[Edited to remove sarcasm.]
It’s more negative for the rich than for the poor, and as such reduces inequality.
Wouldn’t that predict that San Francisco, which has built almost nothing since the 1970s in most neighborhoods, should have low inequality?
I was speaking of inequality generally, not specifically housing inequality.
The entire point was a cheap shot at people who think that inequality is inherently bad, like suggesting destroying all the value to eliminate all the inequality.
Ah, I’m just bad at recognizing sarcasm. In fact, I’m going to reword my comment above to remove the sarcasm.
[Edited to remove sarcasm.]
Wouldn’t that predict that San Francisco, which has built almost nothing since the 1970s in most neighborhoods, should have low inequality?
I was speaking of inequality generally, not specifically housing inequality.
The entire point was a cheap shot at people who think that inequality is inherently bad, like suggesting destroying all the value to eliminate all the inequality.
Ah, I’m just bad at recognizing sarcasm. In fact, I’m going to reword my comment above to remove the sarcasm.