Comment by whatever1
20 hours ago
Even with 100k / month basic income, the landlords would simply raise their rents to 200k / month. Because why would they give up their generational wealth?
20 hours ago
Even with 100k / month basic income, the landlords would simply raise their rents to 200k / month. Because why would they give up their generational wealth?
In this model, does the current existence of people in poverty basically serve as a ballast that gives everyone else's "above poverty" money a higher, stable value?
Would it ever be possible to not have poverty without making everyone's money worthless?
You can always increase the labor by making more people and making more of them participate in the market. That is good because you can then start flattening the differences in income by taxation, so everyone gets richer (can afford more services) and you can also control the economic disparities.
The assets story is a different beast. They tend to be finite and the worse the economic disparities curve is the higher their price becomes.
How many condos are there andjacent to upper east side of Central Park? Let’s say 100. That number is fixed, and 1 million people on this planet want one. If they all had the same salary the rental price of the condos would be close their (same) monthly salary. Now because the economic disparity is huge there is a super low number of people that have super high income, but they are still more than 100. So these lets say 1,000 /1,000,000. These thousand folks can drive the rental of these condos to almost infinity.