Maguncia t1_jan32ge wrote

That's purchasing power, not PPP ("purchasing power parity") i.e. the cost of living adjustment used to convert income into purchasing power. Regardless, the initial statement is true - the reason that Switzerland's minimum wage would theoretically be lower is that it has a high cost of living, and thus its purchasing power is lower than its income.


Maguncia t1_j7gwue7 wrote

Weird take. I'd never heard the song, and I've never heard of the artist, but after listening to it, it sounds standard to the point of being derivative. Weird to single it out for song of the year, also, but I don't get how it could be "worst" when it sounds exactly like 100 other top 40 songs, and there are so many totally grating, unpleasant songs (including some of the other nominations, probably).


Maguncia t1_ivzyn65 wrote

I mean, every time the price the buy real estate rises, fewer people can afford it - that's just a truism. Not sure what logical step is eluding you. Fewer people can move there, more people have to emigrate, more people have to rent instead of buy, more people have to live with their parents.


Maguncia t1_ivzxdhe wrote

People care about housing cost, not land value. A limited upzoning on a few plots will make those plots of land more valuable because there is a scarcity of developable land. Individual housing units will still become cheaper, though, since supply will increase (obviously a developer will not be able to sell the new units on upzoned land above the market, and they will provide competition to existing single-family homes). A large-scale upzoning will remove that scarcity, and land prices won't change nearly as much, except in truly prime locations that were very underzoned for some reason. Marginal land on the periphery (outer suburbs, exurbs) will lose a lot of value, since people are no longer squeezed all the way out there. Individual units will become significantly cheaper everywhere, of course.