Comments by "Jamiel De Abrew" (@JamielDeAbrew) on "VisualEconomik EN" channel.

  1. Is too much investment in the UK going into real estate? If yes, is this investment driving efficiency and productivity as much as possible? How about a vacancy tax on both residential and commercial real estate? No matter if for a land or a month, an empty property is inefficient use of land, and the building on the land. This means its inefficient use of the materials in the building and the labour that went into making the building. The empty property tax should be strong enough to force AirBnBs, hotels, motels (and other vacant properties) to be rented on low demand days - even if at a loss. This will lead to some short term rentals being converted back into long term rentals. It will make residential and commercial rent cheaper. Giving consumers and businesses more money to spend elsewhere. And if some investors decide to leave the real estate market, they’ll invest elsewhere (most likely pushing investment into improving productivity).
    21
  2. Would love to see “full employment” included. For many countries reserve banks and government, their “full employment” aim is to still have a percentage of people unemployed. The reason is to put downward pressure on inflation. And also to decrease employee turnover. What would happen if the full employment goal was a higher percentage? I think more companies would offer shares to win employees (over other companies) and reduce turnover.
    18
  3. Modern manufacturing is more automated. Even if manufacturing returns to the UK, it won’t bring the same number of jobs as before.
    14
  4. Would it work if combined with a tax on empty properties? If such a tax was high enough, people would need to either: * live in their property * rent their property * sell their property Even holiday homes would need to be rented (perhaps air bnb) when not in use.
    13
  5. Is it sustainable for the world’s human population to indefinitely grow? Maybe we need new economic systems that don’t rely on human population growth
    12
  6. As more people work from home, they move to into larger homes. Sometimes this is by moving further away from their work offices to benefit from cheaper housing or cheaper rent. This additional demand for rooms (eg home office room) has increased demand for rooms and decreased the supply of rooms.
    11
  7. There should be an empty property tax on both residential and commercial properties. This would push owners to either use, rent or sell.
    10
  8. What percentage of surveyed economists owned rental properties?
    9
  9. Google the term “full employment”. Unemployment is intentionally built into many countries economic systems to avoid inflation.
    9
  10. In a democracy, the shareholders are the voting citizens. It is their responsibility to make sure public companies have the correct board and management.
    8
  11. Companies don’t only have lay offs in their “worst moments”. Innovative, productive companies may lay people off in a good moment due to automation.
    6
  12. Most money taken from banks (to avoid deflation) wouldn’t end up in safes. This money would be invested elsewhere (eg shares, real estate, business, commodities, etc…) or spent.
    6
  13. Working from home has contributed to rising rents. How? Some people decided to move further away from the office to rent a place with more rooms for the same price. Some used this as a home office room while others rented even more additional rooms for hobby rooms. This put pressure on those living in share housing to pay more or rent elsewhere. As this trickled through the market, it’s lead to higher rents. The market hasn’t equalised yet though. People who have had their rental prices increase are moving (as they can’t afford the new market price).
    6
  14. If rents were cheap enough, people would stay in these rural areas. People that can work from home would work in these areas to benefit from the crazy cheap rental prices. People on low incomes would make the sacrifice of increased travel time to benefit from crazy cheap rental prices. Travellers would stay further away from tourist destinations to enjoy the insanely low prices. Because the rental prices are so low, residents would have more money. They would spend some of this money at local businesses (restaurants, retail etc… ). This spending would trigger business upgrades and new businesses. Of course, no investor would want to have rent fall this low. This is why we need an empty property tax. This will force investors to either rent or sell. This would be an efficiency measure. It would increase the efficient use of land. And also buildings on the land (and the materials and labour needed to create these buildings).
    5
  15. Increasing taxation (without increasing spending) takes money out of the economy. It puts downward pressure on inflation
    4
  16. Drinking game - shot for “in other words”
    4
  17. Wages going up doesn’t mean much if the cost of a home and university education increase by more.
    4
  18. Imagine an organisation goes the automation route. They need fewer employees. Since the employees are more productive, they can pay them more. Since their processes are more efficient, they can have cheaper goods/services. Now the higher paid employees spend more. This creates new jobs. The people/organisations that enjoyed the lower prices can afford to buy additional goods/services. This creates new jobs. The main way this backfires is if all the money stays with the owners of the company. And they just buy bitcoin or bid up the price of a painting at auction. If they were to invest in more businesses, they would still create more jobs.
    4
  19. Automation will probably lead to more factories opening closer to their customers. Since labour costs will be a smaller percentage of expenses, companies will look to: * reduce shipping costs * reduce international risk * reduce delivery time
    4
  20. If a landlord decided to sell their property, wouldn’t that improve housing affordability? (For people wanting to purchase their first)
    4
  21. House of Lords is hardly democratic
    4
  22. I agree that would be most effective for some - especially those that work from home or close to the office. And even for people with kids. For those that work on location, a 4 day work week may be best. This would reduce their weekly travel time. It may even reduce their usage of travel infrastructure (roads, public transport), reducing government spending.
    3
  23. Do we need the click bait title? (I’ve subscribed to your channel, but such a title makes the channel loose credibility)
    3
  24.  @andrewharris3900 government regulated minimum number of holiday days off work isn’t capitalism. True capitalism wouldn’t have the government involved. Instead workers and employers would negotiate. Is any country 100% capitalist or communist?
    3
  25. If only China had a vacant property tax. The housing bubble would have been prevented. Some Chinese investment would have gone elsewhere (potentially increasing productivity).
    3
  26.  @badluck5647  there is a cost to increasing worker efficiency - eg a new tool, machine or computer. Even paying for a software update. If workers aren’t paid much, it may be cheaper to pay workers for more hours than to invest in improving productivity. You may argue that in the right labour market, workers don’t work as hard and that reduces productivity. Even if that was true… Once these productivity investments are made, the money is spent. So if the labour market changed in the future, we’d definitely be left with a more productive workforce.
    3
  27.  @fturatti  unless you first secure a new job and then quit your old job.
    3
  28. Corporations act in the interests of their shareholders. And the wealthy own more shares, so have greater voting rights.
    3
  29. Please stop with the click bait video images
    3
  30. Australia tested a cashless card for welfare payments. The result are still being debated. A negative side effect was the card could only be used at some places. This removed a lot of access to purchasing 2nd hand items. This also isn’t great for the environment. A benefit was the restriction on spending on gambling and alcohol. However this did create a black market. A downside was the technology was expensive. A private company was paid a lot of money for each person given a cashless card.
    3
  31. Who would want to be unemployed and live off nothing?
    3
  32. What about increased digital privacy? While privacy is a good thing, it does have the side effect of making digital advertising less efficient. Over the last couple of years, Apple has rolled out updates that improve privacy while reducing advertising efficiency.
    3
  33. I wonder if people working from home means governments can reduce spending on transportation infrastructure (roads, public transport)
    3
  34. Did the 2021 Suez Canal obstruction contribute to global inflation?
    2
  35. Maybe. But don’t ignore this benefit… with fewer people driving or taking public transport, governments can reduce spending in these areas. With better digital systems, companies can spend less money flying their employees around.
    2
  36.  @cedricdellafaille1361  the jury is still out on if workers are more efficient working from the office. I’ve seen many articles saying workers are more efficient from home and vice versa. It seems people are just finding articles that prove the belief they already have. Theoretically, working from home could help to lower taxes. Why? Taxes for for transportation infrastructure - including roads, public transport etc… the more people that work from home, the less new transportation infrastructure is needed. This isn’t only a saving in building and material costs. There is also an efficiency increase in the use of land. Less land will be required for additional lanes and tracks. Less than will be needed for additional car parking spaces. Working from home can also reduce a country’s transportation energy consumption - reducing dependence on foreign oil for many countries. Some people travel an hour to work and an hour home. Some workers are happy to do additional overtime when working from home (essentially sharing the time saved on travel).
    2
  37. Maybe this is an example of inequality pushing the market out of balance. The wealthy need to park their money somewhere. This leads them to bid on assets, pushing asset prices higher.
    2
  38. Average salaries of graduates of specific courses at specific universities could be published. This could include after various time intervals eg 1 year after graduation 5 years after graduation 20 years after graduation Then students could take this data into consideration when deciding where to study and what to study.
    2
  39. “In other words” - please stop using this phrase!
    2
  40. The answer can be found in the answer to these questions… What percentage of wealth was inherited? And what percentage was earned? How much does non-earned conditions lead to success? Some children * go to better schools * Sleep on nice beds * Study with faster internet and faster computers * study in temperature controlled spaces (think heaters and air conditioners) * access newer textbooks (with up to date information) * have a quiet place to study * etc…
    2
  41.  @L4Z3RF4C3  capitalism also has some inefficiency built in.
    2
  42.  @badluck5647  have you thought about the impacts of inequality on inflation? ‘Economies of scale’ drive down prices. Eg using machines in factories rather than making custom products. Wealth inequality leads to a greater diversity of goods and services. Many things the wealthy purchase are not produced at scale. Items the poor purchase aren’t built to last. When these items are thrown away, it is an inefficient use of the worlds resources. And this also puts upward pressure on the price of resources.
    2
  43. To a point. After that point (if VAT) is too high, a cash economy grows.
    2
  44. How about increasing high income tax rates? This would incentivise people to work less hours - as opposed to people who get a 4 day work week choosing to work an additional job. If these high income individuals miss the feeling of working, they may even turn to volunteer work. They could still choose to work long hours despite the high tax (if their motivation isn’t just financial).
    1
  45. Look at Australia. The government outsourced to the “big 4” global accounting firms. Due to possible corruption, conflicts and high costs, the government is now starting to bring more back in-house.
    1
  46.  @darrinscott6612  agreed. Hopefully people first secure a new (better paying) job and then quit their job. It’s great when employees can work the market.
    1
  47.  @sstff6771  mostly yes but not always. There are many that work for less because they like the work.
    1
  48.  @francescogreco9826  people would still rent summer houses in winter. One example is young digital nomads enjoying the ability to work from different locations. Another is those that can work remotely and want to save money. That said, market rates would be much lower in off peak seasons. Yes, not everyone can work remotely. Those that choose to rent places in the off peak won’t be renting in other areas. This would improve affordability in those areas.
    1
  49. “Non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU) is a theoretical level of unemployment below which inflation would be expected to rise. It was first introduced as NIRU (non-inflationary rate of unemployment) by Franco Modigliani and Lucas Papademos in 1975, as an improvement over the "natural rate of unemployment" concept, which was proposed earlier by Milton Friedman. In the United States, estimates of NAIRU typically range between 5 and 6%. Monetary policy conducted under the assumption of a NAIRU, typically involves allowing just enough unemployment in the economy to prevent inflation rising above a given target figure. Prices are allowed to increase gradually and some unemployment is tolerated.” Source: Wikipedia page on NAIRU But let’s pretend the unemployed are lazy people who don’t want to work.
    1
  50.  @badluck5647  I agree with you that competition can help to increase product lifespans. That said, competition when driving down prices can also reduce products lifespans. Government legislation can increase product life spans too. You’re right that some premium items don’t necessarily have longer lifespans eg high thread count fabrics. The economy of scale for parts in a Bentley or Ferrari is less than a Toyota. The design costs are spread across fewer units sold. There is zero scale with paintings sold at premium auction houses. Holiday homes are an inefficient use of land, labour and resources (assuming they sit empty when not being used by the owner). Luxury fashion houses limit the supply of their goods. This means design costs are spread across fewer sales.
    1