But if the landlord owns the pub (rare in the UK I know), but I believe it’s the case in this instance, then what are they getting from unrealised property price gains?
It doesn't benefit a town if rent is so expensive that their businesses shut down.
Say 64 weeks and the process produces one whole home for someone else. I get that there should be some people between the construction worker and the citizen eventho they never did anything useful to the result but the margins are so preposterous that the original salary is a mere rounding error.
Then I look at Amish barn raising videos and the laughter becomes uncontrollable. I would definitely go there and help out - for free of course. If I had to keep doing that I would look for some vegetables and uhh my own house? Even if they would never build it for me it would still be more enjoyable than the western extortion scheme.
In 2026, at 18y minimum wage is €7.36 per hour and at 21y it rockets up to €14.71
Not that youth wage past 18y isn't a stupid concept, but your wage being guaranteed to at least double in ~36 months time is rather relevant.
They also are relating a story from their past and since they have had an account since 2015, I am assuming their youthful past was at least 1 decade ago if not nearly 20 years ago.
Edit: But you are of course right about inflation! According to this website[1] it would bump them to 3.2 EUR/h.
[1]: https://www.inflationtool.com/euro-netherlands/2005-to-prese...
It should’ve been at least 450 euro equivalent even in 1990, using 2024 value euros.
The point was that market value has very little to do with cost but is driven by intentionally limiting construction permits.
Out of the million euro that people have to pay to buy the 350 000 home very little goes towards building it.
The surplus of people looking to live someplace isn't an accident.
Now let us imagine what it is like running a pub. After subtracting the cost and the 5000 rent bill they probably have a sizable negative salary.
Look at it like this: if 18y minimum wage was €3 back then and would double to €6 at 21y, and you're a construction worker working for €8.50 at 18y, you're sure as shit going to demand a raise at 19, 20 and 21 because all the people making minimum wage are getting those raises too. Maybe not a doubling, but you wouldn't (shouldn't) gnash your teeth and still make €8.50 three years later.
And the average house price just went past half a million. Even cheap housing is north of 350K. You can't save up against yearly price increases.
80 hours total on-site labor to build, or 80 hour of your (presumably lower-skill) labor?
The increase in supply then lowers prices.
The problem comes when local laws and the planning permission system make it hard or impossible to increase the supply of homes. Then there's no balancing force to bring prices down when they go up.
For example, if you look at some of the densest cities in the world they are still predominantly single standing homes, just much more tightly packed, and in homes we can't huild. So I believe zoning and planning are the key issues, and I think property developers would actually play a smaller role in solving the supply problem if you allowed individuals to solve this problem themselves with less strict zoning and planning.
Obviously big developments still play a role, but at the stage American cities are often at, NYC excluded, I think zoning being more favourable to medium density would go a long way.
This could all simply be due to a devaluation of the currency, rather than due to increased desirability or productivity.