> it's expensive because a _LOT_ of people want to live there.
I can't figure out how to make the math make sense even if I were to build a house in the middle of nowhere. Time and materials is the real killer.
Some day, when AI eliminates software development as a career, maybe you will be able to hire those people to build you houses for next to nothing, but right now I don't think it matters where or how many you build. The only way the average Joe is going to be able to afford one — at least until population decline fixes the problem naturally — is for someone else to take a huge loss on construction. And, well, who is going to line up to do that?
"Built in 1954" doesn't sound like new construction. Of course you can buy used houses at a fraction of the cost. That's nothing new. Maybe you missed it, but the discussion here about building new to make homes more affordable.
It is not like I'm homeless. I would be the one upgrading. Except I don't see how the numbers make sense.
You're right: The cost of new construction anchors the used market. Used housing is so expensive because new housing is even more expensive. If new houses were cheaper I, like many others, would have already have built one and my current home would be up for grabs at a lower price than I'd expect in the current reality. However, that's repeating what was already said.
If one was freely able to move about the entire world you may have a point. Especially given current events, I am not sure the country in which that house is located would take kindly to many of us moving there. In a more practical reality you're not going to find anything for anywhere close to that price even in the middle of nowhere, never mind somewhere where everyone wants to live. That is where earlier comments suggest building more housing would help.
Except it is not clear who can afford new construction either. It is even more expensive.
> That is where earlier comments suggest building more housing would help.
I explained earlier why I don't think it would. The places with a housing "shortages" are the places where everyone wants to live. Those places would have to build an impossible number of houses to affect demand.
You have people saying they can't afford housing and then, when you show them they can, they say, "not there..."
> Those places would have to build an impossible number of houses to affect demand.
If houses were able to be built freely then everyone would be able to build a house... Except, if you can't afford a used house, you most definitely cannot afford a new one. As before, time and materials are the real killer. The used housing market is merely a reflection of the cost to build new. Same reason used cars have risen so high in price in recent years: Because new cars have even higher prices.
> You have people saying they can't afford housing and then, when you show them they can, they say, "not there..."
The trouble is that you confuse affordability with sticker price. I technically could live in that house for six months before I have to return back to my home country, but I could not legally work during that time. It is far more affordable to pay significantly higher prices in my country for a house and work all year long. The price of that house is low, but the cost is very high.
The places everyone wants to live are the places everyone wants to live because they are the most affordable places to live. If it were cheaper to move somewhere else, the people would have moved there already. Humans love to chase a good deal and carve out an advantage for themselves. However, a low price doesn't mean cheaper.
Cartels are not at odds with libertarianism. In fact, freedom of association is the fundamental underpinning of libertarianism. Unions are the libertarian solution to labour woes. Other groups normally favour regulation instead.
Libertarians don't have a theoretical problem with cartels because if a cartel tries to push for above-market prices, someone else will swoop in and start doing it for less, taking all the cartel customers with them.
> I also worry that my desire to become a manager is in direct conflict with my desire to contribute to labor organization.
Nah. You can definitely do both. A labor organization of any meaningful size needs management. A labor union is effectively a business in its own right, after all. Some unions even opt to register as corporations, and some unions even see unions rise up to protect workers from the larger union!
And certainly a tech union, to be effective, would have to be humongous given how easy it is to move the work around.
Nah. Rich people don't exist, or at least cannot last long, without a moat, which is an idea from the left. In fact, taken to the extreme, the left outlaws property ownership so that a few rich people gain control of everything.
> I’ve never seen a product/project manager questioning themselves: does this feature add any value? Should we remove it?
To be fair, it is a hard question to contend with. It is easier to keep users who don't know what they're missing happier than users who lost something they now know they want. Even fixing bugs can sometimes upset users who have come to depend on the bug as a feature.
> In agile methodologies we measure the output of the developers.
No we don't. "Individuals and interactions over processes and tools". You are bound to notice a developer with poor output as you interact with them, but explicitly measure them you will not. Remember, agile is all about removing managers from the picture. Without managers, who is even going to do the measuring?
There are quite a few pre-agile methodologies out there that try to prepare a development team to operate without managers. It is possible you will find measurement in there, measuring to ensure that the people can handle working without mangers? Even agile itself recognizes in the 12 principles that it requires a team of special people to be able to handle agile.
I didn’t mean the Agile Manifesto prescribes individual productivity measurement. I meant what often happens in “agile in the wild”: we end up tracking throughput proxies (story points completed, velocity, number of tickets closed, burndown charts) and treating that as success, while the harder question (“did this deliver user/business value?”) is weakly measured or ignored.
Also, agile isn’t really “removing managers from the picture” so much as shifting management from command-and-control to enabling constraints, coaching, and removing impediments. Even in Scrum, you still have roles with accountability, and teams still need some form of prioritization and product decision-making (otherwise you just get activity without direction).
So yeah: agile ideals don’t say “measure dev output.” But many implementations incentivize output/throughput, and that’s the misconception I was pointing at.
> we end up tracking throughput proxies (story points completed, velocity, number of tickets closed, burndown charts) and treating that as success
That sounds more like scrum or something in that wheelhouse, which isn't agile, but what I earlier called pre-agile. They are associated with agile as they are intended to be used as a temporary transitionary tool. One day up and telling your developers "Good news, developers. We fired all the managers. Go nuts!" obviously would be a recipe for disaster. An organization wanting to adopt agile needs to slowly work into it and prove that the people involved can handle it. Not everyone can.
> Also, agile isn’t really “removing managers from the picture” so much as shifting management from command-and-control to enabling constraints, coaching, and removing impediments.
That's the pre-agile step. You don't get rid of managers immediately, you put them to work stepping in when necessary and helping developers learn how to manage without a guiding hand. "Business people" remain involved in agile. Perhaps you were thinking of that instead? Under agile they aren't managers, though, they are partners who work together with the developers.
> Our banks have endless painful papercuts yet most of us don't change banks just because of one pain.
Only because they're all painful. If there was a bank that was recognized as perfect, people would switch in short order. Switching to another bank that is also painful is not worth the effort.
> I use an iPhone because I judge it to be more secure yet I'm constantly fighting the same bugs and misfeatures that seem to never get fixed/improved.
Only because nobody else sells an iPhone. People would start switching over to other, less buggy iPhone on the market if there was such a thing.
> You are implying efficient market theory, which is bunk.
The efficient market theory says that, in an active market, prices rapidly reflect all publicly available information. How does that apply here, bunk or not?
skeptic - someone inclined to question or doubt what they sense magnetically.
reply