5 ms·
If there was already a building there and nobody was using it, they could have it. Typically it didn't cost much to put up a basic house.
by nerdbert 3y ago
If there was already a building there and nobody was using it, they could have it. Typically it didn't cost much to put up a basic house.
- gruez 3y agoYou don't see anything wrong with comparing: 1. serfs paying 30% (or whatever) of their income and getting a parcel of land and a mud hut that "didn't cost much to put up" 2. someone today paying 30% and getting an apartment unit that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to build and comes with electricity, plumbing and air conditioning and concluding that the plight of the latter is basically the plight of the former?
- rcarr 3y agoYes, because the modern day worker would be able to afford the former without paying 30% of his income if there were laws that strongly discouraged using property as an investment vehicle e.g exponential property owner tax, 0% for first property owned, 1% of land value for second, 2% for third, 4% for fourth, 8% for fifth etc. The issue is that those with capital are basically using their capital to bully the rest of the population, who cannot continue to exist without shelter, into paying high prices, that wouldn't exist if such measures were taken to discourage property hoarding. Here's another way of looking at it. Imagine that medieval society had the same construction technology we have today. Everyone lives in modern homes, with solar panels providing electricity and their own septic tanks for waste, and their own water collection systems. Other than that, the social structure is the same. Is there much difference between that and what we have today? Or is one set of people in society essentially freeloading of the other?