-- Avoid tying up capital in illiquid plans. One exception is housing since ‘land on Holy Terra’ still seems quite valuable in many scenarios.
My current take on land/housing:
1. The value of your house may depreciate very quickly as materials and labor become cheap due to automation. 2. Residential land gets almost all of its value from the infrastructure built around it and being near a city where people have jobs to get to. If there are large migrations, the land your house is on may lose most of its value even though land in general should go up as a hard asset.
I’ve seen this take a few times about land values and I would bet against it. If society gets mega rich based on capital (and thus more or similarly inequality) I think the cultural capitals of the US (LA, NY, Bay, Chicago, Austin, etc.) and most beautiful places (Marin/Sonoma, Jackson hole, Park City, Aspen, Vail, Scotsdale, Florida Keys, Miami, Charleston, etc.) will continue to outpace everywhere else.
Also the idea that New York is expensive because that’s where the jobs are doesn’t seem particularly true to me. Companies move to these places as much because they are trying to attract talent as the other way around. I know lots of students who went to my T20 university and got remote jobs. Approximately 0 of them want to move to ugly bumfuck even if it’s basically free. The suburbs/exurbs maybe, but not rural Missouri.
Now if there is a large wealth redistribution, which seem extremely unlikely given the timelines and current politics, I would agree. Also thinking construction will get cheaper is pretty questionable. The cost of construction in the US has skyrocketed largely because of regulations, new tech won’t necessarily be able to fix this.
My current take on land/housing:
1. The value of your house may depreciate very quickly as materials and labor become cheap due to automation.
2. Residential land gets almost all of its value from the infrastructure built around it and being near a city where people have jobs to get to. If there are large migrations, the land your house is on may lose most of its value even though land in general should go up as a hard asset.
I wrote more about it here.
I’ve seen this take a few times about land values and I would bet against it. If society gets mega rich based on capital (and thus more or similarly inequality) I think the cultural capitals of the US (LA, NY, Bay, Chicago, Austin, etc.) and most beautiful places (Marin/Sonoma, Jackson hole, Park City, Aspen, Vail, Scotsdale, Florida Keys, Miami, Charleston, etc.) will continue to outpace everywhere else.
Also the idea that New York is expensive because that’s where the jobs are doesn’t seem particularly true to me. Companies move to these places as much because they are trying to attract talent as the other way around. I know lots of students who went to my T20 university and got remote jobs. Approximately 0 of them want to move to ugly bumfuck even if it’s basically free. The suburbs/exurbs maybe, but not rural Missouri.
Now if there is a large wealth redistribution, which seem extremely unlikely given the timelines and current politics, I would agree. Also thinking construction will get cheaper is pretty questionable. The cost of construction in the US has skyrocketed largely because of regulations, new tech won’t necessarily be able to fix this.