6 ms·

Wait a second, if somebody asks an overinflated way-over productivity wage for cleaning toilets because of a supply shortage, this is considered being unethica

Wait a second, if somebody asks an overinflated way-over productivity wage for cleaning toilets because of a supply shortage, this is considered being unethical and "unwilling to do the dirty work, while receiving benefits", but asking a way way overinflated price for housing because of a supply shortage is considered good and healthy for the market and drives investment without shaming the investors for receiving undue housing benefits? Why do we yell at people artificially shortening toilet cleaner supply, while at the same time not yelling at developers for artificially shortening housing supply? Don't people need to live AND shit? Looks like it is not about an economic argument after all. Seems like it’s again a pattern of abusing less privileged, weaker, less defensible people. Shaming them for what they naturally and humanly want - and which is the same what the privileged naturally want: To be able to say no, when they want to say no. Where do these schemes of maliciously founded shame on false grounds come from? How did we start to listen to the voice of the psychopaths which want to divide us?

marcusverus 4y ago
> if somebody asks an overinflated way-over productivity wage for cleaning toilets because of a supply shortage, this is considered being unethical and "unwilling to do the dirty work, while receiving benefits", but asking a way way overinflated price for housing because of a supply shortage is considered good and healthy for the market and drives investment without shaming the investors for receiving undue housing benefits? The clear difference is who bears the cost of demanding an artificially high price. If you're asking an overinflated wage as a ploy to stay on unemployment, or to keep a low-effort make-work job, who bears the cost of that decision? Not the worker! By shunning gainful employment, he chooses to remain on the dole, for his own benefit and to the detriment of his neighbors--who are paying his bills. He also short-changes society, which could benefit from his employment through taxes paid, and by virtue of his doing work that's actually in demand. So it's unethical for this person to take money out of his neighbors' pockets (many of whom do dirty work) because he's too good to do his fair share. The person who chooses to try to sell their house for a high price doesn't gain anything by setting too-high a price--quite the opposite! Every month they don't sell the property, they're paying the mortgage and insurance. So it's not unethical to set an artificially high price, since the seller is the one who pays in the end. If someone actually buys the house, then I'm not sure that you could say that the price was artificially high--the buying of the house indicates that the price was right. > Why do we yell at people artificially shortening toilet cleaner supply, while at the same time not yelling at developers for artificially shortening housing supply? I'm not really sure what you mean here. > Looks like it is not about an economic argument after all. Seems like it’s again a pattern of abusing less privileged, weaker, less defensible people. This sort of self-righteous hysteria has no place on HN. Fiscal conservatives are not ghouls who abhor the poor and seek to harm them. The fact that you don't know or don't understand the economic argument doesn't mean there is no economic argument--it means you are uninformed. If you're actually interested in an introduction to the economic arguments underpinning fiscal conservatism, try reading "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. > Shaming them for what they naturally and humanly want - and which is the same what the privileged naturally want: To be able to say no, when they want to say no. They're being shamed for the extraordinarily selfish expectation that society should pay 30K/year to save them from doing a yucky job. How many taxpayers does it take to fund this guy's make-work job? Based on a quick google search, you'd probably have to take every penny of tax revenue raised from 3-4 middle-class families. That's 4 families that forewent 30% of their income--and for what? So that one dude can save face? This is an egregious waste of resources and a giant middle-finger to the working class people who fund the Austrian welfare state. > How did we start to listen to the voice of the psychopaths which want to divide us? I find this to be hysterical in every sense of the word.
- wbazant 4y ago
  The person who's getting the welfare typically paid taxes too. Having good public services like an unemployment benefit - essentially a form of state-provided insurance - is in the interest of almost everyone, and especially those working class families you are so concerned with.
  - marcusverus 4y ago
    I think you're missing some context. When the parent comment said: > if somebody asks an overinflated way-over productivity wage for cleaning toilets because of a supply shortage, this is considered being unethical and "unwilling to do the dirty work, while receiving benefits"... they were alluding to a particular passage in the article: > One program participant in his thirties told me that, while on unemployment benefits, he’d been offered a job cleaning toilets at a gas station; he’d decided that he didn’t want “that sort of job,” and had instead found work in the carpentry workshop. So, I wasn't arguing against unemployment benefits in general. You're right, we pay unemployment benefits, and when we're out of work, we shouldn't feel bad for taking them, so long as we're using them in good faith--as temporary support, intended to tide us over until we can find gainful employment. The guy in the article was not using these services in good faith--he turned down honest work in order to keep his make-work gig (funded by taxpayers).
RickJWagner 4y ago
I really don't understand the rant. It's all supply and demand. If we need more housing, people need to move to places where housing is more available. There are plenty of small rural towns that have excess, cheaply priced housing. (In the Bay area, not so much.)
burlesona 4y ago
I agree with your sentiment, but your anger re: housing is misdirected. Developers do not short the housing supply. Like most businesses they make more in volume than they do in margin and would happily build more units at any price range if it was legal. In the US and UK (and probably many other countries) the government has a default stance of allowing no or nearly no development without excruciatingly painful, expensive, and slow bargaining with city hall. The primary job of a developer is to get permission to build something. The government is killing supply, not the developers.
- namaria 4y ago
  Landowners versus wage slaves. Nothing changed in politics over 25 centuries.
- protoman3000 4y ago
  I understand your willingness to attribute wrong behavior to the correct culprit. But, how does it come, that these procedures to get building permits have been slowed down/bureaucratized to the point that it almost seems intentional? Also, the anger is not about them intentionally shortening supply - it’s about them intentionally asking and taking the higher prices. Nobody forces them to take more than e.g. a 10% shortage signal markup, but we force people on the other side to wipe the floor with their dignity.
  - swearwolf 4y ago
    In many of the places that are the hardest to build in, like California, they are intentional. Those regulations were out there to slow down development as much as possible. The motivation behind doing so varied some; sometimes it was hippie’s concern about the environment, sometimes it was homeowners seeking to protect the character of their neighborhood, and sometimes it was the latter masquerading as the former. All of it was intentional.
  - zemvpferreira 4y ago
    No clue, but I will tell you as a property developer myself I would love to build more, faster. Everyone I know in the business would love to build more as well. Time from project to building permit here in Lisbon can stretch to two years and vast tracts of land close to infrastructure are considered unbuildable by the municipality for no good reason. Also consider that developers need the government to work with them on roads, subways, sewers and others to be able to build. In large parts of urbanised Asia where building more housing is encouraged this problem does not exist.

marcusverus 4y ago

> if somebody asks an overinflated way-over productivity wage for cleaning toilets because of a supply shortage, this is considered being unethical and "unwilling to do the dirty work, while receiving benefits", but asking a way way overinflated price for housing because of a supply shortage is considered good and healthy for the market and drives investment without shaming the investors for receiving undue housing benefits? The clear difference is who bears the cost of demanding an artificially high price. If you're asking an overinflated wage as a ploy to stay on unemployment, or to keep a low-effort make-work job, who bears the cost of that decision? Not the worker! By shunning gainful employment, he chooses to remain on the dole, for his own benefit and to the detriment of his neighbors--who are paying his bills. He also short-changes society, which could benefit from his employment through taxes paid, and by virtue of his doing work that's actually in demand. So it's unethical for this person to take money out of his neighbors' pockets (many of whom do dirty work) because he's too good to do his fair share. The person who chooses to try to sell their house for a high price doesn't gain anything by setting too-high a price--quite the opposite! Every month they don't sell the property, they're paying the mortgage and insurance. So it's not unethical to set an artificially high price, since the seller is the one who pays in the end. If someone actually buys the house, then I'm not sure that you could say that the price was artificially high--the buying of the house indicates that the price was right. > Why do we yell at people artificially shortening toilet cleaner supply, while at the same time not yelling at developers for artificially shortening housing supply? I'm not really sure what you mean here. > Looks like it is not about an economic argument after all. Seems like it’s again a pattern of abusing less privileged, weaker, less defensible people. This sort of self-righteous hysteria has no place on HN. Fiscal conservatives are not ghouls who abhor the poor and seek to harm them. The fact that you don't know or don't understand the economic argument doesn't mean there is no economic argument--it means you are uninformed. If you're actually interested in an introduction to the economic arguments underpinning fiscal conservatism, try reading "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. > Shaming them for what they naturally and humanly want - and which is the same what the privileged naturally want: To be able to say no, when they want to say no. They're being shamed for the extraordinarily selfish expectation that society should pay 30K/year to save them from doing a yucky job. How many taxpayers does it take to fund this guy's make-work job? Based on a quick google search, you'd probably have to take every penny of tax revenue raised from 3-4 middle-class families. That's 4 families that forewent 30% of their income--and for what? So that one dude can save face? This is an egregious waste of resources and a giant middle-finger to the working class people who fund the Austrian welfare state. > How did we start to listen to the voice of the psychopaths which want to divide us? I find this to be hysterical in every sense of the word.

wbazant 4y ago
The person who's getting the welfare typically paid taxes too. Having good public services like an unemployment benefit - essentially a form of state-provided insurance - is in the interest of almost everyone, and especially those working class families you are so concerned with.
- marcusverus 4y ago
  I think you're missing some context. When the parent comment said: > if somebody asks an overinflated way-over productivity wage for cleaning toilets because of a supply shortage, this is considered being unethical and "unwilling to do the dirty work, while receiving benefits"... they were alluding to a particular passage in the article: > One program participant in his thirties told me that, while on unemployment benefits, he’d been offered a job cleaning toilets at a gas station; he’d decided that he didn’t want “that sort of job,” and had instead found work in the carpentry workshop. So, I wasn't arguing against unemployment benefits in general. You're right, we pay unemployment benefits, and when we're out of work, we shouldn't feel bad for taking them, so long as we're using them in good faith--as temporary support, intended to tide us over until we can find gainful employment. The guy in the article was not using these services in good faith--he turned down honest work in order to keep his make-work gig (funded by taxpayers).

RickJWagner 4y ago

I really don't understand the rant. It's all supply and demand. If we need more housing, people need to move to places where housing is more available. There are plenty of small rural towns that have excess, cheaply priced housing. (In the Bay area, not so much.)

burlesona 4y ago

I agree with your sentiment, but your anger re: housing is misdirected. Developers do not short the housing supply. Like most businesses they make more in volume than they do in margin and would happily build more units at any price range if it was legal. In the US and UK (and probably many other countries) the government has a default stance of allowing no or nearly no development without excruciatingly painful, expensive, and slow bargaining with city hall. The primary job of a developer is to get permission to build something. The government is killing supply, not the developers.

namaria 4y ago
Landowners versus wage slaves. Nothing changed in politics over 25 centuries.
protoman3000 4y ago
I understand your willingness to attribute wrong behavior to the correct culprit. But, how does it come, that these procedures to get building permits have been slowed down/bureaucratized to the point that it almost seems intentional? Also, the anger is not about them intentionally shortening supply - it’s about them intentionally asking and taking the higher prices. Nobody forces them to take more than e.g. a 10% shortage signal markup, but we force people on the other side to wipe the floor with their dignity.
- swearwolf 4y ago
  In many of the places that are the hardest to build in, like California, they are intentional. Those regulations were out there to slow down development as much as possible. The motivation behind doing so varied some; sometimes it was hippie’s concern about the environment, sometimes it was homeowners seeking to protect the character of their neighborhood, and sometimes it was the latter masquerading as the former. All of it was intentional.
- zemvpferreira 4y ago
  No clue, but I will tell you as a property developer myself I would love to build more, faster. Everyone I know in the business would love to build more as well. Time from project to building permit here in Lisbon can stretch to two years and vast tracts of land close to infrastructure are considered unbuildable by the municipality for no good reason. Also consider that developers need the government to work with them on roads, subways, sewers and others to be able to build. In large parts of urbanised Asia where building more housing is encouraged this problem does not exist.