3 ms·
> distributing land ownership is one way to distribute wealth Right, so you want to know how many people own homes, not how many homes are "occupied" by an own
by ajross 3mo ago
> distributing land ownership is one way to distribute wealth
Right, so you want to know how many people own homes, not how many homes are "occupied" by an owner[1], which is at best a proxy, right? Sounds like you're agreeing with me but just getting the sides of the argument mixed up?
[1] As the article points out, a single person can in fact "occupy" more than one home!
- saghm 3mo agoIt's also a pretty dubious metric for wealth equality anyhow. If 100% of people owned their own home, then some fraction owning additional ones that no one lived in wouldn't really matter; the value of them would surely not be as high in a world where there was no renting or homelessness, and even if it was, I'd still take that over the alternative where every home is occupied by an owner but there's still not enough to go around for everyone.
- estearum 3mo agoThat is correct, I am defending neither the metric nor the overall policy goal. I'm just articulating why it is/was one.