- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,114
- Location
- Birmingham
Except it's not your point.
If low earners making more money is the driving force behind increased housing costs then reducing their income would reduce housing prices in tandem. Meaning that their decreased income would have the exact same buying power and they would still be able to buy the properties.
Do you see how this is contradictory?
No sorry, you're not getting it.
All else being equal, buying power would decrease yes. But the damage is already done because houses have risen in price, allowing people to leverage equity from those houses and buy more of them.
So now, you cant just cut low earner wages because of the lag in the system, and people would really suffer.
What Im saying is, the causes have already happened, and are because of decisions made three decades ago that allowed the working class to reap these massive gains. As bad as it sounds, the working class should never have been able to reap these gains, and we're all now suffering for it.
Now the problem will be perpetuated because the only way to help people survive against this inflation is to bolster wages, cut tax and provide more benefits. This enables them to pay bills, meet their rents etc, and so prevents the system from collapsing when it naturally otherwise would. But to do otherwise would be seen as immoral.