4 ms·
>Costs will rise to the minimum that everyone is known to afford Isn't the point to have a minimum that everyone can afford? There's also an unstated (and wro
by pliny 13y ago
>Costs will rise to the minimum that everyone is known to afford
Isn't the point to have a minimum that everyone can afford?
There's also an unstated (and wrong) assumption that however much food / apartments / transportation / etc is fixed and unchanging, rather than a variable that tracks the demand for these products - so presumably if you add a lot of money you will have to produce/spend however much energy it costs to extract rocks and wheat from the ground, but everything after that is mostly free since the infrastructure for turning rocks and wheat into iphones and pizza already exists.
- return0 13y ago> Isn't the point to have a minimum that everyone can afford? The right way to do that is to expand cities and build community housing. The correct assumption is that costs will rise above the minimum everyone can afford, keeping inequalities at bay.
- ck2 13y agoAt least in the USA, "community housing" is a hellscape for most of its residents. I have no problem with giving people money so they can find a place to rent of their own from a landlord that will make profit. I just have a problem with landlords who then all raise their rents to the maximum amount they know people are going to get.
- chii 13y agobut that is exactly what they will do, because when each landlord raises the rent slightly every month, via pure experimentation/intuition, they will reach a point where someone will still rent their house/apartment at the highest price they can ask for. The only way to drive rent/cost of housing down is to produce more houses/apartments.