4 ms·

>What do you mean ‘things are good for me now’ ? You own a home. Your housing payments aren't being thrown into a void. >Repealing prop 13 in order to take pe

by bsanr2 7y ago

>What do you mean ‘things are good for me now’ ? You own a home. Your housing payments aren't being thrown into a void. >Repealing prop 13 in order to take peoples homes away through confiscatory taxation so that people with high incomes can buy them is not a correction. It is theft. So is rent-seeking, if we have such a low bar for "theft." Really, it's just society deciding where its priorities lay: people who need housing for practical reasons, or the people privileged enough to use their housing as an investment vehicle? >Why not work somewhere else where you can afford a home? That is the real ‘correction’. Now you're getting emotional. That's not a market correction at all.

zepto 7y ago
Market corrections are about supply and demand being balanced. There is nothing emotional about suggesting that people choose to live and work in places they can afford to. The solution to the Bay Area housing crisis is for employers to establish operations in places where housing is cheaper - not for housing to be confiscated from earlier purchasers through confiscatory taxation.
- bsanr2 7y ago
  >The solution to the Bay Area housing crisis is for employers to establish operations in places where housing is cheaper - not for housing to be confiscated from earlier purchasers through confiscatory taxation. It's actually both. >There is nothing emotional about suggesting that people choose to live and work in places they can afford to. It is, within context. The proposal in question might have a net negative outcome for you, but be positive for the community. Further, while the status quo has full-time workers living on the street, readjusting this regulation and allowing a market correction to take place would presumably not ruin you, but simply force you to move. (Hey, you suggested it for others, should be good enough for you too.) In the end, though, you're against something that would ultimately be a boon for the area and is at least tenable for you. That's an emotional argument.
  - zepto 7y ago
    The fact that I disagree with you doesn’t make my argument emotional. I did not suggest forcing anyone to move. I suggest that if you cannot afford a home, you should go somewhere you can, rather than stealing homes from people who have bought them already through confiscatory taxation. There is no reason why people need to be displaced from their homes if jobs are created elsewhere. If people in full time employment are unable to afford housing, they are being paid too little, and should not have accepted the job, thus forcing employers to offer more. You have stated that you think people should be driven out of their homes even if work can be moved elsewhere. (“The solution is both”). That seems pretty reprehensible, and I’m curious why you think it?

by bsanr2 7y ago

zepto 7y ago

Market corrections are about supply and demand being balanced. There is nothing emotional about suggesting that people choose to live and work in places they can afford to. The solution to the Bay Area housing crisis is for employers to establish operations in places where housing is cheaper - not for housing to be confiscated from earlier purchasers through confiscatory taxation.

bsanr2 7y ago
>The solution to the Bay Area housing crisis is for employers to establish operations in places where housing is cheaper - not for housing to be confiscated from earlier purchasers through confiscatory taxation. It's actually both. >There is nothing emotional about suggesting that people choose to live and work in places they can afford to. It is, within context. The proposal in question might have a net negative outcome for you, but be positive for the community. Further, while the status quo has full-time workers living on the street, readjusting this regulation and allowing a market correction to take place would presumably not ruin you, but simply force you to move. (Hey, you suggested it for others, should be good enough for you too.) In the end, though, you're against something that would ultimately be a boon for the area and is at least tenable for you. That's an emotional argument.
- zepto 7y ago
  The fact that I disagree with you doesn’t make my argument emotional. I did not suggest forcing anyone to move. I suggest that if you cannot afford a home, you should go somewhere you can, rather than stealing homes from people who have bought them already through confiscatory taxation. There is no reason why people need to be displaced from their homes if jobs are created elsewhere. If people in full time employment are unable to afford housing, they are being paid too little, and should not have accepted the job, thus forcing employers to offer more. You have stated that you think people should be driven out of their homes even if work can be moved elsewhere. (“The solution is both”). That seems pretty reprehensible, and I’m curious why you think it?