What is actually much closer to the reality of the majority of working people is that they work 15hours a day and STILL they can't earn what they need to live a quality life.
His prediction was wrong because his theory was wrong
A source for you and the classic HN bubble living downvoters
44% Of global population lives under the line of poverty:
> A source for you
Seems tangential to your original claim ?
People dont work less because they will make so much more money that they just don't want to leave it on the table.
I said: it is more realistic to say that people don't work less because even if they worked for 15 hours they would still not make a living wage.
The difference: The first argument says people work more because they are greedy. My argurment says people work more because they can't survive if they work less.
> no country is even remotely close to 15hours per day.
People don't only work for what their legal framework says. Apart from working un-registered overtime that can go up to 9-10-12 hours, many people also work second jobs, participate in gig-work and such. Easily adding up to 12-14 hours a day, and factor in 6days out of 7days per week instead of your regular 5.
Yes, 15 hours may be an exaggeration, but not by a lot. And definitely closer to the reality of things than what Kayne said.
This is counterintuitive because the cost of producing anything goes down, so you'd assume cost of living goes down. Unfortunately all production (and consumption) requires land, and as productivity rises, so does the cost of land. This isn't because the inputs into land get more expensive. It's for no other reason than that landowners are able to charge more because the land is able to produce more.
To point out the obvious: a landowner in a low productivity region does just the same as one in a high productivity region, which is to say nothing at all.
The land would be there available for use even if no one at all owned it.
This cost gets baked into every single input into every single good and service. The reason a meal is so expensive in New York City as compared to Oklahoma City isn't shipping costs. It's the rent of the restaurant and then the higher wages needed to pay everyone in the restaurant due to their elevated rent needs.
Rent rises (and falls, but more slowly) to exactly the level required to keep some portion of people in poverty and near-poverty, no matter how productive the local area is.
That's an interesting claim. While it does seems there are some kind of structural forces that all but guarantee a certain percentage of people will live in poverty, I'm not certain that changing rent prices is necessarily a significant factor. I tried to find evidence that changes in rent prices "keep[s] some portion of people in poverty and near-poverty."
Can you point to any references that suggest this is the case?
An extreme example is Palo Alto where local productivity is so high that a family income of ~$200k/yr qualifies for public housing assistance. These are people who are outputting massive amounts of productivity but in dire need of public assistance.
Why? Rent.
There is an equilibrium between rent prices, people's willingness to live in a region, and the productivity of that region.
Trivially: If you imagine a plot of land next to One World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan that for some soil/geological region can't sustain a building taller than 2 stories, that lot will be worth far, far less than the lot upon which One World Trade Center was built.
Another example: If you imagine that elevators were outlawed for some reason, suddenly the value of all high-density developable land would fall.