"Intergenerational Injustice"

Phantasmal said:
Your parents have Hep-C? I’m very sorry, they are making great stride in curing it.
Click to expand...

Haha, I just asked a room full of them (mom, two aunts, and an uncle) the other day if they've all been tested for Hep-C, "because you're all Boomers, so, you've got it." :cof1:
 
Bigdog said:
Then don't live in San Fran if you can't afford it. Move to Beverly Hills instead.
Click to expand...

So there should be no jobs in San Fran that are low wage?

Tell you what... YOU move if you don't like what your neighbor decides to build on his or her land.
 
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...

He knows that. He is once again trying to demonstrate how 'enlightened' he is. He is a fucking leg humping moron. He segregates society in 'other' ways. He focuses on race and religion to segregate rather than the oh so uncouth 'by generations'.

Pretending that people don't talk about intergenerational issues? That just shows that he focuses too much on his misogynistic rape apologist ways rather than listening to what people he deems 'unworthy' (basically everyone but his own enlightened self) are talking about.
 
cawacko said:
You're talking two different things here.

The housing crisis in coastal cities is in large part created by governments and NIMBY's who restrict the amount of development causing prices to skyrocket. That's the whole basis of "intergenerational injustice" but that term aside is has a negative effect on the overall U.S. economy.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have a negative effect on the economy. Being able to sell a house for twice what you paid for it gives you money to do other things than own that house if you so desire. The person that pays you may be out 2X dollars but you are up 2X dollars. It is money in, money out. It isn't even NIMBY policies so much as it is supply and demand. In the end, I am not talking about two different things. I am talking about quality of life. If you want to make $140K a year and pay a third of that in housing costs as opposed to making $80K a year and paying 20% in housing cost somewhere else, that is your choice. San Jose had a regional price parity of 122 in 2014 whereas The Research Triangle had a price parity of .95. ( see: https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/a...ndard-for-comparing-wages-across-us-areas.htm ) This means that your dollar buys you less in the bay area than it does nationally or in Durham and a dollar in Durham buys you more than a dollar nationally and a lot more than in the bay area does.
 
Kacper said:
It doesn't have a negative effect on the economy. Being able to sell a house for twice what you paid for it gives you money to do other things than own that house if you so desire. The person that pays you may be out 2X dollars but you are up 2X dollars. It is money in, money out. It isn't even NIMBY policies so much as it is supply and demand. In the end, I am not talking about two different things. I am talking about quality of life. If you want to make $140K a year and pay a third of that in housing costs as opposed to making $80K a year and paying 20% in housing cost somewhere else, that is your choice. San Jose had a regional price parity of 122 in 2014 whereas The Research Triangle had a price parity of .95. ( see: https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/a...ndard-for-comparing-wages-across-us-areas.htm ) This means that your dollar buys you less in the bay area than it does nationally or in Durham and a dollar in Durham buys you more than a dollar nationally and a lot more than in the bay area does.
Click to expand...

You do understand that it is the NIMBY attitude that is crushing the ability to create supply?
 
cawacko said:
Here's the lady's twitter page. Working in the real estate industry I follow a number of people on Twitter who attend various (big city) planning commission and city counsel meetings for development projects/rehabs and report on them. This lady lives and reports in/on LA.


https://twitter.com/awalkerinla?s=11



What she is saying is completely true (at least in the big coastal cities). Those who already own homes don't want new development in their neighborhoods/cities and they will fight it. Therefore home prices continue to rise as we have seen. Most of these homeowners are older people.
Click to expand...
Well I work in the waste management industry and those who own home owners are almost always opposed to a Part B TSDF permit being issued anywhere even close to where they live. I also worked in recycling where homeowners near Brownsfield Sties fought development tooth claw and nail. I also lived on Lake Norman and we fought developers tooth claw and nail from turning the area into a mass of strip malls and condo which would have destroyed both QOL and property values.

The idea that this is generatrional is just simply bogus. Most communities every where in this nation will fight development if they believe it will harm their community and/or damage property values.

NIMBY's have been around a long time. It's not generational.
 
cawacko said:
That's ultimately the problem. We have a severe housing crisis which is going to have a long term negative impact on the region. Right now it's the ultimate I've gone mine - fuck you attitude that we're seeing from current homeowners be it in the City or surrounding suburbs.

And building more housing to meet the demand isn't going to tank current housing values. And especially when you live in a city, which is a dynamic ever changing place. To expect to live in a place for three decades and expect no change is not realistic.
Click to expand...
So your solution is to fuck them so you can get yours? You're losing your moral compass Wacko. The people who developed those neighborhoods and invested in them and created their character that made them attractive and valuable should lay down and let developers destroy what they worked for because you want their property? So much for property rights ehh?
 
cawacko said:
Let's be clear, no ones homes here is tanking 70% in any big costal market. Worst case is your rate of increase isn't as high but that still means it's increasing in value. What not building does is hurt the econony as a whole. That's bad for everyone.

And Boomers aren't the only ones who own homes but they are the largest group of homeowners by far.
Click to expand...
So fuck them because they invested wisely, got their first and protected their investments from developers who would damage their property values? So on that basis why don't we force Iowa farmers to zone their land residential and industrial cause they go their first and won't let you develop their land?
 
Superfreak said:
Which is the point entirely. the older generation is saying 'we were here first, our rules apply... so fuck off if you don't like it'. Again, if the home prices had stayed relatively the same, then you might have a point. If someone changes your areas zoning laws... you too have the right to sell and go somewhere else. You don't get to punish younger generations just because they are younger.
Click to expand...
Well why don't you go develop your own community and apply your rules and if you don't like their rules why don't you just build a political coalition and change those rules? You can't blame the existing homeowners for that. It's on you.
 
Superfreak said:
If the value of their home was similar to when they started making those mortgage payments, then you might have a point. But rigging the zoning to make sure the value of your home increases due to a lack of supply is nonsense. It absolutely is the fault of the previous generations. Younger people today should have the same chance to buy a home and build equity.
Click to expand...
They do. This is nothing new. No way I could afford to buy a house in an old neighborhood of Victorian houses in New Orleans where my father grew up as a kid, when I was starting out. So I bought a small one in the burbs.
Those houses where my father grew up were what was available back then. Now they're classics for the wealthy.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
So fuck them because they invested wisely, got their first and protected their investments from developers who would damage their property values? So on that basis why don't we force Iowa farmers to zone their land residential and industrial cause they go their first and won't let you develop their land?
Click to expand...

Try to stop and think. I know it is difficult for a sheep fucker from Ohio. But do try.

You realize that YOU are on the side of the argument telling other people what to do with THEIR land?

If you buy a property that has a view of the ocean and all that is between you and the ocean is a vacant lot. You do not have the right to determine what is built on that vacant lot unless you buy that piece as well.
 
cawacko said:
The issues aren't about tearing down existing homes. No one is going to lose a home they own and live in It's 1) about allowing new development and 2) allowing higher density in urban areas near transportation
Click to expand...
Even though the new development will destroy the character of the neighborhoods and communities they built and invested in so you can make a profit turning it into a concrete oasis of strip malls and high rises? You're nuts to think anyone with that sort of investment wouldn't protect it as property owners. So they have to shoot themselves in the foot to convenience you? That's just nuts.
 
aloysious said:
They do. This is nothing new. No way I could afford to buy a house in an old neighborhood of Victorian houses in New Orleans where my father grew up as a kid, when I was starting out. So I bought a small one in the burbs.
Those houses where my father grew up were what was available back then. Now they're classics for the wealthy.
Click to expand...

The difference is that there was plenty of housing in the burbs for you to choose from.

Do you think it is right that lower income families cannot afford to live anywhere near where they work?
 
cawacko said:
We can throw in another variable as well. The environment. What happens when we don't build more density in cities is we end up building further and further out in the suburbs. And since most jobs are in the city that means more cars on the road traveling longer distances and thus more environmental impact.
Click to expand...
Move to Arkansas.
 
"Intergenerational Injustice"
"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." John Adams
Click to expand...
The U.S. War of Northern Aggression was fought in some part over slavery.

Deficit spending is slavery. It is forcing the powerless to do what they may not wish to do, whether it be pick cotton, or help pay back $20+ $Trillion.

In fact, it was not merely our Civil War, but also our Revolutionary War our deficit spending invokes. "No taxation without representation."

None of the as yet unborn shall have voted for congressional members that are today spending those as yet unborn citizen's $money.
 
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...
Yup and as property owners in a free market, democratic society they have the right to protect their investments just as you do. Don't like it? Build your own political coalition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top