Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The point of building more is to reduce the price of the available stock. Your rebuttal is incoherent.


Please don't engage in bad faith.

If the supply of something you need doubles, but your buying power halves, you are not necessarily better off. This is a straightforward argument.


I'm not sure a simple citation to the law of supply and demand can count as "bad faith"? I genuinely don't understand your argument, which is why I called it incoherent.


You genuinely don't understand that <median real wages have been stagnant/decreasing for decades in USA, particularly in relation to skyrocketing housing/education/medical costs? Do you have any situational awareness of what just happened politically in NYC?

I would assume users engaging in economic debate on HN would have a knowledge of the basic economic facts and trends, and not dismiss them as "incoherent".


This level of derangement pervades the housing discourse from the left, and it's best to ignore it. At best you will argue in circles forever. At worst, you will be called a fascist bootlicker, etc.

People with normal mental health agree that having enough homes for all the people is a precondition of considering the housing problem to be "solved".


Whoah, this degree of incivility also not helping the case I want to make here!

I agree with pretty much everything you've said on this thread, which makes it all the more important to me it be expressed persuasively and not angrily. Remember: you're not just writing to the person you're responding to, but also to everybody else who reads the thread. Trust readers to spot inane arguments, if you perceive them to be coming up!




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: