mattgibson

It would be interesting to know if land prices have changed over the same period. Also whether any other comparable cities have had similar falls in price.

Democracy isn't just blind voting. The votes mean nothing if people don't know what the candidates stand for. Manifestos outlining intent and reasoning are part of the process but so is explaining what a policy is intended to achieve as it is being enacted. Without knowing the intended outcome, how can people judge whether it succeeded or not and whether to vote for this candidate again next time?

You really need to provide data to make that assertion. Shortages of buildings are not the only reason that property prices can be high.

Properties are made up of a building and a plot of land that it's attached to. Whilst we can nake more buildings, we can't make more land, so the land in a given location is by definition going to be in a permanent state of shortage. If more poeple want to live in that location OR (the main driver of this crisis) if more money is chasing the same fixed supply, then the prices rise. The land component is the part that has become more expensive recently, not the buildings.

The reason for this is that the rent they would pay will fluctuate with the market. If a city grows and an area becomes more expensive, the landlord captures the uplift by raising the rent and WeWork would operate on a thin margin. On the other hand, if they buy the property, then (if its with leverage) the mortage should be relatively stable as surrounding rents rise making it cheaper. After the mortgage is paid off there is no rent to pay at all and 100% of the location value is captured as profit. Also, the value of the property goes on the balance sheet, giving you back most of the cash paid on the mortgage (or the upfront cash price), so little loss.

Given it's an auction mechanism, it's hard to stop people offering to pay for the land they want. The options seem to be either allowing that money to flow into private hands so someone gets a free lunch, or to capture it as tax, enabling all other taxes to be reduced or eliminated. The latter seems fairer to me as it eliminates the free lunch and keeps people's earnings in their own pockets via e.g. eliminating income tax.

Land prices go up when poeple have more mooney and go down when people have less. The root cause is that land is unique in the economy because it both cannot be manufactured and cannot be moved. Each piece of land is therefore unique and no one can increase supply in response to demand. Renting or purchasing land is essentially an auction and the price is set by the highest bidder. Economists call this a "monopoly price" because it's the same effect you would get if someone has a monopoly and can raise prices at will. This is in contrast to competitive prices which sink lower and lower until they bump up against the actual cost of getting the work done to provide that product or service.

Land value is therefore a really weird part of the economy that allows people to charge money without doing any work or providing any value in return. If we confiscate all the money people charge to rent or buy land, nothing changes because no work was ever happening. The land is still there and still just as useful. Contrast that with anything where work is actually done - the industry would collapse if you confiscate the money. Taxing land value therefore allows the government to reclaim the money which those people should not be able to charge in the first place (if there was free market competition). When this happens, counter-intuitively, land prices do not rise (because the highest bid in the auction doesn't change) and there is no negative affect on production or jobs (because no one is employed to manufacture or maintain land). We know this because economic theory predicts it and various countries have already tried it. Instead, other taxes can be cut or eliminated due to the enourmous boost in government income, which has very positive effects on the rest of the economy. Understanding how this works is deeply counter-intuitive and so people usually think that a shortage of buildings is driving property/land values because it's easy to make sense of.

To directly answer your question: if you tax the land value as set by the current market, you don't have to worry about assessing other factors that SHOULD lead to higher taxes because the people trying to buy the land have already done that. That's why they are offering a higher price. It's simple and therefore cheap and easy to administer. Also essentially immune to tax dodging because you can't hide the asset.

TBF I don't think this is bad. The "cheating" involved seems a closer match to the actual real world conditions of the doing the job than the artificial "no internet allowed" assessment. If the candidates can get stuff done but need the internet as a reference, that's still getting stuff done. Not surprising that they are now getting promoted given they can not only get stuff done, but were resourceful enough to find a method to "cheat" and also pull it off successfully whilst being monitored.

> It is a cliche, but kids are only young once. Enjoy that time.

This. So many times over. Everything else can be done later or slowly. Don't miss the good bits!

IP geolocation is horribly inaccurate in my area. Why not let the user specify where they are manually?

These calculators seem to miss the point for me.

If I spend less overall by renting, I don't care because I can't pass the property as an inheritance to my kids. If I buy, they get a house for free when I pass on.

Also, if I rent, I have to continue to pay the same (high) rents through retirement where my income will likely drop drastically once I stop full time work. The aim of buying is to be mortgage-free when you retire so your pension gives you a decent quality of life.

Generally, you can ask for these clauses to be taken out of the contract when negotiating whilst interviewing. They are often just part of a boilerplate. Directly competing products seem like a fair thing to want to restrict, but other stuff with blanket IP assignment can be removed.

I am currently working as a contractor and the interllectual property assignment clause mentions "materials created pursuant to this agreement", but nothing further than that.

If they push back, point out that such clauses are illegal in California and it doesn't seem to have held back the companises in silicon valley too much. You always have the option to walk away if they won't agree.