[hn_throwaway_99]

> They’re investments, not really meant for living in. They cast these huge shadows and block views—really change the skyline—just so they can stand empty.

That is definitely one of the saddest parts for me. These billionaires (many of whom got their wealth in shady circumstances) are just using these condos to park their money. I may think NFTs are insane but at least when people with too much money park their wealth there they don't fuck up an entire city.

[cheriot]

Well, if you want to ruin their investment then issue building permits for more of them.

> They cast these huge shadows and block views

Talk about first world problems. Expecting a city skyline to never change is ridiculous. The only problem is that so few people use these buildings. The best kind of density regulation requires _more_ density.

[test1235]

>Expecting a city skyline to never change is ridiculous

"In Athens, buildings are not allowed to surpass 12 floors so as not to block the view toward the Parthenon."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_A...

I'd say this isn't typical of most of the world, but it's not unprecedented.

[maccard]

I live in Edinburgh, and we have "key views" (example of the centre ones here https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/13259/key-vi... - there's 5 or 6 pages but no link to them all) there's dozens of the views in the city, and no planning will be granted that materially changes the skyline in the views!

[wolverine876]

It also constrains supply of real estate, driving up the value for property owners.

[tarsinge]

12 floors is huge. Nearly every building in Paris is 6 floors and it is already at near the maximum density humanly acceptable in my opinion. There will never be enough supply in some place, especially with speculation and foreign investors. The situation in NYC and these cities is nothing like SF.

[BelenusMordred]

> 12 floors is huge.

I live 40 stories up, surrounded by a lot of green spaces because the city doesn't need to mow down natural habitats for population growth. 6 floors seems quaint and archaic, all it's going to cause is endless depressing urban sprawl.

> There will never be enough supply in some place

We can always build higher, construction techniques are only getting better. I don't see why 60 floor buildings can't be a norm in most supply constrained cities.

[bobthepanda]

The main constraint on taller buildings is elevators. The taller a building is, the more elevators it needs, and the more elevator shafts there are the lower the percentage of square footage available for other, paying uses.

The sweet spot for residential in Hong Kong is about 30-40 stories.

[biztos]

I’m also on 40 (out of 76) and while we’ll probably all die if there’s an earthquake, that’s true in a lot of NIMBYtowns too.

I could see whole cities of mostly >50 stories, but then unblockable views start to get immensely valuable right?

So as the city fills up and you discover which locations have more durable views, you need to start tearing down those skyscrapers to replace them with more luxurious ones.

Not sure if that’s dystopian, but I do quite like the view from up here.

[tarsinge]

> We can always build higher, construction techniques are only getting better. I don't see why 60 floor buildings can't be a norm in most supply constrained cities.

Because there is no way we can make infrastructure follow in the short term. Public transports are already saturated here, we could remove cars, but there is still a limit in how many people can be on the ground in streets, parcs, shops...

[bluefirebrand]

I find appropriately planned urban sprawl a whole lot less depressing than living in a cube 40 stories up.

Different strokes I guess.

[bobthepanda]

The average square footage of a Parisian studio would make NY’s tenements look downright palatial.

The average NYC studio is 50 m^2. The larger end for a Parisian studio is given to be 35 m^2.

[PoignardAzur]

On the other hand, there's nothing forcing you to live in intra-muros Paris.

I live in Nanterre, 5min away from the RER station, and my rent is 1200€/month for a 2-bedrooms apartment (50 m²). I have a <1h commute for about anywhere in Paris, and <20min for La Défense.

Point is, you can have affordable-ish rents in a business center without building humongous high-rises everywhere, as long as your public transport network can support it.

[carpedimebagjoe]

Hmm... I should turn my ATX apt into 4 "Parisian" studios then. Such underutilized space considering I have an almost vestigial "dining room" that has been used mostly as a dance floor and a gym area.

[carpedimebagjoe]

12 floors is tiny if you're not used to it.

There's only ~75 buildings in Paris >6 floors because of the 37m height limit.

Cities either have to have faster transportation, build underground, build higher, or build out farther. Increasing costs by keeping transportation horrible or limiting supply for the rich squeezes money from the lowers and the middle classes.

Very fast transport from nearby satellite communities would be the most ideal solution because then locality doesn't matter as much to most people.

[baud147258]

though for Paris, I think it's mandated by the local law, no?

Regarding Paris, at the current density, maybe it would be better to have higher building but with a smaller ground footprint (not sure if it's the right term), to leave space free for more parks?

[searchableguy]

China has done the same recently. They are moving away from skyscrapers. Strict regulation for buildings taller than 250m. No approval for buildings taller than 500m.

https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/article/3115225/...

[Jabbles]

That's not really the same thing as Athens at all. 250m is ~60 floors.

[searchableguy]

I was pointing to the trend of curbing down on skyscrappers instead of a direct comparison.

250m is the limit for strict regulation. Newer buildings tend to be around 100m.

[bobthepanda]

The article is paywalled for me.

I would imagine that has more to do with curbing local officials’ habits of encouraging land speculation to plump up their budgets. The central government is trying to have its cake and eat it too when it comes to property that needs to rise in value to boost wealth but also not become totally unaffordable for first time buyers, and overheating the market doesn’t help with the latter.

[chrischen]

I guess they peaked in 447 BC.

[gelert]

This is also a thing in London where certain views towards St Pauls Cathedral are protected.

[cm2187]

London isn't exactly a model of urban planning. There is a massive shortage of housing. And you end up with all new developments concentrated in a handful of areas.

[wayanon]

I agree but if 100,000 homes became available tomorrow in London they’d sell in an instant. I don’t think any number will solve it - the problem is existing homes not being lived in and being used as income.

[iso1210]

How many homes in London are empty? Numbers I see are in the region of 25,000, out of 3.6 million, under 1%.

[dionidium]

There is no evidence that this is a significant issue affecting housing prices in high-demand metros. Lack of supply is a much more straightforward and verifiable explanation. The spooky-outside-investor meme is conspiratorial nonsense and it’s beneath this forum.

[barry-cotter]

You could fit 59 Manhattans in the London Green Belt. Manhattan has 1.6 million residents. The problem is not building.

[carpedimebagjoe]

And iceberg mansions. The neighbors really love those.

[samizdis]

Not just towards St Paul's, but also to the Palace of Westminster. See the City of London's "Protected views and tall buildings" planning docs [1] and the section "Protected vistas in London" in the Wikipedia page Protected View [2].

Also, see the Wikipedia page on Greenwich Hospital, London [3]:

An early controversy arose when it emerged that the original plans for the hospital would have blocked the riverside view from the Queen's House. Queen Mary II therefore ordered that the buildings be split, providing an avenue leading from the river through the hospital grounds up to the Queen's House and Greenwich Hill beyond.

The resulting effect is displayed well in this contemporary pic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Naval_College.JPG

[1] https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/planning/planning-p...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_view

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Hospital,_London

[playpause]

The Guardian did an interesting interactive story a few years ago on how these 'viewing corridors' are affecting the skyline: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/dec/11/city-of...

[mysterydip]

The city of Charleston, SC has a set of height regulations: https://www.charleston-sc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/14414/Heig...

[mola]

Who says there's an expectation for the skyline to never change? Maybe it's ok if it changes for good reasons that benefit a lot of people, and not for the whims of the few ultra rich.

It's nuts that huge buildings are built, and then stand empty almost year round. That obviously doesn't help with density.

[choeger]

Yeah, more density, because all that matters is the size of cities and their economy. 90% of children never waking up to the sounds of birds around their house? Who cares? 90% of grownups never plant even a tomatoes? What does it matter! Families of four or more confined to single-bathroom, two-bedroom apartments? The cosier, the better! The most important bit is that the cheap workforce reaches their dull jobs in time to make the city work for the elite and God forbid they don't behave "ecologically efficient" when doing so!

[nindalf]

> God forbid they don't behave "ecologically efficient" when doing so

I like how you casually take a dump on being environmentally friendly. Yes, city dwellers do have less of an impact on the environment. Like all animals we like as much space as possible. But unlike other animals we don’t need it to survive.

If more of us fit in cities, there would be more space that could be left for wild animals. Maybe that equilibrium will help the planet flourish for longer. That’s actually a good thing, even if your condescending comment won’t acknowledge it.

[pharmakom]

- high density cities

- rewilding

- fast and expansive rail network

- right to roam

Get these things right and we can lower our environmental footprint whilst maintaining - or even improving - quality of life for the average individual.

[Broken_Hippo]

A rail network is only part of the solution: It certainly won't visit many small towns. A robust bus service truly needs to be in place as well so that folks can travel from town to town to train.

Heck, trains don't even have to be fast for much of it: Simply making passenger trains a priority would be a huge improvement - right now, passenger trains have to wait for freight trains.

[pharmakom]

Rail networks in the UK once visited even small villages. It can be done but requires political will.

If the settlements are very small then the number of people driving to the nearest station will be low anyway.

I’m optimistic for services that are halfway between bus and taxi.

[ryandrake]

> It certainly won't visit many small towns.

Some people who constantly advocate for dense urban often would also rather small towns just didn't exist. Dense urban for everybody! They imagine utopia to be a hand full of dense cities, surrounded by wilderness untouched by human habitation, with high speed train tracks crisscrossing that wilderness to get people from one dense city to another. No roads, no cars, no suburbs, no towns or rural villages. Just pack everyone into these urban islands. Things like bus service, and "last mile" are not needed in this utopia.

[PoignardAzur]

I mean... I don't think I've ever planted a tomato in my life, and I don't feel like a hollow shell performing a simulacrum of life?

(I have planted potatoes though)

[vagrantJin]

I recall my niece visiting my new house in the bundus. She saw the milky way for the first time at 11 years old. It has been raining and foggy on the way there but it cleared up a a bit before we got to the house. She had no idea the night sky isn't a dull shade of orange with the moon. All she might have seen was sparse clouds and a blanket of shining stars too numerous to count, almost like a diamond dress (her words not mine)

Consequently, it's not something we consciously think about. We just assume everyone has seen the night sky. I certainly never thought seeing the stars and the milky way would mean so much for an 11 year old. She wanted to stay outside so she could stare at them all night. But the mosquitoes, bless them, put a stop to those plans.

[nindalf]

Nah mate, tomatoes are completely different from potatoes. Truly life changing. I pity the 90% who hasn’t planted one. /s

[lupire]

It's the best way to get truly acquainted with the repeated deaths of life forms you care for.

[nicoburns]

I had a similar relationship with the phrase "can't even boil an egg". I never liked eggs growing up, so I learnt to cook quite a few significantly more complicated dishes several years before I learnt how to boil an egg.

[dionidium]

Notice the sleight of hand in this comment. Those who oppose development posture as if it’s urbanists who are interested in enforcing their way of life on everyone else, but it’s quite plainly the other way around.

Only one side in this debate wants to make laws that encode their particular housing preferences in law. It’s the side that wants to prevent new construction, not the side that wants to allow people to make free choices in an open market.

[robben1234]

Bigger city density means less demand on outskirts and easier life for anyone who wants to live there, i.e. cheaper prices, less regulations, smaller commute.

[renewiltord]

Well, we know what the alternative is. People have less tomato planting time because they spend longer commuting.

So we optimize to put people close to their jobs so they get lots of leisure time with their family.

If they don't want that they can always live farther out. That way everyone is happy.

[tovej]

That's not the alternative at all. The alternative is sensible city planning with mixed zoning neighborhoods that create comfortable centers all around the city. Add metros, bike lanes, and parks and you have a pleasant city instead of a concrete jungle or a suburban sprawl.

[renewiltord]

I'll believe it when I see it. Every American development like this is a massive money hole.

[tovej]

Look around Europe and you can see it. The reason US city development is a money hole is because you do city-level urban services in sprawling communities. The tax-payer density is just not high enough to economically support the cost of that infrastructure.

[knolax]

> 90% of children never waking up to the sounds of birds around their house?

As someone who grew up in such an environment, 90+% of my peers spent the entirety of our adolescence doing as much as possible to get away from suburban hells like that. And you know what's ironic? I have way more access to actual nature now that I live in a city close to some national parks than I did when I was younger and was trapped in endless suburbia.

[Dyac]

In London there are "protected vistas" - it's the reason why the shard and the walkie-talkie buildings are odd shapes.

https://mappinglondon.co.uk/2011/londons-protected-vistas/

[chakhs]

Or tax empty apartments? Not sure if that's done in the US

[otoburb]

>>Expecting a city skyline to never change is ridiculous. The only problem is that so few people use these buildings. The best kind of density regulation requires _more_ density.

You're right, yet there are many cities that still restrict building development in the name of protecting certain views.

One example is the City of Vancouver that has a page dedicated to explaining the views they are trying to protect for real estate zoning.[1]

[1] https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/protecting-va...

[stjohnswarts]

Austin, TX has laws dictating certain views of the state capitol building are not to be blocked. Personally I don't have an issue with it, there's still plenty of other views to block so the real estate people should be happy, but probably not land owners who would earn a lot more for their land if the laws didn't exist.

[Tade0]

> Well, if you want to ruin their investment then issue building permits for more of them.

That will just expand the market for such investments and make even larger areas unlivable.

[mc32]

Not even. plenty of first-world cities expect skyline changes. This attitude toward change (anti-change) comes from SF and has migrated elsewhere. NYC was the antithesis to this attitude but apparently it's not immune to this line of thinking.

It's like they think mountains do not move. Rivers always run the same course. It's comical and tragic.

[ZoomerCretin]

> This attitude toward change (anti-change) comes from SF and has migrated elsewhere. NYC was the antithesis to this attitude but apparently it's not immune to this line of thinking.

NYC created the world's first zoning laws in response to a building casting shadows: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/zoning/background.page

[bobthepanda]

This was back from an era where the main contributors to disease were thought to be lack of air and light.

The zoning described was actually quite generous by modern standards; you could technically build as much as you wanted as long as it fit the prescribed cake tier shape, and you could build theoretically unlimited height on a certain portion, I believe the center quarter of the lot. There is no city in the US today where you could build something as tall as the Empire State Building as of right; and yet the older regulations allowed that.

[allturtles]

> There is no city in the US today where you could build something as tall as the Empire State Building as of right

I'm not sure what you mean by that. 6 buildings taller than the ESB have been completed in NYC since 2014, mostly residential towers of the sort described in the OP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_N...

[bobthepanda]

When I say "as of right" I mean that all you need is ownership of the lot in question. The Empire State Building was built only with ownership of the lot it was built on and the owner was legally allowed to build as tall as they want.

Nearly all tall buildings in New York these days are legally built through assembling "air rights." Zoning has predetermined height/FAR limits for all lots, but in certain areas it is possible to sell currently unused rights and transfer them to the owner of another lot. This allows some developers to build taller but keeps overall neighborhood square footage around a prescribed limit. This way, you can build a spiky tower or two here and there on Billionaire's Row (the general name for the area) but the street cannot become a wall of them.

More info on air rights: https://streeteasy.com/blog/what-are-nyc-air-rights-all-abou...

[heterodoxxed]

The insane height of these building is far beyond the argument for vertical density, though.

[stjohnswarts]

Yeah I think 10-12 floors is plenty and still "climbable"

[ClumsyPilot]

"Well, if you want to ruin their investment then issue building permits for more of them"

For the past 30 years this has not happened even once in a major city. Developer will not build so many building as to drip the price. Maybe its time to accept that you are perpetuating a myth.

[practicalpants]

Wealthy people minus a few eccentrics are most certainly not parking their money in NFTs. The crazy $69MM Beeple headline was actually a purchase by an NFT related company from what I understand.

Not withstanding unoccupied real estate investments are a problem in every major city. It's usually wealthy foreign investors living far away in particular...e.g. Russia -> London, China -> Singapore/Vancouver, etc. really seems like non-occupied real estate purchases by foreign capital ought to be restricted a bit legally

[paxys]

While not good for the local housing market for sure, the country does gain from a ton of foreign illicit income being converted to its own currency and an easily seizable asset conveniently parked within its borders.

Cities and counties can also implement vacancy taxes and such to somewhat lessen this problem.

[ClumsyPilot]

How does it benefit uk to launder proceeds of crime and squeeze productive citizens out, forcing them to travel further and pollute more?

[lupire]

That's only true of the property actually is siezed (or taxed) and put to good use, which it isn't, because it's not nation vs nation so much as it's global ultra wealthy vs global everyone else.

[twelvechairs]

The simplest answer is land value tax

[xorfish]

In Switzerland, everyone that owns real estate has to pay income taxes on the rent they would earn on the property.

It has also the benefit that owning a home doesn't get preferential tax treatment than renting.

Income from wealth should be treated as normal income, it shouldn't matter if you consume the income yourself or receive cash for it.

[eps]

Switzerland also has a wealth tax. So parked money are taxed this way as well.

[skybrian]

Except that’s explicitly discouraging vacant lots and encouraging tall buildings. These owners can afford the tax better than anyone.

[ivalm]

But I do want to discourage vacant lots and encourage tall buildings, that’s seems the feature. We have only so much land and a large amount of people who want to live on it, increased density is the solution.

[pydry]

LVT turns an asset into a liability. The fact that they can afford it isn't the point. They won't want to afford it if it's a liability unless they live in it or can rent it out.

Meanwhile city coffers fill up with cash that can be used to build social housing.

The only downside to LVT on non primary residences is the epic political fight it would require against the super rich.

[skybrian]

How do you know they would pay more property tax than now? These skyscrapers are very tall and thin. They use very little land and the tax would be divided up among many floors.

If you wanted to design a building to pay as little land tax as possible, this is what it would look like.

[pydry]

They use a small amount of some of the most valuable land in the United States.

They also purchased "air rights" from neighboring buildings.

Their LVT bill (assuming air rights were also taken into account) would not be small.

It seems that people also don't actually like living in them. It's particularly noteworthy that they're speaking out about it because they're risking doing real damage to their investment by doing so. That's a sign that they really don't like it.

If it were built primarily as a place to live rather than as an investment I don't think it would look the same at all. There would be far greater emphasis on livability, less on views and probably a much lower height.

[austhrow743]

If they can afford the tax that's fine. At least then the inhabitants of the city get value out of the empty apartment buildings. Hell, it can be used to build other apartment buildings that aren't empty.

[twelvechairs]

Not sure why you want to encourage empty lots?

Yes these owners 'can afford' more but it will definitely discourage what OP was talking about that it's just land banking for future asset appreciation. The land value on this kind of property is extremely high so tax is not low even if it's a tall building

[skybrian]

I think it’s fine to discourage vacant lots, but the skyscrapers we are talking about are the opposite of a vacant lot.

Whatever the tax on these buildings is under LVT, it will be more unaffordable by their neighbors that are shorter and use more land. There is a higher incentive for neighboring buildings to get torn down and get replaced by taller skyscrapers like these.

It’s just odd to point to the buildings least affected by the tax as the sort of development that would be discouraged.

[knocte]

> Wealthy people ... are most certainly not parking their money in NFTs

The comment you're replying to didn't say they were.

[dmurray]

I don't get the "billionaires buy property and leave it vacant, because it's more valuable as an investment" trope. Billionaires like to make money with their money. Sure, property prices increase, but rents are significant. If you can make 5% a year from your real estate appreciating, you can make 10% by renting it out. That's the difference between a mediocre yearly return and a fantastic one.

Maybe at the absolute top end, there isn't enough rental demand, eg the $90m apartment mentioned may not fetch $400k/month in rent. But I hear the same argument for middle-class apartments in moderately expensive cities: rich people buy $600k apartments in Dublin, Vancouver, Sydney, but turn down $2500/month in rental income even in red hot rental markets.

I don't buy it, though I don't have a clear alternative explanation.

[hn_throwaway_99]

Because many of these billionaires come from countries where their political systems are rife with corruption or otherwise unstable, and oftentimes they received their wealth through dubious means. This has been well documented for many residences on Billionaires Row in Manhattan, so much that laws have been passed preventing hiding identities through shell corps.

Buying real assets is seen as a way to protect their wealth when it is at risk of being confiscated or devalued by their home governments.

Another way to think about these apartments is similar to art. Billionaires spend obscene money on art, and they aren't renting out those paintings or really even looking at them very much.

[SamuelAdams]

Here's how I've had this explained before. You see the same thing in California with their real estate market. Buying property in these markets is a foolproof investment. Even if it sits empty for 2-5 years, you will still make money.

Therefore, renting it out is a secondary concern. You could rent it out, but that comes with all sorts of liabilities - what if tenants damage your property, stop paying, claim squatter's rights, infest the property with bedbugs, etc. There's a number of things that could go wrong with renting, and many landlords rarely make much profit on rental units.

So for these millionaires and billionaires it's easier to simply not rent them out at all.

[MathYouF]

Why don't you rent out your car on Turo when you're not using it, or resell your items when you're done with them rather than throw them away? I suspect, for the car example at least, it's for similar reasons. The liability of damage and hassle of managing a tenant is greater than the potential upside of rent for them.

[wcfields]

If the property is to park money and with US real estate you can liquidate it very quickly for a cash sale, a tenant will throw a huge wrench in that.

A tenant in a single unit/house will easily drop the price by 10% or more from my experience trying to buy a single family home in SoCal in 2016.

As well, who can afford to rent these units? The mortgage/break-even point for for a $8mil value would be $37,825 a month.

[tekkk]

When you have billions of money, do you have really have that much drive to optimize your properties which might be nice to keep as occasional holiday homes? Sure you'd think that "ooh, 5% more income on my properties" would motivate them to rent their properties out but they might be perfectly happy just living off their other investments and not giving a damn about such tedious optimizations.

[majewsky]

When you're a billionaire, you can employ dozens, if not hundreds of people, to do tedious optimizations for you all day. And if that's the difference between 5% and 10% RoI, those people even pay for themselves (and then some).

[mafuy]

That is all well and good, but did you consider that it would mean that your house would become tainted with the poority of someone who cannot even afford to not live in it? Who knows if it's infectious? It would become a cheap second-hand house. And there's like a bunch of random strangers, one of who might be a serial killer. Better to just stay away from that.

... is how imagine their thought process.

[jonny_eh]

Billionaires are more concerned with not losing their money than they are with growing it.

[ppod]

Completely agree, it's something that people repeat so much with no evidence.

[peteretep]

> many of whom got their wealth in shady circumstances

Like inheriting it, which is the shadiest of shady ways to make money

[LimaBearz]

I can’t tell if that’s sarcasm or not so I’ll just remind everyone of Adam Smith: "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural."

In this country there was a time yes where inheriting it is shady and it’s something I fear our conservative brothers have forgotten. The problems of multi-generational wealth were clearly visible to our founders looking at Europe. It should be patently offensive to all Americans

[IG_Semmelweiss]

there's no problem with inheritance.

What matters is the turnover of inheritance.

If you have the same 200 families holding all the wealth for 500 years, you have a problem (like several countries in europe).

There is nothing wrong with a hardworking person to reach wealth, and for heirs to keep it, if its properly managed. The issue is they should be able to lose it thru squander. Bail outs, lobbying, regulatory capture, prevent that natural ineptitude from taking place (securing thru connections what heirs couldn't do like their predecessors....that is, satisfying customers or creating shrewd innovation).

[renewiltord]

Well, since r > g, you will get wealth concentration if you have lower fertility rates.

[theonething]

I don't get it. What business is it of ours if a wealthy person passes their wealth to their progeny?

[alpha_squared]

Wealth is finite, despite how much some like to claim it's not zero-sum. Not everyone can be wealthy, so by definition there will be those who aren't. Inherited wealth allows the inheritors to start further along in wealth accumulation and widens the gap between the wealthy and those who aren't. That then locks up wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

[koonsolo]

I feel sad for you that you think people cannot create something from nothing.

So if you gain something, does that means somebody else needs to lose? Is that how people justify stealing or scamming? Or is that how they cope with their envy that rich people must be stealing or scamming.

I once knew a person that had this theory about happiness. If someone is happy, someone else needs to be sad.

I feel sad for anyone who has this mindset. It's way nicer on our side, where we do win-win deals, and know to be happy, the people around us need to be happy.

[Shacklz]

> It's way nicer on our side, where we do win-win deals, and know to be happy, the people around us need to be happy.

If you would like this world-view to undergo some critical analysis, I strongly recommend Anand Giridharadas' take in "Winners take All" (condensed in this google-talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM).

He specifically addresses the negative points of the "win-win"-mentality, and in my opinion, makes a strong point that a society built on a "win-win" culture is bound to be doomed.

[7952]

Not the parent, but I think that is a bit harsh. Their definitely is a practical limit to the amount of resources humanity has immediate access to. Be that time, raw materials, capital or whatever. There obviously are ways to make those resources go further. But that is beyond the ability and scope of most of us to achieve. And wealth gives you the spare time and money to go look for those opportunities. I agree that the mindset of zero sum game is bad for you and society. But there are still real constraints.

[fighterpilot]

It's quite to me natural to me, and I think Adam Smith is off base here.

If the parents earned that wealth through voluntary exchange, and they didn't do so by exploiting negative externalities, then it's theirs to do with as they wish. If they want to pay 1000 people to fan them, start a charity, or give it all to their kids, that's their prerogative.

It follows from the concept of private property. The parents earned that wealth at one point, in that someone voluntarily gave it to them in exchange for subjective utility of equal or greater value.

What right is it of yours to take it away from them just because you don't approve of the way they're spending it? They can buy 500 Ferraris but can't give it to their kids?

In my view it's plain theft dressed up in layers of abstraction and indirection just to hide that fact. (No, not all taxation is theft, as some level is necessary, but swiping half or all of someone's property is).

[LimaBearz]

I don’t care what they spend it on, I never claimed to care. I agree ideologically with Adam’s premise though. It is in the best interest of the nation and the individuals living at that time that the assets and wealth of that nation be accessible to anyone living in it.

The accumulation of wealth across multiple generations has an extremely long history spanning back centuries of corruption, self dealing, preferentially treatment, and the hoarding of the more desirable assets (land for example) that the heirs did not earn or work for and cannot be enjoyed by a new entrant in the market. Being entitled to something because of your blood is fundamentally unamerican. We fought for our independence from such a system.

This country.. at least as how I was raised was one of grit, hard work, and innovation which determined who you’d be in life. A country where anyone with a novel idea or ruthless cunning can carve out a slice for themselves. The idea of inheritance undermines that, heirs did not earn anything by being born to the right parent, own things they did not work for.

This country is too young to have the problems of some European nations past but I think it’s starting to go that way. I think the founders saw the problems caused by bloodline rule and heirs and didn’t want that here.

There should be no inheritance. The heirs didn’t work for it, they’re no more entitled to it then I am. If a parent is wealthy then the kids will enjoy a life of potential high society, connections, and Ivy League educations, but they have to make it for themselves. I stand firmly behind that American ideal

[fighterpilot]

  >  the heirs did not earn or work for.

  >  heirs have an advantage they themselves did not earn, own things they did not work for.

The heirs did earn it, in the same way that anyone earns anything. Agent X voluntarily gave something to agent Y in exchange for something of equal or greater subjective value.

In this case, the parent (X) gave their wealth to their child (Y), and in return they get to satisfy their "empire"- and family- building ambition, which in subjective utility terms to them is superior to alternative uses of that wealth. Perhaps they've been working all their life for this motivation, it drives many people. A perceived level of accomplishment that extends post-death.

That's the nature of a decentralized, high-freedom world. X and Y will often transact and it's not clear what the subjective value exchange is.

As long as that transaction isn't hurting you through negative externalities, it's my opinion that you have no business interfering in that transaction.

  >  I don’t care what they spend it on, I never claimed to care.

I believe you do.

If at age 60, they buy 500 Ferraris, that's okay. If at age 60, they instead send that wealth to their kids, that's not okay.

The former transaction (wealth <--> Ferraris) is okay.

The latter transaction (wealth <--> subjective value from family/empire-building) is not okay.

Personally, if I was rich, I would derive much higher subjective value from giving that wealth to my kids than buying 500 Ferraris.

  > The heirs didn’t work for it, they’re no more entitled to it then I am.

Charity beneficiaries "don't work" for the money that's given to them. Are they entitled to it more than you?

I would say yes, because it was a voluntary exchange from the charity to that individual. We've no business in interfering in that.

We may think that the purpose of the charity is stupid, but that's the private, decentralized decision that they've come to with their own wealth.

  > It is in the best interest of the nation and the individuals living at that time that the assets and wealth of that nation be accessible to anyone living in it.

I don't put too much weight on these broad utilitarian arguments.

In practice, it so often ends with an undesirable outcome. If we did a 100% inheritance tax, do we know the impact on frivolous consumption or people's motivations?

In theory, nobody is really a utilitarian anyway, people's determinations come from biological/a priori frameworks and a subjective sense of fairness and justice with a tinge of impact from jealousy and self-interest (I'm not accusing you of that).

Reasoning from a set of basic axioms which generally, but not always, point in the right direction has a better track record, in my opinion.

  >  (like plots of lands)

A land tax would be great.

[LimaBearz]

It’s hella late so I’ll keep it short. I’ll just say I love the land tax idea. I’ve been toying with that idea in my head. It does seem like it would solve a lot of issues we’ve been facing.

And honestly I’d rather them buy 1000 Ferarris and crash every single one. I don’t even care if it doesn’t go to the government, on a more serious note it could all go to the American Cancer Society or a charity of their choosing, or local municipality…

I’ve personally committed to dying poor. I’ve met trust fund kids (not that I’m anywhere near that level) but money breeds entitlement, especially at a young age where they may not be emotionally ready. That’s not something I want for my kids. We’re all in tech here, we do well enough to corrupt at least a little

And it’s still unamerican.

[scatters]

> If they want to pay 1000 people to fan them

Then the transaction will be taxed as income for those 1000 people. Gifts to children, particularly adult children, should be similarly taxed as income whether they are passed while the parents are alive or when they die.

[dionidium]

Counterpoint: these buildings are gorgeous and only enhance the city. Whenever I’m on 57th St I crane my neck to stare at them as I walk. Often, I’ll just stop for a while to look up in awe.

They haven’t ruined anything.

Moreover, even if you disagree about their beauty, so what? People should be free to build things — even things you don’t personally like!

[busterarm]

As someone who has lived on 57th street for most of their life, it's not all roses. 57th street used to be a vibrant street full of a variety of businesses. Back in the 70s & 80s when the 40s and 50s of Manhattan were filled with street prostitution (on the west side) and brothels (on the east side, and they're still there), 57th street used to be where you started to get respectable looking buildings and shops to fill them.

Now from end to end across Manhattan, most of 57th Street is becoming vacant in preparation for construction. The process is likely to take 20 or 30 years to complete, similar to what happened on 10th Avenue. There is more money to be made by letting buildings sit empty for years. 250 West 55th, at the cross street of 55th & 8th avenue, was an empty corner lot for 28 years while they waited for the rest of the buildings on the block to become vacant for teardown.

Some areas are especially derelict -- between 5th and 6th Avenue in particular. It's an absolute eyesore and source of daily construction noise and will likely be so for the rest of my natural life.

This has ruined my neighborhood.

[HWR_14]

If you think that the buildings are ugly and damage the city, you'd be opposed to them. You like them so are not.

As for "people should be free to build things", we decided over 100 years ago that wasn't the case. Not unrestrained by zoning laws and concern for the community.

[dionidium]

> we decided over 100 years ago that wasn't the case.

That was an enormous mistake. It's the source of our housing shortage in high-demand areas and it's probably costing us literally trillions of dollars. [0]

> If you think that the buildings are ugly and damage the city, you'd be opposed to them. You like them so are not.

This is what you believe, not what I believe. In fact, I think people should be free to build buildings I think are ugly.

[0] https://ggwash.org/view/42946/zoning-the-hidden-trillion-dol...

[HWR_14]

Interesting take, considering the article we are talking about discusses how billionaires are hiding assets overseas (well, from overseas relative to us) in our housing. Don't you think that's driving up pricing.

Anyway, I disagree with your article's point of view. I don't think letting more people live in San Jose or NYC would unlock huge 10% improvements to GDP, and, even if it were, there's a value to being able to live in single family homes. If WFH is here to stay, then my suspicion is that NYC is going to continue suffering from its 2020 housing glut.

[dionidium]

> there's a value to being able to live in single family homes

Of course that's true. Again, my view is that people should be free to build whatever they want. Single-family zoning makes the alternatives illegal, not the other way around! Proponents of single-family zoning get a lot of mileage out of the implication that urbanists want to impose their way of living on everybody else, but the opposite is quite plainly the case. Only one side in this debate wants to encode their preferences in law.

[paxys]

While I can't say about these specific buildings, I do agree that complaining about skyscrapers in New York seems weird. In general given enough time every eyesore becomes an iconic part of the city.

[hippira]

Well you are free to do things but not at the cost of pollutions.

[dionidium]

Attempts to equate 1) zoning that prevents buildings one doesn't like; and 2) zoning that prevents sources of pollution is a fairly tired false equivocation.

[jcampbell1]

I’d be fine with $50 million dollar apartments if the owners paid 1% per year in real estate taxes, but in NYC the law is ridiculous and based on equivalent rent and there are no equivalent rentals. Taxes on a $50 million dollar condo are about $50k per year rather than $500k.

[zadler]

> NFTs are insane

With any luck, NFTs and crypto in general might reduce this kind of investment in property. They might turn out to be a better place to park excess cash.

[the_local_host]

I hope NFTs and crypto are a worse, and more popular, place for plutocrats to park their cash.

[pllbnk]

I really doubt that. The value of premium real estate is that it's limited and it takes a lot of wealth and time to build - it's the real proof of work so to speak. NFTs are infinite, similar to grains of sand, where each one is unique.

[knocte]

I think NFTs are great because they move money from the hands of the stupid&rich to the hands of artists.

[astoor]

> I think NFTs are great because they move money from the hands of the stupid&rich to the hands of artists.

There are 15 million items offered for sale on OpenSea, for example, and each one of those will have cost the artist $50-100 in fees to list. Almost all of those will either fail to sell, or will sell at a loss to the artist. So, although the crypto-rich want you to believe you're democratising finance or sticking up for the little people against "the elite" or however they phrase it, the reality is the exact opposite of what you describe, i.e. NFTs are moving money from the hands of the artists to the crypto-rich.

[dorkwood]

Most artists do not sell their NFTs, and are instead stuck with the fees they paid to mint them.

"These numbers do not show the democratization of wealth thanks to a technological revolution. They show an acutely minuscule number of artists making a vast amount of wealth off a small number of sales while the majority of artists are being sold a dream of immense profit that is horrifically exaggerated." [0]

[0]: https://thatkimparker.medium.com/most-artists-are-not-making...

[Broken_Hippo]

No, not really.

Most artists aren't going to sell, in no small part because there are a LOT of artists out there in the world and because selling art is Hard. I've met plenty of folks that spend more time selling art and being social enough to sell art than they spend actually making that art. And this is just the average seller: Few can actually make it a career.

Money, connections, luck, and a lot of social labor are pretty well required to get your art selling at higher prices, and might get rich folks to buy your stuff.

[3finmunchousen]

Vacancy tax

[richardfey]

If you like this topic I recommend this talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em7nqDqQ8oM

It has a great explanation of the difference between complex and complicated, and the fragility of our systems compared to nature's ones.

[knolax]

> they don't fuck up an entire city

Skyscrapers fuck up a city how???? Do you expect Manhattan to consist entirely of 2 story suburban homes? It's attitudes like yours that are the reason the streets are full of so many homeless.

[blamazon]

Empty skyscrapers fuck up the city. I expect manhattan to be full of skyscrapers, I don’t expect it to be soulless and lifeless.

[cblconfederate]

TBH they are not very big, in fact rather tiny for luxury homes, so let them have it at the highest price possible. If your idea of high life is a 3 meters greenhouse without even a garden, fine.

[carpedimebagjoe]

Post, physical NFTs that could keep homeless people from freezing to death.