What's the house worth?

[Individual]

Lol.

As I responded previously, "There would be no legally enforceable laws therefore it would likely result in the stronger person exploiting the weaker person or one of the two being eliminated by the other if they couldn't work out a way to coexist peacefully."

 

[Kushinator]

Imagine two men who ended up on an island after shipwrecks. The first man got there first and owns all the land on the island, including two houses. Both he and the other man can live independently. However, the first man chooses not to work and charges a rent equivalent to his cost of living (the amount of food he needs).

Is this well and good, or is the man who does all the work being exploited?

Are you not able to comprehend that they are both worse off by way of one person choosing not to produce because they got there first? I'll let you stew on that until the eureka moment hits... and no, i won't help you get there.

 

[Kushinator]

Nope, and that was my point. Your situation was a bit unrealistic in that no alternative housing was mentioned.

It was an exercise in futility. The OP just asked if it was ok to be lazy.... In my follow-up reality of this situation, the person doing all the work gains more than enough strength to overtake the island, kill off the first one there, and be better off! That's not saying much about how person 2 values the company of a sloth. Of course, Tony is on to something in that such a situation can create... animosity.

 

[Kushinator]

the likely hood of violence to erupt as some point in response to it.

That's all but guaranteed in such a scenario.

 

[noonereal]

Out of curiosity, what percentage of American millionaires do you think inherited their wealth?

it is sad you understand so little of the sociaty you live in

 

[Kushinator]

I'd argue it is even worse than that, as rents have grown faster than income, meaning people today spend an even high proportion of their income on the same goods that cost less in the past.

Rents are reflective of incomes, meaning people today have more money to spend on the same goods as before. A house is a house is a house, meaning that ignoring upgrades and the like, it's a place to eat, sleep, wash, and store your belongings. There is an entire educated class of young folks who can afford to pay a $2.5k/month mortgage on a 1BR condo in Santa Monica. Median rents are on the rise at a slower pace than average rents, and respective incomes share the same relationship.

Again, i get it your underlying premise. I just disagree in the way you're trying to make your point.

 

[Kushinator]

Out of curiosity, what percentage of American millionaires do you think inherited their wealth?

A bullshit question.

How many millionaires were there in 1950? How about 1960? What about a millionaire in 1960 vs. 2021 comes to mind?

I assume most millionaires leave their wealth to someone(s). And i also assume that for every current millionaire, there will be 4 self made millionaires in the future. It's basically true... people who work hard are rewarded. Nobody has denied that. But it is equally true that everyone who works hard does not become wealthy... or in your definitive view... a millionaire.

 

[Kushinator]

it is sad you understand so little of the sociaty you live in

It's a strange fallacy of composition.

 

[Vadinho]

A nice thought experiment about ownership in general, and land ownership specifically. Which boils down to private property, versus communal ownership. How DO we determine who owns the land? If I'm on a boat, out at sea, and I find an island...who owns it? It's not a part of any country. Do I now own, because I was the first to set foot on it? Is that a proper measure of ownership? He who plants the first flag? Does that mean the US owns the moon? And what if that island IS a part of some country? What gives/gave that country the right to "claim" the island in the first place?

When plots on the moon start to be given away, who gives it away? Or will the moon be owned by anyone who is capable of reaching it?

On the flip side, if we decide we don't like the idea of a nation just being able to claim land by virtue of being capable of reaching it, or by virtue of force...then what? Is land to be evenly distributed among those who are born on it? Who arrive to it? That's a great way to ensure land is not productive.

Ever watch Aguirre Wrath of God? Incredible movie and there are scenes where he is on a raft floating down the Amazon claiming every inch for his King. Its an incredible scene and describes the lunacy of Western thought about private property.

 

[Vadinho]

A bullshit question.

How many millionaires were there in 1950? How about 1960? What about a millionaire in 1960 vs. 2021 comes to mind?

I assume most millionaires leave their wealth to someone(s). And i also assume that for every current millionaire, there will be 4 self made millionaires in the future. It's basically true... people who work hard are rewarded. Nobody has denied that. But it is equally true that everyone who works hard does not become wealthy... or in your definitive view... a millionaire.

Well, a million bucks is not what it used to be....I remember when Garvey was paid 100 grand per year, everyone was shocked.

 

[noonereal]

people who work hard are rewarded.

This is NOT true.

The biggest determiner of the future wealth of a baby at birth is the parents socioeconomic place.

Then we have luck, that's right, luck leads the way of how people acquire financial sucess if not though the birth lottery.

Who you know is far more advantageous to gaining wealth than is hard work too.

For the most part, hard work is nothing but a carrot.

 

[Kushinator]

This is NOT true.

The biggest determiner of the future wealth of a baby at birth is the parents socioeconomic place.

Then we have luck, that's right, luck leads the way of how people acquire financial sucess if not though the birth lottery.

Who you know is far more advantageous to gaining wealth than is hard work too.

For the most part, hard work is nothing but a carrot.

I explicitly stated not everyone who works hard becomes wealthy.

Yes, it's more than just hard work.

 

[cpwill]

it is sad you understand so little of the sociaty you live in

Can't help but notice you don't answer the question.

 

[cpwill]

A bullshit question.

How many millionaires were there in 1950? How about 1960? What about a millionaire in 1960 vs. 2021 comes to mind?

I assume most millionaires leave their wealth to someone(s). And i also assume that for every current millionaire, there will be 4 self made millionaires in the future. It's basically true... people who work hard are rewarded. Nobody has denied that. But it is equally true that everyone who works hard does not become wealthy... or in your definitive view... a millionaire.

Sure - it requires (generally) a long period of hard work matched with the ability to exercise personal discipline.

But it's hardly a bs question. The poster described a world seemingly where wealth was mostly an inherited affair. That it is (at least, in this society) so is worth pointing out.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Out of curiosity, what percentage of American millionaires do you think inherited their wealth?

According to the following link, about 12% did.

How Do Millionaires Get Their Money?

Millionaires don’t always receive their wealth from family. Some are self-made and earn their fortune through hard work and ingenuity.

www.businessnewsdaily.com

 

[Individual]

1. Can we see a photo of the house to make a reasonable appraisal of its' value?
2. How much effort is required to provide the food required as a rent cost?
3. How is the later arrival prevented from living independently?

 

[Kushinator]

But it's hardly a bs question. The poster described a world seemingly where wealth was mostly an inherited affair. That it is (at least, in this society) so is worth pointing out.

You unknowingly used a poor qualifier so to claim wealth is earned and not inherited.. on the basis of bad faith....

 

[Evilroddy]

Cut out the whole house pretext and let's get down to brass tacks. The original castaway is trying to enforce serfdom on the later arrival and the next step will be chattel slavery instead of serfdom. If the original castaway is strong enough to enforce his will, this will be the result. If not, then here comes the revolution and the new king enslaves the old, or kills him. Ah, the human condition is Man's fate - an Andre Malraux pun for those that can appreciate it.

Cheers, be well and remember always the concept of commonwealth.
Evilroddy.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You unknowingly used a poor qualifier so to claim wealth is earned and not inherited.. on the basis of bad faith....

See post #140.

 

[OlNate]

And I agree. My point is about the just price. It could be reached by either making both men owners, or simply by the first man charging a price for rent in line with his costs. Unfortunately out society thinks it's okay to charge however much you can get away with.

I think you would get away with significantly less in this scenario... The first person is wrong because they are withholding the necessities of life in a crisis situation - or at least making their availability subject to condition, which is also "immoral".

However, I think that your story is a little oversimplified to reflect anything in the real world. For example, if the price was merely food, and the second person was not expected to maintain the homestead, the scenario definitely changes, as this represents a work share - if while person 2 is out hunting and gathering, person 1 is patching the roof and clearing the brush, this becomes an entirely different scenario. It could, in fact, flip the entire script - if person one is maintaining the shelter, person two is "immoral" if they do not provide food for person one.

As a lot of people have already said, in your scenario balance is restored through violence or self reliance - maybe person two doesn't kill person one, maybe they just tell person one to kiss their ass and moves to the other side of the island and builds their own shelter, and provides for their own dietary requirements. But in terms of judging person one's morality, we'd need more information. We'd also need to understand who has the most power in this equation - on a deserted island this may come down to physical prowess, but it also might come down to who has the best survival skills, the best health....hell, the entire situation changes drastically if person two has a satellite phone in their pocket.

It's an interesting proposition, but I think maybe you're writing the scenario with the desired outcome in mind.

 

[Kushinator]

See post #140.

It's the same thing. Why is a millionaire rich or wealthy??? One million dollars was worth much more in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, etc....

I don't believe my point is too difficult to comprehend.

 

[phattonez]

Sure - it requires (generally) a long period of hard work matched with the ability to exercise personal discipline.

But it's hardly a bs question. The poster described a world seemingly where wealth was mostly an inherited affair. That it is (at least, in this society) so is worth pointing out.

I wasn't describing the world. It's an analogy meant to make a point about just price.

 

[Individual]

I wasn't describing the world. It's an analogy meant to make a point about just price.

Your analogy doesn't provide adequate relevant information to provide a basis to claim one or the other or neither individual is being exploited.
1. Can we see a photo of the house to make a reasonable appraisal of its' value?
2. How much effort is required to provide the food required as a rent cost?
3. How is the later arrival prevented from living independently, if he wanted to?

 

[tecoyah]

First guy is a Prick and second guy should do what humans do...bash his head in. Exploitation cannot happen when exploiters are dead.

 

[cpwill]

You unknowingly used a poor qualifier so to claim wealth is earned and not inherited.. on the basis of bad faith....

No. I can certainly be wrong, but, nothing here is worth making bad faith arguments for. Millionaires are a fairly solid proxy for "wealthy" in the U.S. at this time, though, I agree that over time both inflation and our growing standard of living will lessen it's relative impact.