Hacker News Reader

Comment by zero-sharp | Hacker News Reader

because we still have to compete with each other over resources (opportunities, wage, customers, etc)? Working less wouldn't give you an advantage? It's a race to the bottom and you see it everywhere.

Not an economist.

View on HN

We generate 30% excess calories more than what is required to feed the world even after wasting 25 calories to create one beef calorie for the developed world. There is no competition. There are only distribution problems under capitalism.

After that what’s left? Wants. We should be able to work way less to just survive in this world. We shouldn’t need to work 70 hours a week to afford a small apartment.

I'm not so sure that every industry generates excess to the point where working less doesn't result in loss. I haven't really kept up with the housing conversation either.

edit: I was going to speculate about equilibrium in the housing market, but it looks like there's already a conversation about that

You can afford a small apartment on way less than 70 hours a week of work if you're willing to live in unfashionable places. Try Toledo instead of San Francisco. The people whining about costs are mostly those who feel entitled to live in a particular city with a lot of cultural amenities and nice weather.

I don’t quite follow your argument. We don’t generate nearly as many small apartments (especially in places people want to live in) as calories. Solving food scarcity did little to increase the supply of real estate (if anything it resulted in higher prices because people don’t need to spend as much money on food anymore).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com