None of the stuff I've learned over past 20 years was handed over to me in this easy fashion.
Yeah, kids these days just include stdio.h and start printing stuff, no understanding of register allocation or hardware addressing modes. 20 years from now nobody will know how to write an operating system.
Also some layer of arrogance
As compared to "if you claim AI is useful for you, you're either delusional or a shill"? The difference is that the pro-AI side can accept that any specific case it may not work well, while detractors have to make the increasingly untenable argument that it's never useful.
This would make the situation slightly better for people who want to buy houses.
To the extent that it has the effect of transferring some properties from rentals to sales, it's only better for the renter who wants to buy and who just barely wasn't able to. It's worse for renters who either don't want to buy or who still can't afford it, because rents will increase due to reduced supply.
It's not the opposite of a problem, it's orthogonal.
In this particular instance, what's happening is that it's crowding out and destroying diversity in the home builder market.
The model is built to rent out, and it's taking capacity out of the build-to-sell market. It's putting regional and smaller homebuilders that have traditionally provided most of the housing out of business because of their greater access to national capital.
We are seeing this everywhere in the economy. If you have access to Wall Street capital, you can put basically everybody outside of business and then set the price. That's exactly what's happening.
It is wealth inequality. A vanishingly tiny number of people own almost all the wealth in the system
To the extent that this is true, it's not why housing is unaffordable. Even if Larry Ellison buys a dozen mansions and keeps them empty most of the time, that's not going to noticeably affect the market for normal people. Houses are expensive because they're scarce; you're far more likely to be outbid by the guy who makes $10k more than you than by an evil billionaire.
You're inspecting entirely the wrong end of this spectrum. The problem isn't that the average person is being outbid by a trillionare on their two bedroom. It's that an corpuscular capital class has so much money that all assets are being wildly inflated, housing included, while simultaneously depriving more than half of the population of anything close to the capital to buy even the cheapest house. There is no 'being outbid' for the average American who makes a hair over 45k. It's a laughable impossibility to even be in the game. The system is broken and the average user of this site is way too comfortable to recognize it but it's a daily reality for almost everyone else, particularly the young generation.
This is obviously correct. Somehow people just can't accept the pigeonhole principle that if X people are trying to buy Y houses and X>>Y, a lot of them are going to be disappointed regardless of what laws you pass.
It's obviously incorrect. If X people are trying to buy Y houses, and 1 of them can always buy Y/2 houses, then you'll need to build a hell of a lot more than Y houses if Y is only equal to X. Right now in most places, Y < X, and a certain percentage of people can still buy many more than 1, so it seems like that's a real problem shouldn't continue during times of scarcity.
When N_for_sale > N_individuals_and_couples_buying, it is still possible for N_dissatisfied to be > 0 for the reason you give. But N_dissatisfied must be > 0 whenever N_for_sale < N_individuals_and_couples_buying, even if everyone is limited to having at most one.
Agreed, but I wasn't disagreeing with their whole sentiment, just their assertion that the GP was obviously correct, namely that it doesn't matter how many homes people can buy.
Less supply couldn't possibly be helpful for those disappointed, but also there's less supply than there would be if access to it as a commodity was limited, supposing that all other artificial restrictions and funding models could rely on less concentrated investments, which I think they could
I've never understood this argument. Do you ever work with other humans? They are very much not deterministic, yet they can often produce useful code that helps you achieve more than you could by yourself.
The only blame you can lay on EU is not enough enforcement.
That's a very big "only". Malicious compliance (and non-compliance) was an easily predictable consequence of the law, they've completely failed at responding to it, and the web is now worse as a result.
"The blame lies not with the companies blatantly flaunting the law and engaging in complicious compliance. The blame is on the law enforcement".
Note how you, too, absolve the companies of any responsibility because it was apparently "an obvious and expected response" to a law which only asks to not track without consent.
We know, or at least we should know, that a large portion of it is housing costs, and a large portion of the solution is to stop making it illegal to build housing.
> Another way to square ‘vibes’ with Scott’s optimism is that life looks great if you’ve already “made it”: your pricey HCOL home is surging, and your high-paying white-collar job is funding your large nest egg. Your monthly student loan payments are tiny relative to your large monthly income. But getting to that point requires clearing many hurdles and most will never get there.
We know what the problems are, we are simply unwilling to put meaningful effort and resources into rectifying them.
Yeah, kids these days just include stdio.h and start printing stuff, no understanding of register allocation or hardware addressing modes. 20 years from now nobody will know how to write an operating system.
Also some layer of arrogance
As compared to "if you claim AI is useful for you, you're either delusional or a shill"? The difference is that the pro-AI side can accept that any specific case it may not work well, while detractors have to make the increasingly untenable argument that it's never useful.
reply