3 ms·

I live in a 120 year old house and it looks the exact same as a bunch of other 120 year old houses around here because they were all obviously either done by th

I live in a 120 year old house and it looks the exact same as a bunch of other 120 year old houses around here because they were all obviously either done by the same builder or straight up bought out of a sears catalogue. The working people that built my house didn't give a shit that it wasn't unique then and working people don't care now. Folks want an affordable place to live. Aesthetic "concerns" around new apartment housing is a desperate attempt by the rich to keep the poor out of their exclusive neighbourhoods.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
By definition, being rich is somewhat exclusive. The majority of nimbys aren't rich - they're pretty average. They're not trying to "keep the poor out." In typical American fashion, they're trying to pull the lader up from under them to keep anyone else from having what they do. The easiest way to Keep Up With The Joneses is to make sure there's never anymore of them to keep up with. This isn't to say the rich are innocent. I'm just tired of everyone pretending like American society is perfect except for a teeny tiny portion of rich people that ruin everything. We have many systemic problems.
- Retric 4y ago
  Nimby’s are statistically wealthier than average for the area. Renters simply have less money on average and don’t care as much about such issues because they are more mobile. We normally think of the top 0.1% as rich, but even the top 1/3 is much better off than average.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    Right, but 1/3 of the US population is 100M people, far greater than 0.1%. I agree with the GP's point: many people constantly try to demonize some tiny sliver of ultra-rich people in the US, and blame them for all of the society's problems, and act like the other 99.9% are their victims, but this just isn't the case. America's problems are really caused by a very large fraction of the American public (if not a large majority). The top 0.1% certainly are to blame for some of the problems, but not nearly all of them. The NIMBYs causing many of America's housing woes are not in the 0.1%.
    - Retric 4y ago
      In many ways the gap between the bottom 1/3 and top 1/3 of Americans is larger than the difference between someone at the 70th percentile vs 0.1% percentile. It’s only when you’re talking 0.001% that things get really different.
      - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
        The 0.1% is >$25M in wealth. You can live off $1M (after taxes) indefinitely, and still have an inflation-adjusted $25M nest-egg to pass on to someone else after you die. The idea that you can't live a lavish life on $1M in spending - even in Manhattan - is absurd. $1M could get you a $50k per month apartment in Manhattan plus leave you almost $1500 per day in spending. There's almost no one on this forum spending that kind of money, and many of us have VERY nice lives. A lot of people in the 0.1% still work - but they definitely do not need to. You can be a part of the yacht class with $25M. I mean, you're not going to have your own - but you can afford to rent one regularly... You can fly private, etc. There's an enormous difference between someone in the 0.1% and someone in the 1% - namely that you have 0 reason to work, and you can afford a staff to do everything for you... For probably >75% of the 5%-1% - there isn't that much difference between you and someone average beside you have a nicer car, a nicer house, you eat out more often, go on nicer vacations, and pay a LOT more taxes...
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        Retric 4y ago
        Edit: My point was mostly that top 70th percentile or a little over 300k isn’t US retirement money but it is third world retirement money. It’s the bottom threshold for unlimited food and shelter being guaranteed as long as you keep expenses low enough. Meanwhile the bottom 1/3 is basically trusting on borrowing for their capital, they simply need to work. A pension is just another form of wealth. As to 0.1% vs 0.01% I am mostly talking about staff. You can own and operate a boat at relatively low wealth. The UK famously has a lot of people living cheaply on narrow boats but there are US equivalents. The 0.1% wealth level owns a much nicer boat while the 0.01% owns a boat with it’s own staff. That’s the tipping point IMO. People of most income levels can go to the beach it’s mostly nicer versions of the same basic thing. From living in a tent to a large mansion you’re cooking lunch or eating out until suddenly the option for a private chef becomes normal.
wahern 4y ago
I always liked this bit of lore from the Sunset District of San Francisco: > It is not surprising that Doelger was a great admirer of Henry Ford, and in some ways, the Sunset rowhouses were the "Model T's" of housing. [...] It was not uncommon for the framing crews to race one another down two sides of one street to see which crew could complete framing their side first. https://www.outsidelands.org/sunset-developers.php https://www.outsidelands.org/sunset-developers.php

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

By definition, being rich is somewhat exclusive. The majority of nimbys aren't rich - they're pretty average. They're not trying to "keep the poor out." In typical American fashion, they're trying to pull the lader up from under them to keep anyone else from having what they do. The easiest way to Keep Up With The Joneses is to make sure there's never anymore of them to keep up with. This isn't to say the rich are innocent. I'm just tired of everyone pretending like American society is perfect except for a teeny tiny portion of rich people that ruin everything. We have many systemic problems.

Retric 4y ago
Nimby’s are statistically wealthier than average for the area. Renters simply have less money on average and don’t care as much about such issues because they are more mobile. We normally think of the top 0.1% as rich, but even the top 1/3 is much better off than average.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  Right, but 1/3 of the US population is 100M people, far greater than 0.1%. I agree with the GP's point: many people constantly try to demonize some tiny sliver of ultra-rich people in the US, and blame them for all of the society's problems, and act like the other 99.9% are their victims, but this just isn't the case. America's problems are really caused by a very large fraction of the American public (if not a large majority). The top 0.1% certainly are to blame for some of the problems, but not nearly all of them. The NIMBYs causing many of America's housing woes are not in the 0.1%.
  - Retric 4y ago
    In many ways the gap between the bottom 1/3 and top 1/3 of Americans is larger than the difference between someone at the 70th percentile vs 0.1% percentile. It’s only when you’re talking 0.001% that things get really different.
    - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
      The 0.1% is >$25M in wealth. You can live off $1M (after taxes) indefinitely, and still have an inflation-adjusted $25M nest-egg to pass on to someone else after you die. The idea that you can't live a lavish life on $1M in spending - even in Manhattan - is absurd. $1M could get you a $50k per month apartment in Manhattan plus leave you almost $1500 per day in spending. There's almost no one on this forum spending that kind of money, and many of us have VERY nice lives. A lot of people in the 0.1% still work - but they definitely do not need to. You can be a part of the yacht class with $25M. I mean, you're not going to have your own - but you can afford to rent one regularly... You can fly private, etc. There's an enormous difference between someone in the 0.1% and someone in the 1% - namely that you have 0 reason to work, and you can afford a staff to do everything for you... For probably >75% of the 5%-1% - there isn't that much difference between you and someone average beside you have a nicer car, a nicer house, you eat out more often, go on nicer vacations, and pay a LOT more taxes...
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - Retric 4y ago
        Edit: My point was mostly that top 70th percentile or a little over 300k isn’t US retirement money but it is third world retirement money. It’s the bottom threshold for unlimited food and shelter being guaranteed as long as you keep expenses low enough. Meanwhile the bottom 1/3 is basically trusting on borrowing for their capital, they simply need to work. A pension is just another form of wealth. As to 0.1% vs 0.01% I am mostly talking about staff. You can own and operate a boat at relatively low wealth. The UK famously has a lot of people living cheaply on narrow boats but there are US equivalents. The 0.1% wealth level owns a much nicer boat while the 0.01% owns a boat with it’s own staff. That’s the tipping point IMO. People of most income levels can go to the beach it’s mostly nicer versions of the same basic thing. From living in a tent to a large mansion you’re cooking lunch or eating out until suddenly the option for a private chef becomes normal.

wahern 4y ago

I always liked this bit of lore from the Sunset District of San Francisco: > It is not surprising that Doelger was a great admirer of Henry Ford, and in some ways, the Sunset rowhouses were the "Model T's" of housing. [...] It was not uncommon for the framing crews to race one another down two sides of one street to see which crew could complete framing their side first. https://www.outsidelands.org/sunset-developers.php https://www.outsidelands.org/sunset-developers.php