1) I'm not an economist, but why would price and population increase be a 1:1?
2) Your math is a wild oversimplification. California's population has grown 2.5x since 1960, and I imagine rents have gone up even higher. Higher rent forces companies to raise their salaries, which gives consumers more cash, which allows product price tags to raise. And if a company can sell someone in California a higher-priced product, why shouldn't they charge someone in, say, Alabama the same?
Lifelong San Franciscan here. The increase of land developed for housing throughout the Bay Area over the past decades has been piddling, and filling in marshes and coastlines is environmentally problematic, and increasingly vulnerable to sea level rise and flooding.
And now that well water is running out, and global warming is making large swaths of the West sweltering and nigh-uninhabitable during the summer, and turning forests into dried-out tinderboxes.
Trust me, new San Franciscos and New York Citys aren't being built "all the time."
Surely I don't have to point out that no new game-changing transportation technology has emerged since the invention of gas engine to similarly revolutionize the accessibility of people to get themselves and furniture up steep hills. Tech innovation is not infinite.
Dude, chill. There are exceptions for every maxim, but the line was far more true than it wasn't. (The problem with Luthor's plan was the landmass the crystals created was... not great, in terms of habitability.)
(Not to mention, how was he going to defend his claim to the new land? With what army?)
Well, that's a factor also, sure.
Last edited:
