4 ms·

> But I would argue the world is not zero-sum. Modern life for middle class or poor class people is a lot better than the vast majority of history Zero sum is

> But I would argue the world is not zero-sum. Modern life for middle class or poor class people is a lot better than the vast majority of history Zero sum is not a binary. For things where we are able to increase output using technological progress to the point where supply sufficiently meets demand, sure, it doesn't feel zero sum. Nobody is arguing that we need to fix that -- the challenge is actually preserving the situation in these cases (it's bad to kill the reward signals that make the economic engine go). For things where we cannot rapidly increase output, things that have unlimited demand but very limited supply, the rich are likely to monopolize. In those cases, it is zero sum. Public spaces (think of the beach access controversies with people like Vinod Khosla), farmland, housing, fresh water, college admissions. Housing and land in particular are really tough. Strategies like wealth redistribution (but _also_ other related policies!!) are needed to mitigate the latter. Wealth centralization is also anathema to democracy -- just ask proof of stake folks. When the wealthy get to make all the laws, you won't want to live in that society.

zozbot234 3y ago
> Housing and land in particular are really tough. Housing and land are not "tough". There's plenty of dirt cheap land even in highly developed countries; it just happens to be outside the most popular locations. But if we want housing to become both cheap and livable we must invest in those "unpopular" places, even as we also try to build more housing in the more high-demand locations. There's just no avoiding that.
- jay_kyburz 3y ago
  I wonder if that's really true, I'm going to do some web searches latter because I think its interesting, but I doubt a young person who has an online only tech job, and can therefore live anywhere, could even afford an undeveloped parcel of land in the middle of nowhere.
  - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
    Yes, they could - much of the land in the US sells for hundreds of dollars per acre.
    - kajecounterhack 3y ago
      I think the point is that humans need a lot of infrastructure to live. Reliable water/sewage, internet connectivity, schools / day cares if you have kids, access to healthy food (google "food deserts"), etc.
      - jay_kyburz 3y ago
        Ahh, no, I think there is an interesting question here, can a young person today go out west and build all that stuff from nothing. (Like people did a few hundred years ago) Can you buy a small parcel of land, dig a well for water and a hole under the outhouse, plant veggies, have some chickens, pigs, perhaps a goat. Can you do it in range of a cell tower for internet, do you need some satellite solution. How much solar and how big a battery do you really _need_. How would today's tech change the life of the settlers? I did some web searches for here in Australia, and I didn't parcels of land much less than 10k, and they looked liked barren desert to me. More like 100k if you want nice looking forest in the middle of nowhere.
        kajecounterhack 3y ago
        > can a young person today go out west and build all that stuff from nothing. (Like people did a few hundred years ago) Maybe a specific young person with a lot of relevant experience and strong desire for this sort of life could, but it would be pretty hard and the initial costs are nothing to sniff at. Water is especially prohibitive. The American West is going through massive aridification and the water table is overdepleted in many places. Gotta watch out for water rights too. Electricity and internet are doable if you can afford the right systems. Food is really hard unless you're willing to buy everything at dollar general. Modern farming is highly reliant on artificial sources of nitrogen. And it's just not a good use of your time if you have a tech job. Social needs of humans cannot be overlooked. People even a couple hundred years ago would move whole communities. They had access to abundant natural resources and divided responsibilities differently. Maybe you're just interested in van life but + farming? It's expensive and probably a bad investment overall, but makes more sense than owning random cheap but poorly situated land outright.
- kajecounterhack 3y ago
  My point stands. Getting investment into those places is tough. Towns and cities don't construct themselves. Construction is especially sensitive to monetary policy. Land by itself is not useful -- if you can't make a living what's the point of having land? Land is most useful when it's in proximity to opportunity, and opportunity-adjacent land is scarce and only getting scarcer.

zozbot234 3y ago

> Housing and land in particular are really tough. Housing and land are not "tough". There's plenty of dirt cheap land even in highly developed countries; it just happens to be outside the most popular locations. But if we want housing to become both cheap and livable we must invest in those "unpopular" places, even as we also try to build more housing in the more high-demand locations. There's just no avoiding that.

jay_kyburz 3y ago
I wonder if that's really true, I'm going to do some web searches latter because I think its interesting, but I doubt a young person who has an online only tech job, and can therefore live anywhere, could even afford an undeveloped parcel of land in the middle of nowhere.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  Yes, they could - much of the land in the US sells for hundreds of dollars per acre.
  - kajecounterhack 3y ago
    I think the point is that humans need a lot of infrastructure to live. Reliable water/sewage, internet connectivity, schools / day cares if you have kids, access to healthy food (google "food deserts"), etc.
    - jay_kyburz 3y ago
      Ahh, no, I think there is an interesting question here, can a young person today go out west and build all that stuff from nothing. (Like people did a few hundred years ago) Can you buy a small parcel of land, dig a well for water and a hole under the outhouse, plant veggies, have some chickens, pigs, perhaps a goat. Can you do it in range of a cell tower for internet, do you need some satellite solution. How much solar and how big a battery do you really _need_. How would today's tech change the life of the settlers? I did some web searches for here in Australia, and I didn't parcels of land much less than 10k, and they looked liked barren desert to me. More like 100k if you want nice looking forest in the middle of nowhere.
      - kajecounterhack 3y ago
        > can a young person today go out west and build all that stuff from nothing. (Like people did a few hundred years ago) Maybe a specific young person with a lot of relevant experience and strong desire for this sort of life could, but it would be pretty hard and the initial costs are nothing to sniff at. Water is especially prohibitive. The American West is going through massive aridification and the water table is overdepleted in many places. Gotta watch out for water rights too. Electricity and internet are doable if you can afford the right systems. Food is really hard unless you're willing to buy everything at dollar general. Modern farming is highly reliant on artificial sources of nitrogen. And it's just not a good use of your time if you have a tech job. Social needs of humans cannot be overlooked. People even a couple hundred years ago would move whole communities. They had access to abundant natural resources and divided responsibilities differently. Maybe you're just interested in van life but + farming? It's expensive and probably a bad investment overall, but makes more sense than owning random cheap but poorly situated land outright.
kajecounterhack 3y ago
My point stands. Getting investment into those places is tough. Towns and cities don't construct themselves. Construction is especially sensitive to monetary policy. Land by itself is not useful -- if you can't make a living what's the point of having land? Land is most useful when it's in proximity to opportunity, and opportunity-adjacent land is scarce and only getting scarcer.