There’s a big gap between $5 and $21… for now. That I have no doubt they’ll spend all their time building features so they can increase prices to close that gap.
A big argument against LVT that people (often landlords, but many "socialists" too) is that rents will simply rise to reflect the extra cost to the landlord
Same with increase interest rates
It's certainly widely believed that "price = cost + %profit" rather than "price = level at which maximum profit will be achieved after factoring in market segregation"
I mean, LVT or not, that is probably true. If the price increase affects the entire market, landlords will exit the market until equilibrium is restored (or renters will increase their willingness to pay a higher rate).
If market price < cost + desired margin, some sellers will exit, reducing supply and increasing market price.
LVT also only applies to commodities, of which software isn’t really.
> landlords will exit the market until equilibrium is restored
Thus a increasing the supply of properties being sold, and thus lowering the price for those who want to buy, allowing more to buy, reducing the demand for places to rent. Win-Win.
With LVT (or higher interest rate on a variable rate mortgage) the parasitical landlord can't simply stop having a tenant, as they're still liable for the costs. They have to offer something more than the intrinsic cost of land they occupy to make it productive enough for someone to pay them.
> LVT also only applies to commodities, of which software isn’t really.
There's a strong argument that copyright (specifically that used to prevent people from using it) would count as "Land" in the economic sense - it drives rentseeking and monopoly behavior - https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/possibility-space-...
