5 ms·

This doesn't even make any sense. Everyone has to pay for their housing... you either opt into two different schemes, own it or rent it and both come with upsid

This doesn't even make any sense. Everyone has to pay for their housing... you either opt into two different schemes, own it or rent it and both come with upsides and downsides. It is up to the person to decide which works for them and in the means that works for them. You can go to many cities where it makes outright more sense to just rent (and maybe more prudent to do so while you don't have a steady stream of income from streaming yet).

mrtksn 6y ago
That's obviously not true, in every country I lived in there was this thing called "inheritance" which a lot of times means parents who happen to have done the grinding and leave the house to their kids. Its instant double salary in real terms most of the times. It's very different from being wealthy, it doesn't come with the "elite" stuff but its more like "premium economy" that creates adults of same productivity class with drastically different consumption style and degree freedom.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  What's the difference if the parents leave a house or leave an investment account that's equal in value to the house? That investment account will throw off enough returns to pay the rent and then some in most markets, so they're still paying rent to a landlord; they just have a lot more spending money than someone starting from scratch.
  - mrtksn 6y ago
    No difference, the idea here is that it creates drastically different lifestyles at the same productivity when you have free housing that you did not earn yourself(in comparison too not having free housing). The housing becoming half or even more than half of the salary creates a class of people who do the same job, having the same productivity but reaping completely different lives for their hard work in comparison to those who have parents that transitioned into landlords. It is a prime tension between skilled workforce in cities. For now, the proposed solution is to prevent immigrants competing but that won't cut it. I believe that it will create deep changes in the society as they find ot that hampering meritocracy to reduce competition from foreigners wouldn't sort it out. Landlords are one unproductive burden to the society, no wonder people are leaving SV because of the ridiculous housing prices. Money invested in rent is not a good investment. Property is a speculative market that doesn't reflect the value provided by the product. Very similar system to the medallion system for the taxi drivers.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      It seems to me like you're actually frustrated by someone's parents "grinding" (as you put it) and as a result of that work giving them financial resources that someone else doesn't have. Housing seems like a symptom at most.
      - mrtksn 6y ago
        No, not at all, my parents did their part. The frustration comes from seeing this money drain that creates an inequality where there's no good reason to be there. Just to be clear, I don't argue that people shouldn't inherit properties, that's just came out against the argument that "everyone pays for housing", which is clearly not the case. Most of the time rent is money siphoned to unproductive people. I wouldn't care if it was optional like having a car or affordable like not effectively moving you between income groups.
        sokoloff 6y ago
        As I see it, the inequality in this subthread's story is from the inheritance, not the housing costs.
        mrtksn 6y ago
        Inheritance is another topic, many things will affect your quality and life satisfaction and wealth inheritance is definitely a prime one however the problem is not about having rich and poor people here, the problem is having different compensation for the same input(even worse, lower compensation for the higher input). Because of the nature of the housing, that is limited and not optional, pretty much everywhere it is optimised to a level that drains everyone exposed out, acting as a tax. What is the difference between living in a communist country that takes half of your salary and gives you free housing close enough to your workforce and first having the money in your account then sending half of it to someone whose function in the society is to collect rent? It's not like you have choice? Money going through your bank account or not, it doesn't matter. You are effectively compensated drastically differently depending on your property ownership. Inequality is no big problem when you have options and viable(hard work and compensation beneath that work is not viable) path to change your circumstances. In places like London, NY, Paris etc. enormous money is siphoned into property owners, probably the similar to the size of the productive economy and what you have is young people, usually the best among their peers, seemingly making a lot of money that live in very low quality houses and you have property owners that live the sweet life that is well beyond their contribution the society. It has become a structural thing and it's not right.
- unity1001 6y ago
  Indeed, life should not be a grind.

mrtksn 6y ago

That's obviously not true, in every country I lived in there was this thing called "inheritance" which a lot of times means parents who happen to have done the grinding and leave the house to their kids. Its instant double salary in real terms most of the times. It's very different from being wealthy, it doesn't come with the "elite" stuff but its more like "premium economy" that creates adults of same productivity class with drastically different consumption style and degree freedom.

sokoloff 6y ago
What's the difference if the parents leave a house or leave an investment account that's equal in value to the house? That investment account will throw off enough returns to pay the rent and then some in most markets, so they're still paying rent to a landlord; they just have a lot more spending money than someone starting from scratch.
- mrtksn 6y ago
  No difference, the idea here is that it creates drastically different lifestyles at the same productivity when you have free housing that you did not earn yourself(in comparison too not having free housing). The housing becoming half or even more than half of the salary creates a class of people who do the same job, having the same productivity but reaping completely different lives for their hard work in comparison to those who have parents that transitioned into landlords. It is a prime tension between skilled workforce in cities. For now, the proposed solution is to prevent immigrants competing but that won't cut it. I believe that it will create deep changes in the society as they find ot that hampering meritocracy to reduce competition from foreigners wouldn't sort it out. Landlords are one unproductive burden to the society, no wonder people are leaving SV because of the ridiculous housing prices. Money invested in rent is not a good investment. Property is a speculative market that doesn't reflect the value provided by the product. Very similar system to the medallion system for the taxi drivers.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    It seems to me like you're actually frustrated by someone's parents "grinding" (as you put it) and as a result of that work giving them financial resources that someone else doesn't have. Housing seems like a symptom at most.
    - mrtksn 6y ago
      No, not at all, my parents did their part. The frustration comes from seeing this money drain that creates an inequality where there's no good reason to be there. Just to be clear, I don't argue that people shouldn't inherit properties, that's just came out against the argument that "everyone pays for housing", which is clearly not the case. Most of the time rent is money siphoned to unproductive people. I wouldn't care if it was optional like having a car or affordable like not effectively moving you between income groups.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        As I see it, the inequality in this subthread's story is from the inheritance, not the housing costs.
        mrtksn 6y ago
        Inheritance is another topic, many things will affect your quality and life satisfaction and wealth inheritance is definitely a prime one however the problem is not about having rich and poor people here, the problem is having different compensation for the same input(even worse, lower compensation for the higher input). Because of the nature of the housing, that is limited and not optional, pretty much everywhere it is optimised to a level that drains everyone exposed out, acting as a tax. What is the difference between living in a communist country that takes half of your salary and gives you free housing close enough to your workforce and first having the money in your account then sending half of it to someone whose function in the society is to collect rent? It's not like you have choice? Money going through your bank account or not, it doesn't matter. You are effectively compensated drastically differently depending on your property ownership. Inequality is no big problem when you have options and viable(hard work and compensation beneath that work is not viable) path to change your circumstances. In places like London, NY, Paris etc. enormous money is siphoned into property owners, probably the similar to the size of the productive economy and what you have is young people, usually the best among their peers, seemingly making a lot of money that live in very low quality houses and you have property owners that live the sweet life that is well beyond their contribution the society. It has become a structural thing and it's not right.
unity1001 6y ago
Indeed, life should not be a grind.