4 ms·
> To meet demand, there needed to be sufficient worker housing near shipyards, munitions plants and steel factories. There was an era where the landed gentry w
by blitzar 1y ago
> To meet demand, there needed to be sufficient worker housing near shipyards, munitions plants and steel factories.
There was an era where the landed gentry were aware of this.
There was an era where company owners were aware of this.
There was an era where governments were aware of this.
Now it's bad for return on capital and/or socialism.
- hguyer6 1y ago[flagged]
- Robotbeat 1y agoIn fact, it’s the middle and upper class, whose largest asset is their home, who keep it illegal to build more housing.
- jebarker 1y agoIs it really the case that primary residence is the largest asset of most of the upper class? My impression is that many upper class people have far more money invested in stocks and businesses than in their house.
- Robotbeat 1y agoFor the vast majority of the upper middle class, it probably is. Think of all the millionaires in California who are millionaires because they bought their houses 40 years ago and managed to control the supply of housing since then.
- disgruntledphd2 1y agoBasically, everyone bar the top 1-2% of wealthy people have most of their "wealth" in their home. It's not liquid though, and assuming you don't want to move (which most people don't) it doesn't actually benefit you as you'd need to spend the gains to get another place to live.
- jebarker 1y agoI guess my question was really one of definitions. I assumed the upper class are a subset of the top 1-2%, but maybe they're in a league of their own?
- disgruntledphd2 1y agoYeah, most of my information on this comes from Piketty's capital in the 21st century which is a very good read. Even if you dislike his politics, the dataset he and collaborators have built is very informative.
- Robotbeat 1y agoIt benefits quite a bit as you can use its equity for retirement.
- disgruntledphd2 1y agoPeople tend to avoid that though, as they don't want to lose the relationships they've built up in that area.
- gruez 1y ago>Now it's bad for return on capital and/or socialism. As fun as it might be to dunk on strawman republicans, those developments weren't exactly showered with praise from the left either. The same housing was being decried as being "company towns" or whatever.
- galleywest200 1y agoCompany towns absolutely do still exist and are absolutely still built up. Company scrip is what a lot of people take issue with, I assume, as they should.
- gruez 1y ago>Company scrip is what a lot of people take issue with, I assume, as they should. No? People also complain how it limits your career prospects (because there aren't any competitors to jump ship to), or how the company ends up with outsized political influence.