People cannot actually choose the location, without giving up their work.

"You can only find work in a big metropolitan center that demands 60% of your salary in rent? Though luck..."

Let's say that you work in London... if you are 1h away from your work, you're still likely in zone 3 or 4, which is pretty expensive.

Your choices then are: a 1h30/2h commute (each way) or giving up on having a place only for yourself, and start flatsharing

Yes, we should probably treat land as much more of a public good, especially in cities. The true value of land has much more to do with the services nearby: jobs, shops, parks, emergency services. The majority of tax should be based on the land value, independent of the cost of structures built on that land.

A single-family home (whether it be a shack or a million dollar mansion) in a city center with high land value is depriving the city of a lot of potential utility and should be taxed in proportion to that.

> Yes, we should probably treat land as much more of a public good

This is the central idea of Georgism, and it extends neatly to other things which are not the product of anyone's labour, like natural resources, pollution, or even issuance of credit (currently the banks have a monopoly on the power to create money/credit).

It's all very interesting, a nice balance which retains the good features of markets but prevents or at least limits the harmful stuff: rent-seeking leeches, pure speculation divorced from fundamentals, etc.

> especially in cities

This reminds me of the “Lockean proviso”:

Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use.

That is to say, taking natural resources, labouring, and keeping the profits of that activity, is only legitimate insofar as there is still “enough of it, and as good, in left in common for others”.

> The true value of land has much more to do with the services nearby

Oh absolutely! If a road is built, shops, the neighbourhood improved, schools, businesses, jobs, and therefore the desirability of your land increases... it's you that has to pay society back for what it has given you! It's not the resale value of your land that should rise.

You might find Georgism [0] interesting. Its tenets include a (steep) land value tax that proponents believe would sort out the 'best use' of land in city centers. It's a compelling idea, but unfortunately the driving force behind American government seems to be once you have something (property, a business, etc...) nobody can do anything that adversely affects it. And Americans (over age 40) already own a LOT of property and would not take kindly to new taxes on it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism#Main_tenets

This falls in line with the old economic school of how value is created, which fell in disfavor because it didn’t sit right with the upper classes, for clear reasons.

It seems reasonable enough to me, but I don't own any land. I think I'm realistic enough to admit that if I had been born 35 years earlier and had two homes that I paid off in my 40's and had appreciated 350% since then, I would probably feel differently about it. It's a tough nut to crack, for sure.

If you're referencing the LTV, no it doesn't

No, I am referencing the Value Of Everything by M.Mazzucato.

Land values are already captured in property taxes. There's certainly places where property taxes are too low and not doing enough to encourage better usage of the land, but that's straightforward to solve (though admittedly often not that easy politically)

Partially, but property taxes discourage improving the structures on the land as the property tax also increases based on the value of the structure. This is generally the opposite of what want. Renovations, upkeep, and property improvements are good things so why penalize them?

Property tax has horrid incentives. We want people to build more on expensive land, not less. LVT forces multi unit housing on prime spots.

Until property taxes stop taking into account the value of the structure, they are not equivalent at all.

Yeah you can buy your dream house in the middle of nowhere for 200k but if you're a teacher, nurse or electrician job opportunities are likely scarce. People don't just live in cities for the opera.

You listed 3 occupations where opportunities aren’t that scarce and every town needs those people.

Every town, including big cities where the above situation would occur.

Which would imply that big cities have to pay more for those professions to compensate for the cost of living there, since they have the option to live somewhere cheaper.

And indeed, they do pay more.

[citation needed]

Are you seriously asking for a citation that shows every city needs electricians and teachers?

I'm asking for a citation that there is more demand for plumbers in small towns than in big cities, which is your assertion, unsupported by any evidence.

At what point can we acknowledge the harsh reality of “adapt, move, or perish”? If your choices and circumstances can’t add up to a positive cash flow, there is no obligation for others to sacrifice their net productive choices so others can enjoy their net unproductive choices. We don’t live in a post scarcity Utopia; why do some strive so hard to cancel this truth?

We need people to live where the jobs are. Yes you can also move jobs but that’s basically the why. Also you have a higher probability of advancing from poverty to middle class or even high income living in the Bay Area.

> why do some strive so hard to cancel this truth?

to equalize the outcomes based on group identities, based on the concept that identity is all that matters and choices, hard work and circumstances don't

There is usually more than one rental available withing commuting distance of a given job.

Name one career where rent is 60% of the income yet only exists in the largest cities.

> Name one career where rent is 60% of the income yet only exists in the largest cities.

Suggesting that there are careers that only exist in the largest cities seems like an odd thing for you to introduce into the conversation.

I think the point is that paying 60% of income in rent is unviable. You need to find a different job, a cheaper apartment, or move somewhere else. Maybe all of the above.

> paying 60% of income in rent is unviable. You need to find a different job

I think you mean you need to dedicate career-level resources to locating a job that pays a meaningful amount more than the one you have - then beating out the hundreds of other job applicants while assisting your kids thru 4 hours of evening homework, battling a chronic health condition, performing routine household upkeep and cleaning, spending 8 hours a week trying to turn health insurance into usable appointments and the several other hours of mandatory obligations.

This assumes we are considering the sort of scenarios faced by typically, struggling folks - and we aren't treating challenges as if they exist in isolation.

> a cheaper apartment,

After looking you find an absurdly small number and their condition is substandard at best. The roaches, noise and maladjusted neighbors guarantee you won't get more than 5 hours sleep most nights. Moving into one of them would cost $4k out of pocket after all of the various expenses and deposits are totaled up.

> or move somewhere else.

Folks who have enough $$$$$$.$$ to wholly fund a move to another city probably aren't struggling to the point where they need to move.

> What on earth does not equitable mean in terms of distributing losses?

That is literally explained in your quote. An inequitable distribution is one where a higher percentage of individuals in specific minority groups suffer losses compared to society as a whole.

> An inequitable distribution is one where a higher percentage of individuals in specific minority groups suffer losses compared to society as a whole.

I think this would lead to regression to the mean irrespective of the level of personal effort involved. Anything that deviates in outcome needs to be force-equalized.

That explains how it is disproportionate but not how the mechanism treats them unequally. Redlining for instance made minorities far less likely to obtain loans and thus kept otherwise qualified people from building equity.

Also distribution as unequal could be taken like taxes and a negative allocated to the unfortunate instead of the results forming the distribution.