[6510]

I mean, should this be a design goal?

I'm mostly voicing a much more general confusion here. I think you have to bolt down our [lets be honest] mostly imaginary system to reality in some spots. Rents can simply be adjusted to whatever people can pay. That way there is no technological or economic progress to be had for those at the bottom. The fix is in?

Or let me put it like this: If I want a banana I want to pay for what it costs to grow the banana, the packaging, the logistics of it and for those who perform the miracle of trade. If all the steps involved also involve maximizing wealth extraction from those employed in those steps by [any and all means!] my banana will naturally grow in price to the point where my minimum wage has doubts if it can afford it. Not just now but forever! Regardless of anything.

Regulation cant be like: We will cap the price of bananas at this point since everyone involved in making them happen for me has to pay rent that grows along with the kiwi's. I very much doubt we cant fix rent. There might be a layer or 2 of maximized wealth extraction above it. Those are not impossible to fix. If we had real collective goals we could just be like: It wont happen - forever! and get a really cheap but highly profitable banana in return.

Note: I can stack bricks and run tubes though them. Its not hard and not a lot of work. IOW: I'm not impressed by a concrete box. End of the day my government owns all the land.

[throwawayinfo]

You clearly do not understand the economics behind renting. Wealth extraction as you call it, isn't pure profit for the layers above. Your rent pays for the landlord's mortgage, maintenance, inspection and risk being taken on from a tenant. Your landlord pays the bank, who use the money to pay off their own obligations, including your grandparents pension plan. It would never be possible to adjust that system.

The other reason things are so high is there are too many people and not enough houses, so there's little opportunity for competition.

[6510]

When, if or where people are either poor or primitive enough it works like this: You build a house then you live in it.

There is nothing in this that suggests one needs to spend 1/4 or 2/3 of the productive labor in their lives to maintain the house.

Progress is to reduce the maintenance cost. The lower it is the lower the salaries can be which increase productivity exponentially.

IOW grandpa's pension plan is for a large part to continue to pay for housing. He spend his entire life busting his ass but some how didn't manage to earn a place to live.

[throwawayinfo]

It's still possible possible to build a house today and live in it, and there is plenty of land, even some going for cheap. But most people don't want that because they make that trade off for today's luxuries.

[6510]

Actually it is not, we very much need these people to do all kinds of work for us.