7 ms·

I think there needs to be a lot more nuance with the word "deregulate" because there are many regulations and some should be gotten rid of and some shouldn't. W

I think there needs to be a lot more nuance with the word "deregulate" because there are many regulations and some should be gotten rid of and some shouldn't. We shouldn't compromise on building quality so those regulations should stay in place, but we should soften zoning rules and remove parking minimums for example. Also, specifically the state of california needs to rework CEQA and limit neighborhood input to projects. I'd also point out that areas that encourage more construction have been growing and becoming attractive places to live. Emeryville for example has been building aggressively and its becoming a nice place to live (minus the highway nearby). Some parts are surprisingly walkable and it even has free public transit (the emery-go-round). Compare this to SF which has blocked housing (especially apartment buildings); its becoming increasingly unaffordable and suburban feeling compared to east bay. Density also leads to more diversity.

Clubber 4y ago
>I think there needs to be a lot more nuance with the word "deregulate" because there are many regulations and some should be gotten rid of and some shouldn't. I think that's the core issue with most of our political dialog. "Regulations are bad." The person saying it is thinking A, B, and C and is probably right. The person hearing it is thinking D, E, and F and is also probably right. They aren't even talking about the same thing. It's no wonder they can't come to common ground. "Socialism is bad," and "Don't touch my social security," can be uttered by the same individual because when he thinks about socialism he thinks Castro nationalizing all US industry in Cuba, not Social Security Insurance, Medicare and Medicaid. To your point, words certainly matter.
- leetcrew 4y ago
  > "Socialism is bad," and "Don't touch my social security," can be uttered by the same individual because when he thinks about socialism he thinks Castro nationalizing all US industry in Cuba, not Social Security Insurance, Medicare and Medicaid. or the person may see the contradiction clearly and oppose the idea of social security benefits, while also being opposed to having it clawed back after they've spent their entire working life paying into the system.
  - ruined 4y ago
    Social security is not an account you individually pay into and then draw from later, it is a wealth transfer program that taxes presently working individuals to support presently retired individuals.
    - nybble41 4y ago
      You are correct. Nonetheless, those paying in to the system today acquiesced to the plan under the assumption that they would one day be able to take their place as beneficiaries. They gave up significant amounts of money which could have been invested toward their own retirement to pay those SS taxes. Simply ripping it away without compensation is neither fair nor realistic.
      - itsumoiru 4y ago
        > those paying in to the system today acquiesced to the plan... No, they didn't acquiesce to anything. They were required to pay whether they wanted to or not.
        0des 4y ago
        This brings up and interesting question: If more people enter the work force and pay taxes every year, how is SS (as im told) "drying up"? I don't doubt that it's dwindling, however, what happened?
        nybble41 4y ago
        In 1945 there were 42 workers paying SS taxes for every retiree collecting benefits. For equal pay / retirement income after SS taxes, each worker only needs to provide 2.3%. Today (actually since 2009) that ratio is three workers per retiree. Each worker has to provide 33%. By 2050 the ratio is projected to fall to two-to-one. You can find the historical ratios here: https://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html https://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html
- lutorm 4y ago
  I dunno, it seems the people who say "socialism is bad" these days use it to explicitly mean those contexts that have little to do with actual socialism, like paid parental leave or universal healthcare. They may not be including SSI there, but for all intents and purposes they could, with the crucial difference that SSI is something that exists and the proposed "socialist" policies don't.
- lozenge 4y ago
  Well, SSI, Medicare and Medicaid aren't socialism by any, let's say, "internationally recognised" definition.
darawk 4y ago
> We shouldn't compromise on building quality so those regulations should stay in place Careful about the phrase "building quality" there. If by quality you mean safety, then yes, absolutely. But there are quite a few regulations that describe themselves about "quality" that do things like: prescribe a minimum number of parking spaces, or a minimum size for a kitchen, or number of bathrooms, etc. And all of those absolutely need to be eliminated.

Clubber 4y ago

>I think there needs to be a lot more nuance with the word "deregulate" because there are many regulations and some should be gotten rid of and some shouldn't. I think that's the core issue with most of our political dialog. "Regulations are bad." The person saying it is thinking A, B, and C and is probably right. The person hearing it is thinking D, E, and F and is also probably right. They aren't even talking about the same thing. It's no wonder they can't come to common ground. "Socialism is bad," and "Don't touch my social security," can be uttered by the same individual because when he thinks about socialism he thinks Castro nationalizing all US industry in Cuba, not Social Security Insurance, Medicare and Medicaid. To your point, words certainly matter.

leetcrew 4y ago
> "Socialism is bad," and "Don't touch my social security," can be uttered by the same individual because when he thinks about socialism he thinks Castro nationalizing all US industry in Cuba, not Social Security Insurance, Medicare and Medicaid. or the person may see the contradiction clearly and oppose the idea of social security benefits, while also being opposed to having it clawed back after they've spent their entire working life paying into the system.
- ruined 4y ago
  Social security is not an account you individually pay into and then draw from later, it is a wealth transfer program that taxes presently working individuals to support presently retired individuals.
  - nybble41 4y ago
    You are correct. Nonetheless, those paying in to the system today acquiesced to the plan under the assumption that they would one day be able to take their place as beneficiaries. They gave up significant amounts of money which could have been invested toward their own retirement to pay those SS taxes. Simply ripping it away without compensation is neither fair nor realistic.
    - itsumoiru 4y ago
      > those paying in to the system today acquiesced to the plan... No, they didn't acquiesce to anything. They were required to pay whether they wanted to or not.
      - 0des 4y ago
        This brings up and interesting question: If more people enter the work force and pay taxes every year, how is SS (as im told) "drying up"? I don't doubt that it's dwindling, however, what happened?
        nybble41 4y ago
        In 1945 there were 42 workers paying SS taxes for every retiree collecting benefits. For equal pay / retirement income after SS taxes, each worker only needs to provide 2.3%. Today (actually since 2009) that ratio is three workers per retiree. Each worker has to provide 33%. By 2050 the ratio is projected to fall to two-to-one. You can find the historical ratios here: https://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html https://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html
lutorm 4y ago
I dunno, it seems the people who say "socialism is bad" these days use it to explicitly mean those contexts that have little to do with actual socialism, like paid parental leave or universal healthcare. They may not be including SSI there, but for all intents and purposes they could, with the crucial difference that SSI is something that exists and the proposed "socialist" policies don't.
lozenge 4y ago
Well, SSI, Medicare and Medicaid aren't socialism by any, let's say, "internationally recognised" definition.

darawk 4y ago

> We shouldn't compromise on building quality so those regulations should stay in place Careful about the phrase "building quality" there. If by quality you mean safety, then yes, absolutely. But there are quite a few regulations that describe themselves about "quality" that do things like: prescribe a minimum number of parking spaces, or a minimum size for a kitchen, or number of bathrooms, etc. And all of those absolutely need to be eliminated.