4 ms·

Thanks for making exactly the point OP was trying to convey. > You can always find something to do with property to generate income. Where do you think that i

Thanks for making exactly the point OP was trying to convey. > You can always find something to do with property to generate income. Where do you think that income is coming from? Especially when we are talking about a limited resource like housing, the dollar of your “extra income” is a dollar that a young family could have saved for their future.

boringg 2y ago
Now here's the next step in your small thought experiment. Expand income coming from for everything. Whatever you do now at the company (assuming you are working) where does that money come from? Work through the logic on income. People love to demonize small property owners who have a rental property and take a moralistic campaign but don't look at how their own lives are funded.
- mycologos 2y ago
  And here's yet another step: most other markets aren't as resource-constrained as housing is. If the Yankees win the world series and more people want Yankees caps, manufacturers can just make more. Demand goes up, supply goes up, everybody's happy. Housing, at least in the USA, often doesn't work like this. The population grows and more people want to live in place X and the current NIMBY occupants of place X go to the government to make sure more housing can't appear in place X. The current occupants make some arguments about neighborhood character that are really about preserving their own lives and investments and another family goes to a worse district or a worse house or no house at all. Housing is a unique investment category, pretending it's like everything else is disingenuous.
  - boringg 2y ago
    I agree that housing is a complicated market with a lot of varying factors. It never really fits a simple model that people like to package it in. Each market is regional with some national/international overlays and its tied to the economic power of that market. It is impacted by policies both economic, financial and political.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  The origin of all wealth is labour, there are no exceptions. Somebody needs to work to create the resources and do the services that others purchase. There are no exceptions and this is the most fundamental fact of economics. You are arguing as if workers receive their wages as a gift or some kind of welfare. They receive their wages in exchange for their labour. If you think that wealth actually comes from the monetary supply, then you'll have to go down the Zimbabwe route and print trillion dollar bills.
  - boringg 2y ago
    I didn't bring in economic money supply to the conversation so your comment is unrelated to mine. You created a strawman. I didn't argue "workers receive their wages as a gift or some kind of welfare." And I want to just highlight that "all wealth is labour" is actually not a universally held truth nor a fundamental fact of economics but is the basis for one theory of economics: the Labor theory of value (Smith and Marx). Build your argument from a solid foundation and not something that is easily picked at apart by inaccuracies if you want to yield influence.
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      Well, if you go down the route of "where the money is coming from" you arrive at the central bank that creates that money out of thin air. That's why it's fundamental to understand that wealth can only be created by labour. It can then be distributed according to any system imaginable, but it is always created by labour. Wealth as in real physical goods and services, not as in the number in your account. I'm not saying that all labour creates wealth. That's something else and I don't believe it. Trench warfare is the most laborious thing imaginable and it certainly creates no wealth. > I didn't argue "workers receive their wages as a gift or some kind of welfare." You absolutely did not, but I sensed that angle. The difference is that a worker will never receive any wages in exchange of not doing anything, while a landlord will always receive his wages for not doing anything. "How their own lives are funded" are through their labour when it comes to the worker and through the worker's labour when it comes to the landlord.

boringg 2y ago

Now here's the next step in your small thought experiment. Expand income coming from for everything. Whatever you do now at the company (assuming you are working) where does that money come from? Work through the logic on income. People love to demonize small property owners who have a rental property and take a moralistic campaign but don't look at how their own lives are funded.

mycologos 2y ago
And here's yet another step: most other markets aren't as resource-constrained as housing is. If the Yankees win the world series and more people want Yankees caps, manufacturers can just make more. Demand goes up, supply goes up, everybody's happy. Housing, at least in the USA, often doesn't work like this. The population grows and more people want to live in place X and the current NIMBY occupants of place X go to the government to make sure more housing can't appear in place X. The current occupants make some arguments about neighborhood character that are really about preserving their own lives and investments and another family goes to a worse district or a worse house or no house at all. Housing is a unique investment category, pretending it's like everything else is disingenuous.
- boringg 2y ago
  I agree that housing is a complicated market with a lot of varying factors. It never really fits a simple model that people like to package it in. Each market is regional with some national/international overlays and its tied to the economic power of that market. It is impacted by policies both economic, financial and political.
carlosjobim 2y ago
The origin of all wealth is labour, there are no exceptions. Somebody needs to work to create the resources and do the services that others purchase. There are no exceptions and this is the most fundamental fact of economics. You are arguing as if workers receive their wages as a gift or some kind of welfare. They receive their wages in exchange for their labour. If you think that wealth actually comes from the monetary supply, then you'll have to go down the Zimbabwe route and print trillion dollar bills.
- boringg 2y ago
  I didn't bring in economic money supply to the conversation so your comment is unrelated to mine. You created a strawman. I didn't argue "workers receive their wages as a gift or some kind of welfare." And I want to just highlight that "all wealth is labour" is actually not a universally held truth nor a fundamental fact of economics but is the basis for one theory of economics: the Labor theory of value (Smith and Marx). Build your argument from a solid foundation and not something that is easily picked at apart by inaccuracies if you want to yield influence.
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    Well, if you go down the route of "where the money is coming from" you arrive at the central bank that creates that money out of thin air. That's why it's fundamental to understand that wealth can only be created by labour. It can then be distributed according to any system imaginable, but it is always created by labour. Wealth as in real physical goods and services, not as in the number in your account. I'm not saying that all labour creates wealth. That's something else and I don't believe it. Trench warfare is the most laborious thing imaginable and it certainly creates no wealth. > I didn't argue "workers receive their wages as a gift or some kind of welfare." You absolutely did not, but I sensed that angle. The difference is that a worker will never receive any wages in exchange of not doing anything, while a landlord will always receive his wages for not doing anything. "How their own lives are funded" are through their labour when it comes to the worker and through the worker's labour when it comes to the landlord.