EDIT to expand given downvotes on prior post: You claim:

> ...all the bounty of our efforts will accumulate to the holders of fixed assets, namely land and human talent.

Ricardo says nothing of the sort here. Especially so, nothing about human talent. Ricardo strictly makes claim that the rent of land will be equal to marginal value of that land in the use of production. So if a given unit of land would increase the production of an enterprise by $X/yr, then the owner of that land can charge the owner of that enterprise up to $X/yr. This has nothing to do with housing and certainly nothing to do with human talent. Housing is far more complicated given how one might think about demand. We also haven't even talked about how economic rent/economic value defers from just like dollars of revenue or whatever.

They are more "productive" on that land. They'll tend to outbid other potential users, at least if tech gentrification complaints are to be believed.

This all falls in line with the theory imho.

I don't think there's any real difference between that and good soybean land, or goat raising land or whatever that Ricardo wrote about.

The general idea is that for non-remote office workers, housing is a factor of production.

> all the bounty of our efforts will accumulate to the holders of fixed assets, namely land and human talent.