4 ms·

First, all the predictions went sideways. Consumers needed, not just wanted, more cars and equipment to function as PPE. As their mobile personal protective t

First, all the predictions went sideways. Consumers needed, not just wanted, more cars and equipment to function as PPE. As their mobile personal protective transit bubbles. As their remote-work conversation devices. As new types of hardware that weren't being used for those economic functions before. Even as webcams and the like. Second, the quarantines combine with unemployment that frees an abused workforce from abusive conditions. Instead of being wage slaves forced to take any job what-so-ever workers are able to demand jobs that value safety protocols, pay well enough to live in an area (which is also extra insane right now), and have reasonable hours (enough, the right times etc). Third, (rent) given a combination of working from home, closed 'entertainment' venues, and general quality of life concerns many have decided to flee the high rents of cities for suburban and even rural areas where their money goes farther. This causes more desire to purchase and more wasteful food packaging and production at home as well. Everywhere around me prices have gone up on eating out something like 25% since the start of the pandemic; my wages have not. So instead of eating small portions of bulk shipped and prepared ingredients I'm now eating at home more, mostly frozen stuff. The price of rent didn't quite increase that much but housing is also insane right now, just like even used cars, due to the supply crunch. Supply correction is how we as a culture, country, and world escape this problem. Increasing supply in all of the problem areas is the only way out. Supply means buying power goes up, irrespective of wages. Those misguided attempts to raise everyone's minimum wage (tax the middle class, since the elite who own the rentable units will just raise their rates) would work far better by decreasing the cost of a better life. It could also be targeted towards desired resources, growing out of undesired patterns and standards which is also opportunity for better energy efficiency.

tehjoker 5y ago
> since the elite who own the rentable units will just raise their rates We could also just make the elite pay for it. Just saying.
- b9a2cab5 5y ago
  That doesn't solve the issue, because the high rental rates are caused by limited supply due to NIMBYism. If you raise taxes on rental income rental rates will just go up and pass on costs to tenants. Rentals are highly inelastic. The real solution is to densify and build way, way more. Why doesn't SF look like China with skyscrapers on every block?
  - erosenbe0 5y ago
    Well not sure about SF but Silicon Valley was partly designed low density to keep out Blacks and low-income people. That was a selling point; that's how 1945-1980 suburban American system worked and Santa Clara County was the absolute worst. By the time people were maybe relatively less racist the developers and zoning boards had done the damage. Edit: it was legal or pseudo-legal until 1964 for developers to subtly (or not so subtly) advertise that their new developments would not be seeded with non-whites. It was a selling point.
  - ItsMonkk 5y ago
    Rental rates should always be set at the highest that the renters can afford according to the supply/demand curve. If you raise taxes and rental rates go up, that means they were leaving money on the table previously. If the rental rates were set correctly, none of the extra taxes can be passed on. The most likely result is the price of the buildings will go down and new renters will be able to buy in more cheaply but get less per rental. Once again the Land Value Tax shows its brilliance.
    - b9a2cab5 5y ago
      Land Value Tax says you tax land at a (high) flat rate per area regardless of value to encourage density. That is entirely different from higher property taxes on landlords (which would not lower rents but might lower property values). I agree that LVT would make a huge improvement if it was set high enough though. But it will never happen when you have homeowners leveraged up 20x on govt subsidized mortgages who vote for themselves.

tehjoker 5y ago

> since the elite who own the rentable units will just raise their rates We could also just make the elite pay for it. Just saying.

b9a2cab5 5y ago
That doesn't solve the issue, because the high rental rates are caused by limited supply due to NIMBYism. If you raise taxes on rental income rental rates will just go up and pass on costs to tenants. Rentals are highly inelastic. The real solution is to densify and build way, way more. Why doesn't SF look like China with skyscrapers on every block?
- erosenbe0 5y ago
  Well not sure about SF but Silicon Valley was partly designed low density to keep out Blacks and low-income people. That was a selling point; that's how 1945-1980 suburban American system worked and Santa Clara County was the absolute worst. By the time people were maybe relatively less racist the developers and zoning boards had done the damage. Edit: it was legal or pseudo-legal until 1964 for developers to subtly (or not so subtly) advertise that their new developments would not be seeded with non-whites. It was a selling point.
- ItsMonkk 5y ago
  Rental rates should always be set at the highest that the renters can afford according to the supply/demand curve. If you raise taxes and rental rates go up, that means they were leaving money on the table previously. If the rental rates were set correctly, none of the extra taxes can be passed on. The most likely result is the price of the buildings will go down and new renters will be able to buy in more cheaply but get less per rental. Once again the Land Value Tax shows its brilliance.
  - b9a2cab5 5y ago
    Land Value Tax says you tax land at a (high) flat rate per area regardless of value to encourage density. That is entirely different from higher property taxes on landlords (which would not lower rents but might lower property values). I agree that LVT would make a huge improvement if it was set high enough though. But it will never happen when you have homeowners leveraged up 20x on govt subsidized mortgages who vote for themselves.