mechanisms are the same, though. Amazon putting HQ2 in a city causes rent to go up (higher productivity). A coal mine developing a new, more efficient train to move coal around will also cause rent to go up (higher productivity).
- squeaky-clean 6y ago1. You didn't provide any actual evidence or deeper claims than (putting something in parenthesis). I don't really believe the coal mine claim, as in reality we don't see that happening. Mining towns are still among the cheapest and poorest towns in America. 2. That's a really naive sense of economic productivity. Here is a thought experiment. A) Let's shut down all of Amazon HQ1. B) Let's shut down the dams that provide 86% of Seattle greater area's electricity. Which one of these entities is ACTUALLY responsible for that "productivity" then? And I bet you rents in Seattle without electricity would drop far greater proportionally than they do out by the dams. Rent follows incomes, not productivity.
- ethanbond 6y agoThere is no deeper claim being made. We are saying the same thing. You can call it income if you'd like. A person's wages are some portion of their productivity. The distinction is irrelevant for this point.