Hacker News Reader

Comment by Pepe1vo | Hacker News Reader

Though I understand the reasoning behind your proposal, it has to be noted that it's massively unfair towards lower incomes. Simply because these are the people who either don't have the money to reduce the energy usage of their homes, or are renting and there is little incentive for landlords to make that investment.

View on HN

> or are renting and there is little incentive for landlords to make that investment

This is a massive market failure that needs to be addressed

Definitely, here in the Netherlands a law has recently been passed that mandates that all rented houses should have a minimum energy efficiency rating of D. IMO it should have been a C rating, but at least its something.

In Austria D isn't really much. Those are basically uninsulated buildings from the 50's. That's a really low bar and I don't know what building can be worse than D. A garden shed maybe? Making D mandatory by law seems like pointless political posturing. But then again I don't know buildings in the Netherlands.

It's an European standard, so maybe the criteria are different in Australia? My current apartment has an E rating and it has double paned windows everywhere, floor + ceiling insulation and I have neighbours on all side including above and below, meaning not much energy is transferred to outside.

Edit: just noticed I misread Austria as Australia (lol), point still stands though, a D rating is not that bad.

I'm not sure how the Austrian system works or what homes are like there or in the Netherlands, but a lot of older homes in the UK can apparently only reach a D even after all the standard insulation retrofits are done. This is especially a problem in areas of the UK that are poorer already.

In the UK it's E

>This is a massive market failure that needs to be addressed

The entire real-estate market in the west (both buying and renting) is an intentional failure (but economic success for the owners) designed to be a zero sum game to squeeze newcomers and prop up existing landlords, asset owners, and banking profits on the backs of those trying to enter the market. And then western governments wonder why millennials and younger stopped having kids. Because you priced them out of home ownership, that's why.

Good luck getting the governments to break this vicious cycle and stop making real-estate an investment vehicle designed for huge returns, and good luck getting existing property owners in voting for policies which will lead to a devaluation of their homes.

I feel like if this trend keeps growing, sooner or later, eating the rich will be the only solution.

Reality is unfair towards people with lower incomes - that's what lower income means.

What does 'unfair' mean in that dictionary system?

Why does a vest have no sleeves?

Depends on the dictionary you're re using and where you look, in a Dutch dictionary a 'vest' can be a knitted button-down sleeved sweater ('een kort gebreid jasje met mouwen').

Not in isolation, no.

E.g. FIRE. It's not unfair that those who retire early don't continue to get a salary.

It's not even unfair (on its own) that those who are irresponsible with credit cards to go on trips, instead of investing in their future (e.g. staying home and learning), later have lower income.

That's not unfair.

If you assume that the lower band is set significantly below the level required for basic needs, yes.

That would essentially be no change from now.

It's a proposal that is exactly taking people with lower incomes into account.

What, short of abolishing capitalism altogether, would be "fair"?

More money will always be able to buy more than less money. And the comment you're replying to would HEAVILY subsidize people for their needs, while discouraging everyone's wants.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com