Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | shlant's commentslogin

really? you think it's not significantly effected by anything else? like amount of housing available?

Pretty much no.

and your evidence that property prices are almost entirely set by wages is?

Want to make a bet on what happens to rents in South Padre Island, TX (near SpaceX's Starbase) in the next 6 months?

Want to make a bet on what happens to rents in San Francisco after Anthropic's or OpenAI's rents after they IPO?

There's no reason either event should decrease supply or increase demand, correct? So prices should be stable?


so you don't have any evidence? you are just hoping there will be evidence in the future?

Separately - are you against minimum wage increases as a way to make things more affordable?


Huh? The same dynamic is evident in literally every single leap in productivity and local wages in human history.

Surely if I'm wrong, you're willing to bet on it, correct? Easy money for you? Of course you won't because you obviously know this dynamic is real lmao

https://www.nber.org/papers/w33576

Yes, minimum wage as a way to make things more affordable is mostly a bad idea. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00941...

> Increases in state minimum wages significantly reduce the incidence of renters defaulting on their lease contracts by 1.7 percentage points over three months, relative to similar renters who did not experience an increase in the minimum wage. This represents 10.6% fewer monthly defaults. However, this effect slowly decreases over time as landlords react to wage increases by increasing rents.


> The common factor: the capital class screwing over the working class.

This thought terminating cliche is getting real old. What are your solutions? and what evidence do you have that those solutions will solve the problems? Shaking your fists at "the elites" and regurgitating populist slop is not going to


It's the opposite of a thought-terminating cliche. It refers to an entire world and body of work, which include solutions.

You could start by reading Marx, who laid a lot of the groundwork.

> Shaking your fists at "the elites" and regurgitating populist slop is not going to

I like the way you trailed off halfway through your knee-jerk reaction, underscoring just how much your response is an automated result of indoctrination.


Kapital describes the problem well. His proposed solutions were awful.

> It's the opposite of a thought-terminating cliche

> You could start by reading Marx, who laid a lot of the groundwork.

Are you aware that you just responded with another? You did the "read theory" meme lol

> I like the way you trailed off halfway through your knee-jerk reaction, underscoring just how much your response is an automated result of indoctrination

so you don't have solutions or evidence is what I'm gathering? just another lefty populist spouting tired platitudes?


> Increasing wages will not fix the housing crisis, and will just drive prices higher.

This is true though?


Did you mean "isn't"? The tone of your comment sounds like you mean to disagree with the quoted point.

No I am mostly agreeing with the quoted point

Are you saying that you blame apartment prices on landlords? If you build more apartments then market rent goes down and landlords can't charge more if people can just find cheaper apartments. It's not like landlords just choose whatever price they want - it's significantly bound by the demand.

Markets aren’t magic, they are the result of people pushing back and forth on each other.

What do you mean by “blame?”

I felt like my post was generally in the less-finger-pointing direction.


I guess I'm just confused why your entire comment is about landlords and the super-wealthy when the article and message you are responding to don't mention either.

Landlords and rent are obviously related.

The line of thought that links super-wealthy people and wages is described in my first post. If you want to argue against it that’s fine, it isn’t a perfect link. But I’m not sure what to do with general confusion.


It's largely landlords causing trouble building housing where it's needed because it would limit how much they can make.

are you referring to NIMBY homeowners? because yes, people who own houses are the most likely to prevent more housing from being built (although not the only reason more housing isn't being built)

Yep, referring to NIMBYs.

Landlords don't care. You put a 5/1 beside their slum and they're ecstatic because that means the land under their slum is now worth "build a 5/1 here" money.


what proportion of the housing crisis do you think is because of what you linked, and what would be your evidence?

> RealPage widely touts the impact of its products, publicly advertising revenue increases of 2-7%.

https://oag.dc.gov/release/attorney-general-schwalb-sues-rea...

it's a component but not central afaict. of course it's localized and depends on housing market concentration, major metros see a large share of units held by relatively few entities like Greystar.


agreed


> What’s driving the cyclical nature of the price discovery for entries on a global ledger?

https://www.investopedia.com/bitcoin-halving-4843769


lets's come back to this one year from now and see if it bottoms around Oct 6


> Obviously because they care more about things than just making money.

why should someone be banned from selling their land if they want?


The concept of land ownership is somewhat flawed (how can you "own" something that existed before you and will outlast you) and there's a finite amount of land available for various purposes, so for the benefit of humanity/civilisation it can make sense to ensure that land with certain properties is kept for the purpose of growing food or for hosting particular ecosystems (e.g. rivers).

Even if it's not agricultural land, there can be strategically important pieces of land that a country will insist cannot be sold to organisations that are opposed to the values of that country. However, in those cases, it might make more sense for the state to make compulsory purchases of that land.


Welcome to zoning?


> So we have to give up our land, our water, our energy, even our planet just to usher in “the future”?

what are you referring to here? because it certainly is not data centers


The hyper-scaler rhetoric absolutely applies here. The proposed Utah data center project will use more energy than the entire state. Do we really need this? The heads of labs have been very clear that the explicit intention is to take away our jobs. We have a choice.


you think it's more profitable to not lease the spaces because "the management overhead of landlording"?

What do you think a "tax write off" is?


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

Search: