4 ms·

//Real progress would be improving technology to make the things people need and want cheaper I agree about the goal. But technology isn't what makes housing

by petra 4y ago

//Real progress would be improving technology to make the things people need and want cheaper I agree about the goal. But technology isn't what makes housing near reasonable places to live(employment, good community, etc) expensive. So given socialized medicine, good public transportation and affordable housing takes us quite close to basic income - when a single adult needed to needed to work less than full time to provide for a family. That is possible in some places in Europe. And those are centrally managed things. So it's a combination of bottoms-up and top-down.

pdonis 4y ago
> technology isn't what makes housing near reasonable places to live(employment, good community, etc) expensive. In a free market, housing prices are determined by supply and demand. Since location is a key factor in housing, supply is usually restricted at some point, which drives up prices in places that are in high demand. (Technology that enables remote work can help with this, though, by reducing the need for high demand in particular locations.) However, housing in current developed societies is not a free market. There are many top-down restrictions that artificially restrict supply, and there are government policies like printing money for mortgages that artificially inflate demand. This drives up the price of housing everywhere, but it's at its worst in areas that are already in high demand. So the best way to improve housing prices, across the board but especially in high demand areas, would be to remove the artificial effects on supply and demand and let the free market work. Which is bottom-up, not top-down. Top-down is hurting, not helping. > given socialized medicine, good public transportation and affordable housing Which either don't exist, or only exist because people are willing to pay for them anyway and don't feel gouged by the taxes required--which means that in those societies, those things would exist even in a free market, because people would pay for them anyway. So even where top-down supposedly works, it only works because it's not needed--it's "imposing" things that people would freely choose anyway. That's not an argument for top-down; it's an argument against it.

by petra 4y ago

pdonis 4y ago

> technology isn't what makes housing near reasonable places to live(employment, good community, etc) expensive. In a free market, housing prices are determined by supply and demand. Since location is a key factor in housing, supply is usually restricted at some point, which drives up prices in places that are in high demand. (Technology that enables remote work can help with this, though, by reducing the need for high demand in particular locations.) However, housing in current developed societies is not a free market. There are many top-down restrictions that artificially restrict supply, and there are government policies like printing money for mortgages that artificially inflate demand. This drives up the price of housing everywhere, but it's at its worst in areas that are already in high demand. So the best way to improve housing prices, across the board but especially in high demand areas, would be to remove the artificial effects on supply and demand and let the free market work. Which is bottom-up, not top-down. Top-down is hurting, not helping. > given socialized medicine, good public transportation and affordable housing Which either don't exist, or only exist because people are willing to pay for them anyway and don't feel gouged by the taxes required--which means that in those societies, those things would exist even in a free market, because people would pay for them anyway. So even where top-down supposedly works, it only works because it's not needed--it's "imposing" things that people would freely choose anyway. That's not an argument for top-down; it's an argument against it.