3 ms·

With supply and demand staying equal, higher income would just result in higher cost.

by ako 4y ago

lifeisstillgood 4y ago
If everyone had 70k per year housing costs would be less than 70k pa. Or another way to phrase your point (uncharitably) would be "if we gave poor people more money, then 'the market' would take it away again". Which either is giving malevolence to 'the market' for poor people specifically (while it obviously works well for the rich, or means that the market structure only rewards those above certain (relative) income My point is that redistribution of wealth obviously works at the extreme, so it's a market structure issue for points between that and current situation. (the 70k was something I worked out few years back by dividing the global GDP by global population. surprised me)
- AnnikaL 4y ago
  The math seems a bit off on the 70k USD per person redistribution; GDP per capita in rich countries is around $70,000, but worldwide it's much lower. Wikipedia: > The per capita PPP GWP in 2017 was approximately 17,500 international dollars according to the World Factbook. According to the World Bank, the 2020 GWP in current dollars was approximately $84.705 trillion. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product)
  - lifeisstillgood 4y ago
    My bad. I was thinking of total wealth - not sure where I got the figure back then (took longer than this) but wikipedia has total global wealth at 450 Trillion dollars or 57,000 per person (8bn). I suspect with PPP or different assumptions 70k is quite feasible. I think my main argument is stronger - if everyone had 70,000 of wealth then houses would be less than 70k. I am reminded of watching a movie with my kids - "Home" about a group of bumbling aliens who take over earth and move all the humans to Australia. (One girl escapes with a friendly alien and has adventures and learns the meaning of ... etc). It's fun for younger kids. Anyway, the point is that super advanced (but bumbling and ultimately nice) aliens simply transport every human to Australia and plonk them all down in front of instantly created suburban houses. Some people (elites?) will lose out - their houses will be less nice than pre-invasion, but for the vast majority of people it's a major upgrade - a life changing improvement. And roughly that's what the "if everyone had 70,000" idea is about. As the plot was not challenging especially on the third rewatch, I would try to imagine what happens next in Australia. Do people live pleasent suburban lives and human happiness is complete, or does it devolve into Haiti-like chaos ? Sadly my money is on Haiti as what keeps us from not killing or eating our neighbours is a sort of common story about how safe we are, how police and other services are there for us etc My only upside is that the aliens might do a random sorting of humans. If you were say in Fallujah or Haiti or Yemen and you and your neighbours and society all got moved to the same neighbourhood in Australia, then you take the same social structures, the same pressures of expectation and social performance, the same grudges. Disaster. But randomly spread (families) out and it seems different - the idea you will hold onto political grudges against a Norweigian neighbour and a Brazilian opposite seems odd - especially now you have to overcome the shock of the chnage and frankly the much nicer living standards you now have. Also lots of ice cream was available which might have helped

With supply and demand staying equal, higher income would just result in higher cost.

by ako 4y ago

With supply and demand staying equal, higher income would just result in higher cost.

If everyone had 70k per year housing costs would be less than 70k pa. Or another way to phrase your point (uncharitably) would be "if we gave poor people more money, then 'the market' would take it away again". Which either is giving malevolence to 'the market' for poor people specifically (while it obviously works well for the rich, or means that the market structure only rewards those above certain (relative) income My point is that redistribution of wealth obviously works at the extreme, so it's a market structure issue for points between that and current situation. (the 70k was something I worked out few years back by dividing the global GDP by global population. surprised me)

AnnikaL 4y ago
The math seems a bit off on the 70k USD per person redistribution; GDP per capita in rich countries is around $70,000, but worldwide it's much lower. Wikipedia: > The per capita PPP GWP in 2017 was approximately 17,500 international dollars according to the World Factbook. According to the World Bank, the 2020 GWP in current dollars was approximately $84.705 trillion. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product)
- lifeisstillgood 4y ago
  My bad. I was thinking of total wealth - not sure where I got the figure back then (took longer than this) but wikipedia has total global wealth at 450 Trillion dollars or 57,000 per person (8bn). I suspect with PPP or different assumptions 70k is quite feasible. I think my main argument is stronger - if everyone had 70,000 of wealth then houses would be less than 70k. I am reminded of watching a movie with my kids - "Home" about a group of bumbling aliens who take over earth and move all the humans to Australia. (One girl escapes with a friendly alien and has adventures and learns the meaning of ... etc). It's fun for younger kids. Anyway, the point is that super advanced (but bumbling and ultimately nice) aliens simply transport every human to Australia and plonk them all down in front of instantly created suburban houses. Some people (elites?) will lose out - their houses will be less nice than pre-invasion, but for the vast majority of people it's a major upgrade - a life changing improvement. And roughly that's what the "if everyone had 70,000" idea is about. As the plot was not challenging especially on the third rewatch, I would try to imagine what happens next in Australia. Do people live pleasent suburban lives and human happiness is complete, or does it devolve into Haiti-like chaos ? Sadly my money is on Haiti as what keeps us from not killing or eating our neighbours is a sort of common story about how safe we are, how police and other services are there for us etc My only upside is that the aliens might do a random sorting of humans. If you were say in Fallujah or Haiti or Yemen and you and your neighbours and society all got moved to the same neighbourhood in Australia, then you take the same social structures, the same pressures of expectation and social performance, the same grudges. Disaster. But randomly spread (families) out and it seems different - the idea you will hold onto political grudges against a Norweigian neighbour and a Brazilian opposite seems odd - especially now you have to overcome the shock of the chnage and frankly the much nicer living standards you now have. Also lots of ice cream was available which might have helped