3 ms·

If we get actual AGI, the price of land will go up relative to other things in the economy. This is because the other stuff will become cheaper to produce. If w

If we get actual AGI, the price of land will go up relative to other things in the economy. This is because the other stuff will become cheaper to produce. If we keep the money supply fixed, that means the price of land will rise in an absolute sense.

ethanbond 3y ago
No, it will go up because the only constraint on land price is “how much value can you produce per square foot.” AI, like the drill press or cotton gin, will increase how much value you can produce per square foot. Landlords will reap the bulk of the benefit, we will still have people in completely destitute poverty and the bulk of people living roughly paycheck to paycheck. It may also go up in relative terms, but yes it will go up in absolute terms too. Very self evident: how is it that people paid for a place to live 1,000 years ago, and now there’s been all this technological productivity gains (several billion-fold?), and yet people still spend 30%+ of their productive output on a place to live?
- ben_w 3y ago
  > how is it that people paid for a place to live 1,000 years ago, and now there’s been all this technological productivity gains (several billion-fold?), and yet people still spend 30%+ of their productive output on a place to live? Been thinking the same recently, but those specific numbers are a mix of wrong and misleading. For wrong: productivity per person has only gone up by a factor of about 50x-100x, not billions. For misleading: the homes were terrible back then. A thousand years ago (Beowulf-era Old English), a "hall" was simply a large room enclosed by a roof and walls. In Anglo-Saxon England (the latter end of which was still 1000 years ago), simple single-room buildings, with a lone hearth in the middle of the floor for both cooking and warmth, were the usual homes of a lord of the manor and his retainers, with the entire community eating and sleeping in that single room. Even just keeping those places warm in winter was a major effort. (I've seen a few of these at different stages of development at https://www.wealddown.co.uk https://www.wealddown.co.uk, which just happened to be close to where I grew up as a kid; you may recognise some of the pictures from the first season of Good Omens). The fancy castles and complex manor homes we like to think of from Ye Olde Tymes weren't normal homes for individuals any more than the White House is today, and almost all the buildings that survive were (in addition to being lucky) important enough to be built upon over the thousand years between then and now.
  - defrost 3y ago
    Proof that finding a good house is really a matter of good luck and timing. Two thousand years ago, by contrast, you could get a Roman Villa in Ye Olde England that had working toilets, running water, sub floor heating, mosaic decoration tile work, and more .. all for little more than the risk of an occasional onslaught by the woman next door and her bloody scythed chariot.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      I don't know how accurate the numbers are, but a quick Google says Roman villas cost 200k-2M denarii[0][1], while Wikipedia says of currency and pay: """ It is difficult to give even rough comparative values for money from before the 20th century, as the range of products and services available for purchase was so different. During the republic (509 BC–27 BC), a legionary earned 112.5 denarii per year (0.3 denarii per day). Under Julius Caesar, this was doubled to 225 denarii/yr, with soldiers having to pay for their own food and arms,[15] while in the reign of Augustus a Centurion received at least 3,750 denarii per year, and for the highest rank, 15,000 denarii.[16] """ Which corresponds to 13 years 4 months gross pay in the best case of the highest earner and cheapest villa, or 17,777 years for the worst case combination from those numbers. [0] https://history.answers.com/ancient-history/How_much_did_houses_cost_in_ancient_Rome https://history.answers.com/ancient-history/How_much_did_hou... [1] https://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-houses.php https://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-houses.php [15] Adkins, Lesley; Adkins, Roy A.; Adkins, Both Professional Archaeologists Roy A. (2014-05-14). Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8160-7482-2. Archived from the original on 2023-09-04. Retrieved 2022-04-14. - https://web.archive.org/web/20230904145101/https://books.google.com/books?id=zGY1Sqjwf8kC&dq=Under+Julius+Caesar%2C+legionary+pay+doubled+to+225+denarii%2Fyear%2C+with+soldiers+having+to+pay+for+their+own+food+and+arms&pg=PA79 https://web.archive.org/web/20230904145101/https://books.goo... [16] appears to be the same link as 15, don't know why it's listed separately on Wikipedia
      - defrost 3y ago
        Regardless of accuracy, thanks for putting the effort in. I suspect an upmarket villa rarely ended up in the hands of many who started out in the lowest ranks (save for a talented|lucky few grifters with good side earners going on while enlisted), connected sons from well off families who went straight to mid ranking | aide de officer roles and picked up "gifted lands" for service etc were perhaps more likely to get a swanky house on an estate. That aside, the various Time Team and British digs that uncovered villas in the UK on estates found some very fancy, almost modern, housing with spas, plunge pools, stone ducted heated, etc. The later Danes seem to have dropped the bar on quality of housing.

ethanbond 3y ago

No, it will go up because the only constraint on land price is “how much value can you produce per square foot.” AI, like the drill press or cotton gin, will increase how much value you can produce per square foot. Landlords will reap the bulk of the benefit, we will still have people in completely destitute poverty and the bulk of people living roughly paycheck to paycheck. It may also go up in relative terms, but yes it will go up in absolute terms too. Very self evident: how is it that people paid for a place to live 1,000 years ago, and now there’s been all this technological productivity gains (several billion-fold?), and yet people still spend 30%+ of their productive output on a place to live?

ben_w 3y ago
> how is it that people paid for a place to live 1,000 years ago, and now there’s been all this technological productivity gains (several billion-fold?), and yet people still spend 30%+ of their productive output on a place to live? Been thinking the same recently, but those specific numbers are a mix of wrong and misleading. For wrong: productivity per person has only gone up by a factor of about 50x-100x, not billions. For misleading: the homes were terrible back then. A thousand years ago (Beowulf-era Old English), a "hall" was simply a large room enclosed by a roof and walls. In Anglo-Saxon England (the latter end of which was still 1000 years ago), simple single-room buildings, with a lone hearth in the middle of the floor for both cooking and warmth, were the usual homes of a lord of the manor and his retainers, with the entire community eating and sleeping in that single room. Even just keeping those places warm in winter was a major effort. (I've seen a few of these at different stages of development at https://www.wealddown.co.uk https://www.wealddown.co.uk, which just happened to be close to where I grew up as a kid; you may recognise some of the pictures from the first season of Good Omens). The fancy castles and complex manor homes we like to think of from Ye Olde Tymes weren't normal homes for individuals any more than the White House is today, and almost all the buildings that survive were (in addition to being lucky) important enough to be built upon over the thousand years between then and now.
- defrost 3y ago
  Proof that finding a good house is really a matter of good luck and timing. Two thousand years ago, by contrast, you could get a Roman Villa in Ye Olde England that had working toilets, running water, sub floor heating, mosaic decoration tile work, and more .. all for little more than the risk of an occasional onslaught by the woman next door and her bloody scythed chariot.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    I don't know how accurate the numbers are, but a quick Google says Roman villas cost 200k-2M denarii[0][1], while Wikipedia says of currency and pay: """ It is difficult to give even rough comparative values for money from before the 20th century, as the range of products and services available for purchase was so different. During the republic (509 BC–27 BC), a legionary earned 112.5 denarii per year (0.3 denarii per day). Under Julius Caesar, this was doubled to 225 denarii/yr, with soldiers having to pay for their own food and arms,[15] while in the reign of Augustus a Centurion received at least 3,750 denarii per year, and for the highest rank, 15,000 denarii.[16] """ Which corresponds to 13 years 4 months gross pay in the best case of the highest earner and cheapest villa, or 17,777 years for the worst case combination from those numbers. [0] https://history.answers.com/ancient-history/How_much_did_houses_cost_in_ancient_Rome https://history.answers.com/ancient-history/How_much_did_hou... [1] https://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-houses.php https://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-houses.php [15] Adkins, Lesley; Adkins, Roy A.; Adkins, Both Professional Archaeologists Roy A. (2014-05-14). Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8160-7482-2. Archived from the original on 2023-09-04. Retrieved 2022-04-14. - https://web.archive.org/web/20230904145101/https://books.google.com/books?id=zGY1Sqjwf8kC&dq=Under+Julius+Caesar%2C+legionary+pay+doubled+to+225+denarii%2Fyear%2C+with+soldiers+having+to+pay+for+their+own+food+and+arms&pg=PA79 https://web.archive.org/web/20230904145101/https://books.goo... [16] appears to be the same link as 15, don't know why it's listed separately on Wikipedia
    - defrost 3y ago
      Regardless of accuracy, thanks for putting the effort in. I suspect an upmarket villa rarely ended up in the hands of many who started out in the lowest ranks (save for a talented|lucky few grifters with good side earners going on while enlisted), connected sons from well off families who went straight to mid ranking | aide de officer roles and picked up "gifted lands" for service etc were perhaps more likely to get a swanky house on an estate. That aside, the various Time Team and British digs that uncovered villas in the UK on estates found some very fancy, almost modern, housing with spas, plunge pools, stone ducted heated, etc. The later Danes seem to have dropped the bar on quality of housing.