upvote
I found the following article interesting the other day. A retired couple with a four-bedroom home concerned that they couldn’t sell their home at 1.3 million, so they lowered it to 1.28 and were surprised it still didn’t sell. The owner then considers renting it out instead.

https://apnews.com/article/real-estate-housing-market-home-p...

reply
Out of curiosity I looked for the house that couple is selling. Believe it's this: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/30206-Telluride-Ln-Evergr... Notice the price history. 83k in '97, which is about 170k now. Being sold for a 10x profit. Sigh.
reply
If you had invested the 83k in the S&P500, you'd be slightly ahead I think if you include maintenance and property taxes.

https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/stocks/s-p-500/1997?amount=...

reply
If you count the S&P 500, you should also count 20+ years of rent, right?
reply
You don't get to live in the S&P500. Also don't really get the point of this response. Both just prove assets are wildly out of reach for young people now compared to then.
reply
[dead]
reply
Well, I suppose this is why communism was popular in early 20th century. People wanted communism so they could reset wealth equality even if the economics didn't make the much sense. Society is just a big cycle it seems.

I often think about why this is happening now without invoking the default "evil rich people" hypothesis. I think it's because world population increased so fast in the last decades that there is simply not enough resources, land, high paying jobs for everyone to achieve a comfortable life. And because the population is so high and the world so connected, it's easier for a single person to accumulate wealth because talent or sheer luck. IE. build the right app at the right time and get rich almost instantly. Society seems to be self correction mode by not having nearly as many babies recent years.

reply
> there is simply not enough resources, land, high paying jobs for everyone to achieve a comfortable life

On the contrary, (in the US) I think there is at least enough land and resources (including food) that a modest haircut on the ultra-rich would go a long way for the lower-middle classes.

reply

  On the contrary, (in the US) I think there is at least enough land and resources (including food) that a modest haircut on the ultra-rich would go a long way for the lower-middle classes.
Yes but no high paying jobs in the middle of no where.
reply
If companies stop forcing RTO crap, then yes there are and will continue to be such jobs.
reply
Unfortunately, I think rto is here to stay
reply
> Society seems to be self correction mode by not having nearly as many babies recent years.

An interesting factoid from the Roman Empire is that in their later years there was a major fertility collapse to the point that various laws were passed in order to try to motivate fertility in various ways, and they ultimately failed.

I don't know what to take from that yet, if anything, but I think it's obvious that we've similarly entered well into an 'end of empire' type era, and fertility rates have also again collapsed. So again, I think it's simply interesting to ponder.

reply
It seems like population historically can overshoot productivity.
reply
> I often think about why this is happening now without invoking the default "evil rich people" hypothesis.

What do you mean? In the French protests, the "evil rich people" hypothesis is very present. Every other protester was brandishing "tax the rich" placards.

reply
Just thinking at a society/animalistic/human instincts/economics level.
reply
But the French are very "anti-rich people" (including "the rich" themselves: "champagne socialists" were invented here. Patent Pending (tm) (c) (r)).

So I really don't get your original point in this context.

reply