"Intergenerational Injustice"

Superfreak said:
you are providing example after example of EXACTLY what the problem is.
Click to expand...

And you provide the perfect example of Robber Baronism.

Politicians colluding with corporations to rob private citizens of their home equity.
 
cawacko said:
People want to build apartment buildings near transportation in urban areas. These aren't single family neighborhood's.
Click to expand...

Near public transportation ... so rich suburbanites can import cheap labor from the city ... at taxpayer subsidized expense
 
Bigdog said:
And you provide the perfect example of Robber Baronism.

Politicians colluding with corporations to rob private citizens of their home equity.
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you rambling about?

You are the one trying to freeze other people out of the market by limiting construction. You are the one colluding with politicians to keep zoning restrictions in place to prevent new development. You are the one trying to fuck over future generations all because you think you are entitled to keep seeing your property values increase.
 
Bigdog said:
Near public transportation ... so rich suburbanites can import cheap labor from the city ... at taxpayer subsidized expense
Click to expand...

Most of the jobs are in the City though. And young people that work in the suburbs don't want to live in the suburbs, they want to live in the City where the action is.
 
Superfreak said:
What the fuck are you rambling about?

You are the one trying to freeze other people out of the market by limiting construction. You are the one colluding with politicians to keep zoning restrictions in place to prevent new development. You are the one trying to fuck over future generations all because you think you are entitled to keep seeing your property values increase.
Click to expand...

No, you want to change the nature of the private business transaction a homeowner made ... years ago. You want to renegotiate the deal ... now that prices have risen. Renegotiate at the private homeowner's expense ... to profit some crony corporation.
 
cawacko said:
Most of the jobs are in the City though. And young people that work in the suburbs don't want to live in the suburbs, they want to live in the City where the action is.
Click to expand...

When I was young, I wanted a lot of things too.

IIRC, the richest demographic is age 60 ... because they've worked a whole lifetime to get there, but haven't yet spent it on retirement.

And I thought all the young city dwellers, ubered nowadays.
 
Last edited:
Bigdog said:
No, you want to change the nature of the private business transaction a homeowner made ... years ago. You want to renegotiate the deal ... now that prices have risen. Renegotiate at the private homeowner's expense ... to profit some crony corporation.
Click to expand...

No. You never purchased the right to all the land around you. You don't own the right to decide what is done on that land. Your home is not a part of the deal.

You didn't pay to keep views. You didn't pay to keep the status quo for all of eternity.

You think you are entitled to fuck over future generations... you are not. You pretend this is about a company benefiting, it is not. It is about young people having the same types of opportunities you had. You seem to think its ok that a 400 square foot apartment in San Fran is renting for $2800/month. That is nonsense.

You are the one who is aiding the corporations that own the existing rental properties. You are the one fucking over the individual worker in favor of the corporations. All because you seem to think you bought the right to not have anything change. You didn't. You bought YOUR house and the land its on. You did not buy the right to stop all change in the future.
 
Superfreak said:
No. You never purchased the right to all the land around you. You don't own the right to decide what is done on that land. Your home is not a part of the deal.

You didn't pay to keep views. You didn't pay to keep the status quo for all of eternity.

You think you are entitled to fuck over future generations... you are not. You pretend this is about a company benefiting, it is not. It is about young people having the same types of opportunities you had. You seem to think its ok that a 400 square foot apartment in San Fran is renting for $2800/month. That is nonsense.

You are the one who is aiding the corporations that own the existing rental properties. You are the one fucking over the individual worker in favor of the corporations. All because you seem to think you bought the right to not have anything change. You didn't. You bought YOUR house and the land its on. You did not buy the right to stop all change in the future.
Click to expand...

Then don't live in San Fran if you can't afford it. Move to Beverly Hills instead.
 
Bigdog said:
When I was young, I wanted a lot of things too.

IIRC, the richest demographic is age 60 ... because they've worked a whole lifetime to get there, but haven't yet spent it on retirement.

And I thought all the young workers, ubered nowadays.
Click to expand...

From a national perspective it hurts the overall economy. According to McKinsey the housing crisis costs California $140 billion annually in lost economic output.

From a Bay Area perspective, and as one who owns two homes here, I want the best and brightest to continue to come here to work and live. That's not going to happen if they can't afford to live here. We can look at many City's that were on top decades ago that aren't today. There's a bigger picture involved here than just older home owners trying to maximize short term values.

What's ironic is there people who paid under $100K for their homes that are now worth over $2m arguing against new development. Again, there's a bigger picture at play.
 
cawacko said:
From a national perspective it hurts the overall economy. According to McKinsey the housing crisis costs California $140 billion annually in lost economic output.

From a Bay Area perspective, and as one who owns two homes here, I want the best and brightest to continue to come here to work and live. That's not going to happen if they can't afford to live here. We can look at many City's that were on top decades ago that aren't today. There's a bigger picture involved here than just older home owners trying to maximize short term values.

What's ironic is there people who paid under $100K for their homes that are now worth over $2m arguing against new development. Again, there's a bigger picture at play.
Click to expand...

A home is a very personal thing and has immeasurable emotional value. It's not just about the money. Most people want to die in their home if they have a choice.

$140 billion economic output is unimportant. It's not exactly a "noble motive". You don't destroy the environment for profit and you don't destroy peoples neighborhoods for profit.

I hear Cali is making solar panels mandatory ... adding 10-12k to new home prices.
 
Bigdog said:
A home is a very personal thing and has immeasurable emotional value. It's not just about the money.

$140 billion economic output is unimportant. It's not exactly a "noble motive". You don't destroy the environment for profit and you don't destroy peoples neighborhoods for profit.

I hear Cali is making solar panels mandatory ... adding 10-12k to new home prices.
Click to expand...

It is about the money as you stated earlier. People worried they will lose their retirement nest egg (even though people aren't losing money).

Not making this a personal attack on you because you aren't alone in saying what you are but it's just like SF said, basically you're saying I was here first and I don't want anyone else moving into my neighborhood. I want my neighborhood to never change.

If you believe in free markets then people should be allowed to build. A lot of our current zoning codes and restriction come from a time long ago when whites wanted to keep blacks out. The rhetoric is different today but the zoning codes and ultimate actions are essentially the same, use the codes to keep people out.

How would ever have growth as a country if we couldn't build new housing because no one wanted where they live to change? That's essentially the argument being made here.
 
cawacko said:
It is about the money as you stated earlier. People worried they will lose their retirement nest egg (even though people aren't losing money).

Not making this a personal attack on you because you aren't alone in saying what you are but it's just like SF said, basically you're saying I was here first and I don't want anyone else moving into my neighborhood. I want my neighborhood to never change.

If you believe in free markets then people should be allowed to build. A lot of our current zoning codes and restriction come from a time long ago when whites wanted to keep blacks out. The rhetoric is different today but the zoning codes and ultimate actions are essentially the same, use the codes to keep people out.

How would ever have growth as a country if we couldn't build new housing because no one wanted where they live to change? That's essentially the argument being made here.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know I agree with you and SF on almost everything else.

They love their home and their neighborhood so much, they aren't willing to take 2 million for a home they bought for only 100k. They could take the 2 million and live in Hawaii, but they don't want to.

I'm most familiar with Baltimore city in the Northeast. so that does affect my perspective, and I lost everything when they changed the zoning. Fortunately, I was very young and able to recover eventually. Those young SF city dwellers can live in Balto. for 1/3 the cost ... and there's plenty of action.

And when we get older, most people don't like any changes.
 
cawacko said:
Can't say I've heard this term before but of course it's the Boomers (largely) screwing the youth. We're all selfish but has there been a more selfish generation than the Boomers?

(1 - I know this board is largely made up of Boomers & 2 -we don't have enough good intergenerational arguments on here)


Alissa Walker (@awalkerinLA)
5/4/18, 11:36 AM

A term being discussed on this housing panel—the idea of "intergenerational injustice." One generation has made housing and development decisions that have essentially screwed the next generation. In many cases, these are their own kids. #cityage
Click to expand...

Baby Boomers, Gen X, Millenials are totally made-up words, dreamed up by journalists and tabloids looking for an angle, a gimmick, to create the impression of tension, to divide people into teams, so their reporting is more titillating...more interesting...less boring. You just know one day, there was a meeting in the editorial room of the NY Times or the National Enquirer when they made these crap terms up.

Tension, the horse race, tribalism, and team competition sells. That's probably Journalism Rule Number One.

I have never been feeble minded enough to let myself get suckered by these facades and gimmicks intended to titillate and create an appearance, a veneer of tension. How many people have made money writing crappy articles using and abusing these crappy terms and themes?

I mean when you think about it, once you get away from editorial pages and message boards, how often in real life to you here people talking about the horrors of intergenerational warfare? Among peers, neighbors, colleagues, and co-workers I almost never hear it. In fact, I can't even remember the last time it came up in conversation.
 
Cypress said:
Baby Boomers, Gen X, Millenials are totally made-up words, dreamed up by journalists and tabloids looking for an angle, a gimmick, to create the impression of tension, to divide people into teams, so their reporting is more titillating...more interesting...less boring. You just know one day, there was a meeting in the editorial room of the NY Times or the National Enquirer when they made these crap terms up.

Tension, the horse race, tribalism, and team competition sells. That's probably Journalism Rule Number One.

I have never been feeble minded enough to let myself get suckered by these facades and gimmicks intended to titillate and create an appearance, a veneer of tension. How many people have made money writing crappy articles using and abusing these crappy terms and themes?

I mean when you think about it, once you get away from editorial pages and message boards, how often in real life to you here people talking about the horrors of intergenerational warfare? Among peers, neighbors, colleagues, and co-workers I almost never hear it. In fact, I can't even remember the last time it came up in conversation.
Click to expand...

This was a tweet and it was a term used at a housing panel in LA. Because we label generations it's easier to use the term Boomers which is what I did. But the actual tweet said one generation screwed another. In this case it's largely the current older generation that is screwing a younger generation.
 
cawacko said:
Can't say I've heard this term before but of course it's the Boomers (largely) screwing the youth. We're all selfish but has there been a more selfish generation than the Boomers?

(1 - I know this board is largely made up of Boomers & 2 -we don't have enough good intergenerational arguments on here)


Alissa Walker (@awalkerinLA)
5/4/18, 11:36 AM

A term being discussed on this housing panel—the idea of "intergenerational injustice." One generation has made housing and development decisions that have essentially screwed the next generation. In many cases, these are their own kids. #cityage
Click to expand...

There has not.
 
cawacko said:
This was a tweet and it was a term used at a housing panel in LA. Because we label generations it's easier to use the term Boomers which is what I did. But the actual tweet said one generation screwed another. In this case it's largely the current older generation that is screwing a younger generation.
Click to expand...

I agree that terms like Boomer are necessary and convenient labels.

You're in RE, so I'm having a hard time getting why you don't understand the importance to a buyer ... of "the neighborhood", "the view", and general "congestion".
 
cawacko said:
From a national perspective it hurts the overall economy. According to McKinsey the housing crisis costs California $140 billion annually in lost economic output.

From a Bay Area perspective, and as one who owns two homes here, I want the best and brightest to continue to come here to work and live. That's not going to happen if they can't afford to live here. We can look at many City's that were on top decades ago that aren't today. There's a bigger picture involved here than just older home owners trying to maximize short term values.

What's ironic is there people who paid under $100K for their homes that are now worth over $2m arguing against new development. Again, there's a bigger picture at play.
Click to expand...

Rent your second home to the best and the brightest you want coming at half market rate then. If you don't, you are part of the problem you are complaining about.

Thing is there is real "Intergenerational Injustice" that can be discussed like unions negotiating better contracts and benefits for older workers at the expense of younger workers, but when it comes to something like the housing market, it is just a silly phrase.
 
They wheel out this creaky old chariot about generations once in a while. It is meant to suggest that ordinary people control capitalism. As science fiction, it doesn't work well
 
Kacper said:
Rent your second home to the best and the brightest you want coming at half market rate then. If you don't, you are part of the problem you are complaining about.

Thing is there is real "Intergenerational Injustice" that can be discussed like unions negotiating better contracts and benefits for older workers at the expense of younger workers, but when it comes to something like the housing market, it is just a silly phrase.
Click to expand...

I do rent my second place out. Trust me, I'm barely surviving as is. I don't have enough money to have a second home in the same area and have it sit there empty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top