| Huh? Here, let me flesh out the original claim so you can see the difference: > Like every single productivity improvement before it, the bulk of the gains of AI will be piled into land rents, which then gets diffused into the cost of everything that happens upon land (which is everything) and does not intrinsically result in higher wages to match higher nominal costs like monetary inflation does. Then we'll just remark "wow, we still need to keep working because the cost of living has really gone up!" It's not a different claim at all. Didn't think I needed to account for the guy who doesn't know that monetary inflation isn't captured by anyone and is economically neutral in the long run lol. > people not having to work to cover the cost of living is a perverse incentive. You are simply mistaken if you think this is what happens when you have deflation. And to be clear, I actually don't even have a problem with rising land prices. Prices are important tools for allocating resources. I have a problem with rising rents being captured by landowners for doing nothing. This should draw an even clearer distinction between rising land rents and monetary inflation which –– again –– does not get captured by anyone. It instead equilibrates with higher wages, increasing nominal costs but not affecting real wages. This is truly elementary stuff. Nominal prices don't mean anything. I'm interested in the relationship between a person's productivity and their material conditions. Today's technology, sans the unjustified capture of land rents, is able to convert a person's labor into dramatically better material conditions than they actually get today. Land rents are the only expense in an economy where higher nominal prices do not feed back into an equilibrating increase in nominal wages. Those higher nominal prices do not do anything in the economy. They do not spur more production. They do not generate more demand. Land rents truly siphon productivity out of the economy in a way no other price increases do. "Deflation is good" is the rightwing analog of "just tax unrealized gains" haha. Total inability to think one step further. |
> Then we'll just remark "wow, we still need to keep working because the cost of living has really gone up!" and somehow not realize that the only thing in our economy where its inputs have not increased in price -- ever -- is the land beneath our feet. There are no input costs! Yet somehow the prices keep rising.
> Suspicious.
What you're actually doing is just adding generic filler that doesn't say anything? Because it seems like a lot of paragraph was ignoring the idea that monetary inflation isn't captured by anyone and is economically neutral in the long run lol.
EDIT And I'm not even convinced you've checked that rents are up compared to monetary inflation if you're using adjusted prices. Assuming we're talking about the US, if I pick out a reasonable-looking series for rent [0] and compare it to the M2 [1] from 1970 the two are close enough to keeping pace. Land rents are actually going up slower. What data are you working with here?
> Like every single productivity improvement before it...
On an aside, this is obviously wrong. It is clear we've all captured some of the benefits of past productivity improvements, life is pretty luxurious today compared to what our ancestors lived with. That couldn't be done without capturing some of the productivity gains.
[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ASRLRRA027N
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL