Well, as long as builders aren’t colluding to fix supply, it doesn’t matter.
Corporations can buy up all they want… but idle units are unprofitable. Between property taxes, borrowing costs and maintenance (which accrues whether units are empty or not), units need revenue or they are a drag on profits. Cartels fall apart very rapidly under these conditions.
Right now demand outstrips supply by a wide margin. This makes it profitable to buy and rent it out. Build enough housing to put some slack in the market and that equation will rapidly reverse.
TL;DR corporate ownership is a symptom, not a cause of housing supply issues.
Employment is a game of matching; the employer wants to match a skill set to a particular job.
It’s entirely likely people on these products don’t easily match internally.
The job market for people capable of working on Apple high end R&D is also likely much better at matching then Apples internal HR, simply because the market has so many more openings.
Especially at Apple. Although I've never worked for Apple, I did spend a year at a company that built internal software for Apple, my experience was that their teams are tightly coupled and very, very long-lived (hence they had external software shops building internal tooling for them).
It will likely result in a cut in hours for marginal workers, boosted hours for higher productivity workers and more outsourcing/automation.
Labor intensive restaurant operations will have a competitive disadvantage to capital intensive models, and so we’ll see more capital intensive ones thrive.
The minimum wage is just the first impact of a law establishing a new state regulatory body with labor, industry, and public representation for regulating working conditions in the industry; wage theft in the industry was one of the motivating factors.
Yeah, sadly, not a lot here. I’m a fan of studies around materialism and capitalism but trying to dress up a study in neuroscience as a cultural critique comes off as disingenuous and vapid
How exactly? If there were a hypothetical study that saw that people who have been homeless, even after homelessness, suffer from more diseases related to parasites, would it be "disingenuous and vapid?" Would it be trying to dress up a study in parasitology as cultural critique?
Or, alternatively, could both poverty and homelessness be related to culture?
I mean, a study like this could deliver meaningful results, it’s just that this one doesn’t imo.
Hypothetically, studies on the biology/physiology can be very interesting, but this one comes off as a bit vapid and disingenuous because it’s not longitudinal, has a low sample size, and appears to not even attempt to measure intelligence or select to weed out bias in the sample set (e.g. find people born poor and see if they really do have cognitive impairment into adulthood by studying them over many years, not a backwards looking or self-selecting methodology such as theirs). When they say things like “individuals from lower income households” there’s clearly some “lifelong disadvantage” still in the sample set.
Not if you borrow against your assets, using nominal gains to obtain more and more loaned money. That's tax free and with hard assets such as real estate, the nominal gains far outweigh the interest.
I wish I knew how to play that game. It's a game primarily played by the rich, and is part of the reason that the primary losers from inflation are poor.
Yes, the printed money (whose value is "sucked" from the ones in your pocket) is given to those closest to the money printer, and they tend to be the very richest in society. It's called the Cantillon effect.
It has? Russia has a dictator now who's obviously some kind of narcissist, and not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. His hold on power is tenuous at best, and there's a good chance he'll be deposed before long.
