3 ms·

1. No reason why contractors have to be the only laborers. You could pay regular people to build them, as was done in the Depression. 2. This would potentially

1. No reason why contractors have to be the only laborers. You could pay regular people to build them, as was done in the Depression. 2. This would potentially lead to inflation in the construction market, not the housing market as a whole. 3. Even then, the increased amount of work would likely increase the labor pool. 4. And any of these effects would probably be temporary, as it's not like the housing units would need to be reconstructed yearly. But honestly, this whole debate is entirely uninteresting to me and was only an offhand comment in my original comment. Shame that no one seems interested in the artistic part, only the drab economic one.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> You could pay regular people to build them You’re still bidding up massive amounts of labour and materials suitable for construction. > would potentially lead to inflation in the construction market, not the housing market as a whole Yes. > any of these effects would probably be temporary Temporary inflation is still inflation. It will be unpopular if not acknowledged. > Shame that no one seems interested in the artistic part, only the drab economic one So basically a sham argument?