Re:San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, b...
by arcticbull on Friday November 06, 2020 @01:37AM
(#25005495)
> they aren't - investment is supposed to increase the efficiency of production, thus increasing the availability of said product. The issue here is that land is scarce, and can be made more scarce by various laws. Building/construction costs have decreased somewhat, but the major cost is the land, and lack of density leads to lower supply.
You may have misunderstood, I'm suggesting it's not possible for something to remain perpetually affordable and be a good investment. A good investment becomes less affordable over time. A bad investment does the opposite.
For instance, nobody complains about how unaffordable AAPL shares are do they? That wouldn't make a lick of sense because that's the desired outcome. That's why you invest.
If you want housing to be affordable you don't invest, you buy. Like a car.
surprise, surprise, if you don't vote and assert your civic duty and rights, you don't get included in the process to decide the direction of society.
> view property as an investment while also wanting it to be affordable. These are mutually exclusive.
they aren't - investment is supposed to increase the efficiency of production, thus increasing the availability of said product. The issue here is that land is scarce, and can be made more scarce by various laws. Building/construction costs have decreased somewhat, but the major cost is the land, and lack of density leads to lower supply.
> Anything other than permitting tons of new building is at best a band-aid over a hole in the dam.
yes, this is exactly it. However the people _want_ low density, but affordable! Both cannot be true. And thus, here there is conflict.