4 ms·

True, and I think with the stratospheric income inequality it's becoming more obvious to many that working hard does not lead to success when investors and exec

True, and I think with the stratospheric income inequality it's becoming more obvious to many that working hard does not lead to success when investors and executives are capturing more and more of the value of companies. Nobody wants to work hard to be paid nothing while their efforts just further enrich the already-rich. This also contributes to the housing shortage as the wealthy buy up property as real estate investments and either rent them out, leaving renters with no equity to realise into deposits for better housing down the line, or leave them empty.

paulnpace 5y ago
> True, and I think with the stratospheric income inequality it's becoming more obvious to many that working hard does not lead to success when investors and executives are capturing more and more of the value of companies. Nobody wants to work hard to be paid nothing while their efforts just further enrich the already-rich. This is introducing some other topic into the discussion. The problem of housing price increases is unrelated to this, and more likely related to destruction of new-business formation. The American middle class has always been lead by small businesses, and new business formation has been steadily dropping for decades. Small businesses do not suffer the same issues as working in large corporations, so when large corporations make up larger and larger percentages of the workforce, they also shift other aspects related to employment and income. > This also contributes to the housing shortage as the wealthy buy up property as real estate investments and either rent them out, leaving renters with no equity to realise into deposits for better housing down the line, or leave them empty. The housing shortage is completely a regulatory problem where the supply is artificially constricted in ways it was never previously controlled. People often think of housing as somehow not falling into the same supply and demand price function problems as other products, but this simply isn't true. The "wealthy" could never hope to purchase all of the bread fast enough to make any real dent in the price because of how rapidly the production of bread would be increased with their artificial increase in demand. This scheme can only work with artificial constriction on supply that comes from the regulations on the construction of new residential units, because without these regulatory constrictions developers would build houses until either the investors run out of money or we are all working in the home construction industry.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  The blue collar middle class of the middle century was led by industrial scale manufacturing, which doesn't typically come from small companies. I know supply side restriction constrains the creation of new housing as well, but the wealthy buying up properties in cities and renting them out or leaving them unoccupied restricts access to property in areas where land for new building is limited. You can build suburbs all day out in the stix (theoretically) but nobody who works in a city wants a 2 hour commute each way. Depends on the city of course; I'm thinking Toronto, New York and London where empty houses are a big problem but I know that SF has a major issue with NIMBYism so YMMV.

paulnpace 5y ago

> True, and I think with the stratospheric income inequality it's becoming more obvious to many that working hard does not lead to success when investors and executives are capturing more and more of the value of companies. Nobody wants to work hard to be paid nothing while their efforts just further enrich the already-rich. This is introducing some other topic into the discussion. The problem of housing price increases is unrelated to this, and more likely related to destruction of new-business formation. The American middle class has always been lead by small businesses, and new business formation has been steadily dropping for decades. Small businesses do not suffer the same issues as working in large corporations, so when large corporations make up larger and larger percentages of the workforce, they also shift other aspects related to employment and income. > This also contributes to the housing shortage as the wealthy buy up property as real estate investments and either rent them out, leaving renters with no equity to realise into deposits for better housing down the line, or leave them empty. The housing shortage is completely a regulatory problem where the supply is artificially constricted in ways it was never previously controlled. People often think of housing as somehow not falling into the same supply and demand price function problems as other products, but this simply isn't true. The "wealthy" could never hope to purchase all of the bread fast enough to make any real dent in the price because of how rapidly the production of bread would be increased with their artificial increase in demand. This scheme can only work with artificial constriction on supply that comes from the regulations on the construction of new residential units, because without these regulatory constrictions developers would build houses until either the investors run out of money or we are all working in the home construction industry.

beaconstudios 5y ago
The blue collar middle class of the middle century was led by industrial scale manufacturing, which doesn't typically come from small companies. I know supply side restriction constrains the creation of new housing as well, but the wealthy buying up properties in cities and renting them out or leaving them unoccupied restricts access to property in areas where land for new building is limited. You can build suburbs all day out in the stix (theoretically) but nobody who works in a city wants a 2 hour commute each way. Depends on the city of course; I'm thinking Toronto, New York and London where empty houses are a big problem but I know that SF has a major issue with NIMBYism so YMMV.