5 ms·

It's unstoppable. The big difference between today and hundreds of years ago is that it's not enough to have a roof over one's head. Few people farm the land to

It's unstoppable. The big difference between today and hundreds of years ago is that it's not enough to have a roof over one's head. Few people farm the land to make a living. One must live close to employment, family, friends, community; ideally in a neighborhood with low crime, close to commerce, and with access to quality affordable education for one's children. Not every neighborhood or property is equally appealing (or revolting) to all, but neither is the appeal of a specific neighborhood or property broadly debatable. To bemoan the securitization (not commoditization, for not all real estate is equally fungible) of real estate is, ultimately, to bemoan that certain properties are closer to employment, closer to community, closer to commerce. But this is inevitable. To seek otherwise would be to try to persuade businesses (through tax incentives etc.) to relocate to less-desirable areas, so that people will follow and invest with human capital. This has been tried, many times, in many countries, for reasons ranging from the economically to politically ideological. It has failed. Again and again.

___null___ 4y ago
> To seek otherwise would be to try to persuade businesses (through tax incentives etc.) to relocate to less-desirable areas, so that people will follow and invest with human capital. I saw this in rural Austria, Im not austrian but it seems to have worked well. Many large industrial factories seemingly in thr middle of no where.
- solatic 4y ago
  That's precisely my point. It's always possible to move individual companies or factories to somewhere rural with sufficient tax (etc.) incentive. But the initial artificial influx of capital fails to catalyze additional natural investment. Such places always remain "in the middle of nowhere."
closedloop129 4y ago
It's stoppable because we have the internet and social networks. >To bemoan the securitization (not commoditization, for not all real estate is equally fungible) of real estate is, ultimately, to bemoan that certain properties are closer to employment, closer to community, closer to commerce. But this is inevitable. It could be the other way round. Using social networks, communities could organize to move to non-established properties. That could make real estate much more fungible. Instead of going all virtual, Meta should solve the real estate market first. Otherwise, this leaves space for a startup.

___null___ 4y ago

> To seek otherwise would be to try to persuade businesses (through tax incentives etc.) to relocate to less-desirable areas, so that people will follow and invest with human capital. I saw this in rural Austria, Im not austrian but it seems to have worked well. Many large industrial factories seemingly in thr middle of no where.

solatic 4y ago
That's precisely my point. It's always possible to move individual companies or factories to somewhere rural with sufficient tax (etc.) incentive. But the initial artificial influx of capital fails to catalyze additional natural investment. Such places always remain "in the middle of nowhere."

closedloop129 4y ago

It's stoppable because we have the internet and social networks. >To bemoan the securitization (not commoditization, for not all real estate is equally fungible) of real estate is, ultimately, to bemoan that certain properties are closer to employment, closer to community, closer to commerce. But this is inevitable. It could be the other way round. Using social networks, communities could organize to move to non-established properties. That could make real estate much more fungible. Instead of going all virtual, Meta should solve the real estate market first. Otherwise, this leaves space for a startup.