4 ms·

> global population has increased massively since then. All of those processes you're describing are massively energy and labor intensive and do not scale as yo

by User23 4y ago

> global population has increased massively since then. All of those processes you're describing are massively energy and labor intensive and do not scale as you're trying to put 8 billion people under rooves This doesn't make any sense. Labor supply obviously scales with population. More people needing housing also means more people available to build housing.

pixl97 4y ago
Labor supply scans linearly if nothing else changes. Being that 100+ years ago people were not building computers, or making money producing minecraft videos, or one of any number of tasks that may pay more than flourishing housing. And you managed to ignore the millions and millions of houses that were close to 'dirt hut' and 'a bunch of sticks leaned together' that have been the more typical means of living for humanity. And that ignored that until 1900ish population grew very slowly meaning that multigenerational housing was more feasible. "Everything has changed, why hasn't the world stayed the same" -- this article
- scythe 4y ago
  >Labor supply scans linearly if nothing else changes. Being that 100+ years ago people were not building computers, or making money producing minecraft videos, or one of any number of tasks that may pay more than flourishing housing. You realize that that is Baumol's cost disease, correct? If you want to "debunk" my post, you should make sure you don't actually agree with it. >When you look at old buildings you're automatically starting with survivorship bias. Expensive and well kept old buildings tend to stay around a lot longer than buildings that were built cheaply at the time. Those have all been bulldozed. We are also using, for comparison, the most expensive buildings built today. Pointing out that we're comparing them to the expensive buildings from yesteryear doesn't make it an invalid comparison. It's not only tract houses that are ugly.

by User23 4y ago

pixl97 4y ago

Labor supply scans linearly if nothing else changes. Being that 100+ years ago people were not building computers, or making money producing minecraft videos, or one of any number of tasks that may pay more than flourishing housing. And you managed to ignore the millions and millions of houses that were close to 'dirt hut' and 'a bunch of sticks leaned together' that have been the more typical means of living for humanity. And that ignored that until 1900ish population grew very slowly meaning that multigenerational housing was more feasible. "Everything has changed, why hasn't the world stayed the same" -- this article

scythe 4y ago
>Labor supply scans linearly if nothing else changes. Being that 100+ years ago people were not building computers, or making money producing minecraft videos, or one of any number of tasks that may pay more than flourishing housing. You realize that that is Baumol's cost disease, correct? If you want to "debunk" my post, you should make sure you don't actually agree with it. >When you look at old buildings you're automatically starting with survivorship bias. Expensive and well kept old buildings tend to stay around a lot longer than buildings that were built cheaply at the time. Those have all been bulldozed. We are also using, for comparison, the most expensive buildings built today. Pointing out that we're comparing them to the expensive buildings from yesteryear doesn't make it an invalid comparison. It's not only tract houses that are ugly.