Suicide and Trumpism

FandlinLV.jpg
 
cawacko said:
Actually, California having the highest poverty rate has nothing to do with me being conservative. I’ve lived here for 35 years and I follow the news. There are many more articles showing we have the highest poverty rate of you want to see them.


https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/health-and-medicine/article218270905.html
Click to expand...

That article made a very elementary error. They claimed that the new figures were the poverty rate, but they weren't. They were a supplemental measure of poverty, not the poverty rate. Basically, its a figure that penalizes California for being a desirable place to live, by counting the value of housing against the state when computing this alternate measure. You can make an argument for or against using that alternate measure, but it's just plain sloppy reporting to present it as if it were the poverty rate, rather than an alternate measure.
 
Oneuli said:
That article made a very elementary error. They claimed that the new figures were the poverty rate, but they weren't. They were a supplemental measure of poverty, not the poverty rate. Basically, its a figure that penalizes California for being a desirable place to live, by counting the value of housing against the state when computing this alternate measure. You can make an argument for or against using that alternate measure, but it's just plain sloppy reporting to present it as if it were the poverty rate, rather than an alternate measure.
Click to expand...

You’re choosing to say cost of living doesn’t factor into ones reality but that isnt the real world. And being from New York it can be understandable you don’t understand California’s housing situation. It’s not just a supply and demand issue. We choose (emphasis on choose) not to build enough housing and thus our cost of housing sky rockets. So it is very much a policy issue.

This supplemental poverty measure was created by progressives academics to better measure poverty because the measure from the 1950’s we had been using was clearly outdated. I would think you would support that but obviously both you and LV don’t like it because of the results. That’s on you guys
 
cawacko said:
You’re choosing to say cost of living doesn’t factor into ones reality but that isnt the real world. And being from New York it can be understandable you don’t understand California’s housing situation. It’s not just a supply and demand issue. We choose (emphasis on choose) not to build enough housing and thus our cost of housing sky rockets. So it is very much a policy issue.
Click to expand...

And why is that? Because of Prop 13. Prop 13 makes building housing (particularly affordable housing) too expensive.

So the simple solution is to repeal Prop 13.
 
cawacko said:
This supplemental poverty measure was created by progressives academics to better measure poverty because the measure from the 1950’s we had been using was clearly outdated. I would think you would support that but obviously both you and LV don’t like it because of the results. That’s on you guys
Click to expand...

The problem is you are representing it as the poverty rate, not a supplemental measurement. And you don't provide the context around it because it would reveal that the problems in California have nothing to do with current Democratic governance, but rather 40 years of a disastrous fiscal policy (Prop 13) that should be repealed outright.

This is a habit of yours; you tell half the story and glide on your privilege and entitlement. Then when called on it, get all screechy and appeal to authority.

What a fucking posturing fraud. I see right through it; so do others.
 
LV426 said:
The problem is you are representing it as the poverty rate, not a supplemental measurement. And you don't provide the context around it because it would reveal that the problems in California have nothing to do with current Democratic governance, but rather 40 years of a disastrous fiscal policy (Prop 13) that should be repealed outright.

This is a habit of yours; you tell half the story and glide on your privilege and entitlement. Then when called on it, get all screechy and appeal to authority.

What a fucking posturing fraud. I see right through it; so do others.
Click to expand...

You don’t live here. While Prop 13 plays a role there is far more going on in our state. The problem is you are an ideological hack and thus try to speak to issues you don’t understand and once again it’s in full display.
 
cawacko said:
You don’t live here. While Prop 13 plays a role there is far more going on in our state. The problem is you are an ideological hack and thus try to speak to issues you don’t understand and once again it’s in full display.
Click to expand...

I lived in Los Angeles from 2006-2013, pal. Prop 13 is the singular reason why no affordable housing is being built.
 
LV426 said:
I lived in Los Angeles from 2006-2013, pal. Prop 13 is the singular reason why no affordable housing is being built.
Click to expand...

Lol, Pal?! That’s even more embarrassing that you lived here and are ignorant to what’s happening. And no, prop 13 is not the singular reason affordable housing is not being built. In fact it’s not even close.
 
Hello cawacko,

cawacko said:
You’re choosing to say cost of living doesn’t factor into ones reality but that isnt the real world. And being from New York it can be understandable you don’t understand California’s housing situation. It’s not just a supply and demand issue. We choose (emphasis on choose) not to build enough housing and thus our cost of housing sky rockets. So it is very much a policy issue.
Click to expand...

Where would you choose to build more housing after all the available land is built out such as in San Francisco?

cawacko said:
This supplemental poverty measure was created by progressives academics to better measure poverty because the measure from the 1950’s we had been using was clearly outdated. I would think you would support that but obviously both you and LV don’t like it because of the results. That’s on you guys
Click to expand...

If that measure were used on the rest of the country it would produce different results. It is incongruous to use one measure for California, and others for the rest of the nation. Apples - Oranges.
 
cawacko said:
Lol, Pal?! That’s even more embarrassing that you lived here and are ignorant to what’s happening. And no, prop 13 is not the singular reason affordable housing is not being built. In fact it’s not even close.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is, cawacko.

From a post from last year:

Prop 13 capped property taxes so low (at 1%) that it made building more housing a money-losing proposition for most local governments (because the taxes from the housing don't cover the services required by its residents). That led local governments to back-fill their budgets with regressive sales taxes, court and jail fees that trap people in debt cycles after a brush with the law, and building permit fees that make new construction more expensive. It also led local governments to over-prioritize zoning for commercial malls and box stores and auto dealerships (because sales tax revenue nom nom nom), and corporate office parks (because they produce property taxes w/out much increase in demand for services). Also, because prop 13 freezes tax rates until a property transfers OR adds new construction, it's created weird incentives against a) expanding existing residential buildings, and b) people with more house than they need cashing out to downsize. But the MOST IMPORTANT thing is that the majority of the tax savings haven't gone to homeowners. That's because corporations, unlike people, don't die. They don't move and change homes. So they don't get re-assessed. Many will keep paying 70s-era taxes basically forever.
Click to expand...
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello cawacko,



Where would you choose to build more housing after all the available land is built out such as in San Francisco?



If that measure were used on the rest of the country it would produce different results. It is incongruous to use one measure for California, and others for the rest of the nation. Apples - Oranges.
Click to expand...

Easy, In urban areas you build higher density. And you build higher density near public transportation. Yet SF is largely single family housing and people here fight to keep that. Then what happens? We build further and further out in the suburbs. People have longer commutes, worse for the environment, farther from the job centers etc. etc.
 
LV426 said:
Yes, it is, cawacko.

From a post from last year:
Click to expand...


Was that your post that you tried to take credit for and didn’t give credit to guy who tweeted? Yeah, I remember that.

Prop 13 plays a role, that’s not a question. You choose to ignore all other factors and claim Prop 13 is the sole reason which is false
 
LV426 said:
And why is that? Because of Prop 13. Prop 13 makes building housing (particularly affordable housing) too expensive.

So the simple solution is to repeal Prop 13.
Click to expand...

typical liberal,

circumvent the will of the people

you do have options you know, socialist countries all over the world

PS, you're posting in a suicide thread :rofl2:
 
cawacko said:
You’re choosing to say cost of living doesn’t factor into ones reality
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that at all -- which you can confirm by rereading my post, which includes no statement remotely like that. My argument is simply that when you're reporting on something like that, and choose to use an alternate measure rather than the official stat, you should expressly identify the fact you're using an alternate measure.

For example, say I did a piece on military compensation by service, and I wrote that the Navy has the lowest compensation by rank of any of the services. But say, in fact, the compensation for each is exactly the same for a given rank, and what I actually did is factored in cost of living -- and since Navy people are more distributed on the higher-cost coasts, versus the other services, their cost-of-living adjusted pay is lower. Well, then, it would be important for me to identify I wasn't reporting the stat I claimed I was reporting, but rather an alternative stat that factored in cost of living.

you don’t understand California’s housing situation. It’s not just a supply and demand issue. We choose (emphasis on choose) not to build enough housing and thus our cost of housing sky rockets.
Click to expand...

You can only charge what people are willing to pay, regardless of supply. The number of 1992 Ford Tauruses is fading fast, and they aren't making any more of them, but try to sell one for more than a few hundred bucks and you won't get any takers, because it's just not worth that. California's high housing prices aren't just because of policy decisions not to have higher supply, but because the market is willing to pay those prices: people consider it worth that price for the privilege in living in California. They see it as having value even greater than that price, or they wouldn't do it. So, when you do an alternate measure of poverty that essentially counts the extra cost of living in California, while ignoring the extra value, you get a pretty skewed perspective.

You can see it if you think of it in microcosm. Picture if I lived in a $10 million luxury condo on the Upper East Side.... butI had relatively little spending money after the cost of that condo. Would I be "poor"? Well, if you counted the cost of that condo but not its value, the answer might be yes. But would that make sense?

[quote[This supplemental poverty measure was created by progressives academics to better measure poverty because the measure from the 1950’s we had been using was clearly outdated. [/quote]

And if someone wants to compare states on that basis, that's fine. But then she should expressly state that she's using that alternate measure, rather than referring to it as if it were the poverty rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top