4 ms·

Good grief. Not everything is a "crisis". This type of alarmist language games needs to stop. This is less a housing crisis and more an entitlement crisis. Ther

Good grief. Not everything is a "crisis". This type of alarmist language games needs to stop. This is less a housing crisis and more an entitlement crisis. There is an entire country between the coasts. There are jobs available over the country. There is open land and housing all over the country. It's more that people feel entitled to a certain location, a certain line of work, a certain income level, a certain proximity to [friends, family, or whatever] and are upset they can't have it. But there's nothing stopping people from making a living and thriving elsewhere, and it would also be beneficial for the country by driving a more distributed and decentralized economy.

francisofascii 5y ago
Sure, but the entitlement goes both ways. The current landowners feel entitled to enjoy massive appreciation gains while paying very little property tax, just because they settled there first. But I agree we are lucky in that we have other places to move, but that might not always be true.
- sjg007 5y ago
  People can vote for change.
  - francisofascii 5y ago
    Actually, no, they can't. You can't vote for change in a place you don't live yet. It is a flaw or an unfair downside of federalism. Call it tyranny of localism (or something)
    - throwawaysea 5y ago
      Why should someone be able to vote for change in a place they don't live in? It's not a flaw, but a thoughtful and smart design from my perspective. Having that locality is what lets people with many different perspectives and ways of life to coexist in the same country. People who don't like one way of doing things can go elsewhere.
      - francisofascii 5y ago
        Sure, it is a smart design, probably the best we have thus far, but it is not a perfect system. We are fortunate to live in an era where it doesn't matter, we can move somewhere else and be fine. But we could face a situation were the locals control important natural resources, and the locals may not want to share with those outside the boundaries. Then wars usually result.

francisofascii 5y ago

Sure, but the entitlement goes both ways. The current landowners feel entitled to enjoy massive appreciation gains while paying very little property tax, just because they settled there first. But I agree we are lucky in that we have other places to move, but that might not always be true.

sjg007 5y ago
People can vote for change.
- francisofascii 5y ago
  Actually, no, they can't. You can't vote for change in a place you don't live yet. It is a flaw or an unfair downside of federalism. Call it tyranny of localism (or something)
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    Why should someone be able to vote for change in a place they don't live in? It's not a flaw, but a thoughtful and smart design from my perspective. Having that locality is what lets people with many different perspectives and ways of life to coexist in the same country. People who don't like one way of doing things can go elsewhere.
    - francisofascii 5y ago
      Sure, it is a smart design, probably the best we have thus far, but it is not a perfect system. We are fortunate to live in an era where it doesn't matter, we can move somewhere else and be fine. But we could face a situation were the locals control important natural resources, and the locals may not want to share with those outside the boundaries. Then wars usually result.