You’re missing the point. It’s not about jealousy it’s basic economics - supply and demand. No I would not take the deal if it raised the demand in something central to my happiness (housing) driving the price up for something previously affordable and make it unaffordable.

I would not trade my house for a better iPhone with higher quality YouTube videos, and slightly more fashionable athleisure.

I don’t care how many yacht’s Elon Musk has, I care how many governments.

▲

simianwords 5 hours ago | parent [-]

What if you could buy the same house as before, buy the same iPhone as before and still have more money remaining? But your house cost way way more proportionally.

▲

majormajor 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you want to claim that that's a realistic outcome you should look at how people lived in the 50s or 80s vs today, now that we've driven up income inequality by dramatically lowering top-end tax rates and reduced barriers to rich people buying up more and more real property.

What we got is actually: you can't buy the same house as before. You can buy an iPhone that didn't exist then, but your boss can use it to request you do more work after-hours whenever they want. You have less money remaining. You have less free time remaining.

	▲	simianwords 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Do you have source for your claim? I have source that supports what I have said - look at disposable income data from BLS

▲

techblueberry 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you’re asking me if I’m an idiot who doesn’t understand basic economics / capitalism, the answer is no. If you’re asking me if I think that in the real world there are negative externalities of inequality in and of itself that makes it more complicated than “everyone gets more but billionaires get more more” than the answer is yes.