I didn't, as I am not a subscriber. My views are similar to rekabis. Could you perhaps summarize the evidence?
I mean, Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism sounds fun and all, but at what cost to the environment? Is it warmed-over trickle-down economics? Why are the progressive taxes on those people so low that they can afford a luxury apartment, and how did they make that money in the first place?
Just how deluxe is "luxury"? Is an extra 25% of living space per person (and a room of one's one) sufficient luxury? Because what I've seen, "luxury" is a never-ending hedonic treadmill as rich people judge their luxury by what even richer people can afford.
Lastly, the FT is the newspaper for the already-well-off, with summer homes in France and fancy kitchens, who likely want comfort that the luxury they have is justified.
Fair, paywalled article links are basically an advertisement for the paywalled service. Perhaps it will tickle your sensibilities to steal the article.
The general argument (which I’m reconstructing from having read it elsewhere) is that the housing market is one thing. Rich people will occupy the top but it’s a single pool. So increasing supply anywhere in the pool alleviates price pressure from the whole pool.
Studies support this theory. Adding luxury homes reduces price pressure by the same amount as adding affordable homes. But it’s an easier sell for developers because they can make more money.
There’s probably a limit to how effective the strategy can be, but the current market is nowhere near that limit.
I don't feel like paying with my money, I don't feel like paying by giving up my privacy, and I don't feel like paying by training Google reCAPTCHA or giving it my attention.
When you say "reconstructing from having read it elsewhere", does that mean you also didn't read the linked-to FT piece?
The "but it’s a single pool" cannot be a correct summary as there are multiple levels of luxury apartments.
Someone with $20 million is rich, and someone with $20 billion is rich, but these are very different levels of rich.
The general argument about the hedonic treadmill is the expectations rise with wealth, but the happiness and pleasure do not. The person with $20 million looks at what a person with $100 million can get, and wants more. This drives the need for ever-more luxury apartments.
There is of course some limit, as $30/hour isn't enough for a luxury apartment. But the affordable apartments get further away, or replaced with luxury apartments, and their middle manager bosses, who want their bonuses, are incentivized to use wage theft, poor working conditions, job insecurity, etc. to extract more profits while minimizing costs. Thus we have the opinion "there are no ethical billionaires", which implies there should be an upper bound to what is acceptable luxury.
rekabis specifically called out the Vienna model, which doesn't follow the same 'easier sell for developers' logic you referred to, because it uses different market incentives, including limited-profit housing associations, to build housing.
The headline is "Socialists should embrace luxury apartments."
Do you think socialists should embrace higher prices for everyone over longer times for everyone?
Even without an explicit wait list, I've been saving money for years and still don't have enough for a down payment to own in the neighborhood I prefer. The price growth seems to match my savings.
And unlike a wait list, I don't have a rough ETA on when I'll have enough money.
It's not like there's only a single price vs. wait list time trade-off. I could live in the suburbs, where it's certainly cheaper, but where commute time increases and local options are reduced.
I think that finding reasonable housing quickly, where you can wait two years until moving into your desired housing area, sounds embraceable.
"Higher prices for everyone" is not the argument, though. The article is about supporting the construction of market-rate housing as a relief in the market. More and more, the evidence for this argument has been proven valid.
You complain about saving for a nice house, but the idea of waiting for some government agency to give me a unit, only to potentially outgrow it or need to move for work, and then deal with it all over again, seems absolutely disastrous to me. I want agency in my living situation, not whatever the government deems appropriate for me.
I mean, Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism sounds fun and all, but at what cost to the environment? Is it warmed-over trickle-down economics? Why are the progressive taxes on those people so low that they can afford a luxury apartment, and how did they make that money in the first place?
Just how deluxe is "luxury"? Is an extra 25% of living space per person (and a room of one's one) sufficient luxury? Because what I've seen, "luxury" is a never-ending hedonic treadmill as rich people judge their luxury by what even richer people can afford.
Lastly, the FT is the newspaper for the already-well-off, with summer homes in France and fancy kitchens, who likely want comfort that the luxury they have is justified.