3 ms·

Any world that includes a scarcity of a necessity will have people trying to outcompete their peers for said necessities. Right now that's housing, for the most

Any world that includes a scarcity of a necessity will have people trying to outcompete their peers for said necessities. Right now that's housing, for the most part, and sometimes health care. Sure you could ask for a 4 day week, but someone else will work 5 so they can outbid you on a house.

godelski 3y ago
You've definitely simplified the problem too much. This only works under the assumption that everyone is making the same amount of money for the same amount of time and are interested in the same housing. In the extreme case, clearly any software engineer could take a 20% pay cut and still be able to out bid someone who works in fast food but got a 20% raise by working a 6th day. Human preference is also wildly variable. I don't buy the constant "I'd rather not live in a city" argument that we hear because people could in fact do that, but there are plenty of preferences that people do make and it isn't like housing in fungible. The simple model won't get us very far in estimating the actual effects and likely will actually make us make the wrong conclusions. Plus, there are solutions to many of the housing problems (which also is non-singular).
- CalRobert 3y ago
  Well, I suppose my key point is that if 3 people are chasing 2 homes, any surplus cash is likely to be poured in to housing.
  - godelski 3y ago
    Yeah, I get that. But I think the system is much more complex than that and it is necessary to have a better model to make successful predictions. I certainly don't think what you're saying is a bad place to start, but rather that we need to acknowledge the limitations and that it is a start.
    - piuantiderp 3y ago
      If it were possible, economists would have a better reputation. That being said, the idea is not flawed, until there is a plenty of necessities, markets and the individuals in them, will continue to compete for them.

godelski 3y ago

You've definitely simplified the problem too much. This only works under the assumption that everyone is making the same amount of money for the same amount of time and are interested in the same housing. In the extreme case, clearly any software engineer could take a 20% pay cut and still be able to out bid someone who works in fast food but got a 20% raise by working a 6th day. Human preference is also wildly variable. I don't buy the constant "I'd rather not live in a city" argument that we hear because people could in fact do that, but there are plenty of preferences that people do make and it isn't like housing in fungible. The simple model won't get us very far in estimating the actual effects and likely will actually make us make the wrong conclusions. Plus, there are solutions to many of the housing problems (which also is non-singular).

CalRobert 3y ago
Well, I suppose my key point is that if 3 people are chasing 2 homes, any surplus cash is likely to be poured in to housing.
- godelski 3y ago
  Yeah, I get that. But I think the system is much more complex than that and it is necessary to have a better model to make successful predictions. I certainly don't think what you're saying is a bad place to start, but rather that we need to acknowledge the limitations and that it is a start.
  - piuantiderp 3y ago
    If it were possible, economists would have a better reputation. That being said, the idea is not flawed, until there is a plenty of necessities, markets and the individuals in them, will continue to compete for them.