3 ms·
Small fraction of people but a huge fraction of wealth. Top 10% having 70% of the wealth, e.g. If we make the (extremely crude) assumption that the capital exp
by hiddencost 3y ago
Small fraction of people but a huge fraction of wealth. Top 10% having 70% of the wealth, e.g.
If we make the (extremely crude) assumption that the capital expended on that 2nd home could be moved elsewhere, we could have built more housing in cities instead of building and maintaining that home.
[0]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statista.com/chart/amp/19635/wealth-distribution-percentiles-in-the-us/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statista.com/chart/amp/1963...
- slothtrop 3y agoIf you consider what actually deters construction/building rates, there's no reason to believe that capital "moved elsewhere" (appropriated by some abstract entity / people) would translate to more housing. Supposing everyone had more money in their hands (all else remaining equal), that would just be reflected in the market. Houses would increase in cost. Now you're where you started. Housing supply is just too inelastic in most US cities.