3 ms·

Landlords, suppliers, architects, engineers, municipalities. Also keep in mind that 'profit' needs to not only cover COGS and other variable costs like labour,

Landlords, suppliers, architects, engineers, municipalities. Also keep in mind that 'profit' needs to not only cover COGS and other variable costs like labour, it also needs to cover random fixed expenses, utilities, rent and needs to make up the initial capital costs within the duration of the lease.

Gibbon1 5y ago
I think of the US economy as being saddled with a vast amount of 'private taxes'. The cost of everything entails paying rentiers without anything in return. The building my company rented was sold. According to our broker the new landlords mortgage had terms that required he raise the rents to cover the mortgage payment. So new landlord told us that after our lease expired the rent was going from $2/sqft to $4/sqft. Where is the value added for us paying double what we were? There isn't any. And the US economy is full of purely extractive rents like that. Real estate loans, something like 5-6 cents on the dollar actually goes to new construction or improvements.
- imtringued 5y ago
  North America was the land of the free precisely because there was no preexisting social structure that inserted itself between the work you do and the compensation that you receive. Now that a few hundred years have passed the usual problems crop up. I personally have no axe to grind versus landlords specifically because I recognize that letting people rent out apartments and thereby provide housing fulfills a real need that people have. After all someone had to construct the building. What I personally despise is when people own a plot of land and abuse its location monopoly to extort people's money. I work and pay income taxes which funds public infrastructure yet I also need to pay the owner of the land a sum in proportion to the public infrastructure that is available to this location. If the government were to charge this amount directly on the land and reduce my income tax by that same amount then I would have no qualms about paying inflated rents because I know that a fair portion of that money is paying for the infrastructure I get to enjoy.
- 1123581321 5y ago
  Theoretically the value is being enjoyed by the people moving near you who cared so much about their location that they drove up prices. In practice I’m less sure. Regardless, it’s a process that sucks for those already living there. Location/land/home stability are hard values to stamp out of humans.
  - kazen44 5y ago
    Also, it does not take into account that most people want to live in a place where they belong to a community (usually one they are familiar with). People do not stay in a place purely for economic reasons. Things like being around family, friends and a community is a reason not to move for a lot of people. Sadly, this is something which is hardly taken into account when discussing housing policy.
    - 1123581321 5y ago
      Agreed. Sadly, we will probably never learn to 'price' individual and collective preferences over multi-generational time spans.

Gibbon1 5y ago

I think of the US economy as being saddled with a vast amount of 'private taxes'. The cost of everything entails paying rentiers without anything in return. The building my company rented was sold. According to our broker the new landlords mortgage had terms that required he raise the rents to cover the mortgage payment. So new landlord told us that after our lease expired the rent was going from $2/sqft to $4/sqft. Where is the value added for us paying double what we were? There isn't any. And the US economy is full of purely extractive rents like that. Real estate loans, something like 5-6 cents on the dollar actually goes to new construction or improvements.

imtringued 5y ago
North America was the land of the free precisely because there was no preexisting social structure that inserted itself between the work you do and the compensation that you receive. Now that a few hundred years have passed the usual problems crop up. I personally have no axe to grind versus landlords specifically because I recognize that letting people rent out apartments and thereby provide housing fulfills a real need that people have. After all someone had to construct the building. What I personally despise is when people own a plot of land and abuse its location monopoly to extort people's money. I work and pay income taxes which funds public infrastructure yet I also need to pay the owner of the land a sum in proportion to the public infrastructure that is available to this location. If the government were to charge this amount directly on the land and reduce my income tax by that same amount then I would have no qualms about paying inflated rents because I know that a fair portion of that money is paying for the infrastructure I get to enjoy.
1123581321 5y ago
Theoretically the value is being enjoyed by the people moving near you who cared so much about their location that they drove up prices. In practice I’m less sure. Regardless, it’s a process that sucks for those already living there. Location/land/home stability are hard values to stamp out of humans.
- kazen44 5y ago
  Also, it does not take into account that most people want to live in a place where they belong to a community (usually one they are familiar with). People do not stay in a place purely for economic reasons. Things like being around family, friends and a community is a reason not to move for a lot of people. Sadly, this is something which is hardly taken into account when discussing housing policy.
  - 1123581321 5y ago
    Agreed. Sadly, we will probably never learn to 'price' individual and collective preferences over multi-generational time spans.