5 ms·

This seems like a natural result when you combine democracy and a growing population with the persistent nature of younger generations having less permanent liv

by slg 3y ago

This seems like a natural result when you combine democracy and a growing population with the persistent nature of younger generations having less permanent living arrangements and a lower dedication to politics due to the psychology of youth. It is a "the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury" situation in which the older generations build a political environment around real estate prices always increasing which causes them to increase more consistently and to a larger degree. The longer that is allowed to persist, the more difficult it becomes to change. The older generations now rely on that implicit social contract of increasing prices as their primary savings vehicle and the younger generations lack the political capital to interrupt the cycle, at least in part because they don't have the literal capital because of the ever-increasing cost of real estate. Is there a single growing democracy that has been able to avoid this trap?

futureamish 3y ago
The US isn't a democracy; 1 vote on 1 square foot of land counts for ~80x the vote on another square foot of land. If it was a democracy, these forever-issues would already be solved.
Roritharr 3y ago
What I do not understand is the mechanism people are referring to here. What political action was taken, which party voted? The entire western world shares the same problem, you'd think there would be exceptions if it was just politics.
- mdorazio 3y ago
  It's all parties acting in basically the same way. Examples from the US: 1) The mortgage interest tax deduction directly incentivizes people to buy rather than rent. 2) Property tax instead of land value tax removes incentives to build higher-density housing on valuable land. 3) Most importantly, local zoning regulations outright prohibit dense development of land in desirable areas. 4) Regional acts like California's absolutely insane Proposition 13 (enacted by the people themselves) massively distort markets and act as giant ladder pulling mechanisms against future generations. 5) Additional tax incentives exist for capital gains on the sale of houses, again incentivizing "house prices must go up" thinking. When your core voter base is Boomers who enjoy the benefits of all of these actions and no one cares about future generations because staying in office means campaigning for the next term, it creates a feedback loop between the voters who "got theirs" and the politicians who help them do it. It takes radical action, like Gov. Newsom unilaterally ending single-family zoning, to make any change.
  - jjav 3y ago
    > Regional acts like California's absolutely insane Proposition 13 (enacted by the people themselves) massively distort markets and act as giant ladder pulling mechanisms against future generations. This is too simplistic, in order to criticize Prop 13 it is important to understand why it came to be. Not everyone can live in the same house, so there's always going to be winners (who get to live there) and losers (who want to but can't). Who should laws favor? Who should the law kick to the curb (methaphorically, or sometimes literally)? One argument is that the richest person should always win and whoever can't keep up on the wealth race, is out. But that argument doesn't sit well with a lot of society, turns out. If there's a big IPO in town and we suddenly have a few hundred new gazillionaires around, should they be able to kick out all the middle class people that called that neighborhood home for decades? If you call Prop 13 a "giant ladder pulling mechanisms against future generations" (and you're not entirely wrong), it is important to realize that the lack of something like Prop 13 is equally a giant ladder pulling mechanisms against current residents. Should the richest newcomer always win? Maybe? But it's not clear cut, so it's a complex issue.
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      > giant ladder pulling mechanisms against current residents. Wouldn’t metaphorically they’d be already on top of wherever they were climbing using ladder? Also even with readjusted taxes they’d still be in a significantly better position because instead being “kicked to the curb” (which is nonsense) they be able to buy a house somewhere else with the significant payout they’d get after selling to those gazzilionaries. At the end of the day in situations you’re describing you’d want more/higher density housing which prop 13 (amongst other things) directly discourages. If real estate values in a given area increase significantly while it wouldn’t be fair from the perspective of the individual for the society as the whole it would be optimal for the inhabitants to sell their low-density homes and later rebuy apartments/etc. built on top of the same land.
      - jjav 3y ago
        > they be able to buy a house somewhere else Yes, after being forced out by the increased taxes they can move somewhere else and buy there. That's the debate right there. Should we as a society favor the rich newcomer and push out the long-term resident who now has to move somewhere else? Maybe they didn't want to move. Or should we favor the long-term resident to stay even that means the rich newcomer maybe can't find a place? Who is more important? It is disingenuous to simply rant against Prop 13 without acknowledging that there will be winners and losers both with and without Prop 13. It's just different people who get favored.
- slyall 3y ago
  Various Exceptions. Usually places where it is very easy to built or demand is low. Most US locations outside of the Big cities. Even some big cities like Houston.
Grimburger 3y ago
> Is there a single growing democracy I'm an Australian living in Asia. My rent hasn't gone up in 5 years. The state I'm in is growing about 7% annualised and hit 13% GDP growth this year. It accounts for over 30% of the nations export value despite being 8% of the population. Friends back home have been getting 10-20% annual rises in that time, for houses that are falling apart and they are terrified to speak up for fear of eviction, it's gone completely out of control. The main difference I can spot is the sheer amount of supply that comes online here despite equivalent population growth. If developers want to build a 45 storey apartment block they can, under the caveat that 20% of apartments must be for low-income earners. In Australia if you tried to build the same building even a km from the CBD of Sydney people would be up in arms, politicians would be leading rallies to halt development and it would eventually have to go through the courts dragging the process out for years until the builder goes broke from legal fees. It's a tried and true method across the country.
- slg 3y ago
  Do you mind sharing the specific country/state you are referring to here because Asia is a big place that includes both democracies that aren't growing and growing countries that aren't democracies?
  - Grimburger 3y ago
    Not really. I find mentioning a specific place tends to attract and set certain types off about whatever they read in the news within the last 12 months. Not entirely sure but seems you want to go down that path also and start arguing about how it's "not actually a good place" when my lived experience is the opposite. I've had it happen far too many times and simply don't bother now, people in Australia get strangely defensive about anyone who leaves, and clamour to tear holes in the idea while never once having set foot in the country, let alone spent even a month there, it's an odd phenomena. But to answer your question, yes it's definitely a democracy and that growth rate is real. I live completely surrounded by nature, with ocean views, ten minutes from my office in the city while working remotely for western companies. In the end I'm happy, that's all that matters.

by slg 3y ago

futureamish 3y ago

The US isn't a democracy; 1 vote on 1 square foot of land counts for ~80x the vote on another square foot of land. If it was a democracy, these forever-issues would already be solved.

Roritharr 3y ago

What I do not understand is the mechanism people are referring to here. What political action was taken, which party voted? The entire western world shares the same problem, you'd think there would be exceptions if it was just politics.

mdorazio 3y ago
It's all parties acting in basically the same way. Examples from the US: 1) The mortgage interest tax deduction directly incentivizes people to buy rather than rent. 2) Property tax instead of land value tax removes incentives to build higher-density housing on valuable land. 3) Most importantly, local zoning regulations outright prohibit dense development of land in desirable areas. 4) Regional acts like California's absolutely insane Proposition 13 (enacted by the people themselves) massively distort markets and act as giant ladder pulling mechanisms against future generations. 5) Additional tax incentives exist for capital gains on the sale of houses, again incentivizing "house prices must go up" thinking. When your core voter base is Boomers who enjoy the benefits of all of these actions and no one cares about future generations because staying in office means campaigning for the next term, it creates a feedback loop between the voters who "got theirs" and the politicians who help them do it. It takes radical action, like Gov. Newsom unilaterally ending single-family zoning, to make any change.
- jjav 3y ago
  > Regional acts like California's absolutely insane Proposition 13 (enacted by the people themselves) massively distort markets and act as giant ladder pulling mechanisms against future generations. This is too simplistic, in order to criticize Prop 13 it is important to understand why it came to be. Not everyone can live in the same house, so there's always going to be winners (who get to live there) and losers (who want to but can't). Who should laws favor? Who should the law kick to the curb (methaphorically, or sometimes literally)? One argument is that the richest person should always win and whoever can't keep up on the wealth race, is out. But that argument doesn't sit well with a lot of society, turns out. If there's a big IPO in town and we suddenly have a few hundred new gazillionaires around, should they be able to kick out all the middle class people that called that neighborhood home for decades? If you call Prop 13 a "giant ladder pulling mechanisms against future generations" (and you're not entirely wrong), it is important to realize that the lack of something like Prop 13 is equally a giant ladder pulling mechanisms against current residents. Should the richest newcomer always win? Maybe? But it's not clear cut, so it's a complex issue.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    > giant ladder pulling mechanisms against current residents. Wouldn’t metaphorically they’d be already on top of wherever they were climbing using ladder? Also even with readjusted taxes they’d still be in a significantly better position because instead being “kicked to the curb” (which is nonsense) they be able to buy a house somewhere else with the significant payout they’d get after selling to those gazzilionaries. At the end of the day in situations you’re describing you’d want more/higher density housing which prop 13 (amongst other things) directly discourages. If real estate values in a given area increase significantly while it wouldn’t be fair from the perspective of the individual for the society as the whole it would be optimal for the inhabitants to sell their low-density homes and later rebuy apartments/etc. built on top of the same land.
    - jjav 3y ago
      > they be able to buy a house somewhere else Yes, after being forced out by the increased taxes they can move somewhere else and buy there. That's the debate right there. Should we as a society favor the rich newcomer and push out the long-term resident who now has to move somewhere else? Maybe they didn't want to move. Or should we favor the long-term resident to stay even that means the rich newcomer maybe can't find a place? Who is more important? It is disingenuous to simply rant against Prop 13 without acknowledging that there will be winners and losers both with and without Prop 13. It's just different people who get favored.
slyall 3y ago
Various Exceptions. Usually places where it is very easy to built or demand is low. Most US locations outside of the Big cities. Even some big cities like Houston.

Grimburger 3y ago

> Is there a single growing democracy I'm an Australian living in Asia. My rent hasn't gone up in 5 years. The state I'm in is growing about 7% annualised and hit 13% GDP growth this year. It accounts for over 30% of the nations export value despite being 8% of the population. Friends back home have been getting 10-20% annual rises in that time, for houses that are falling apart and they are terrified to speak up for fear of eviction, it's gone completely out of control. The main difference I can spot is the sheer amount of supply that comes online here despite equivalent population growth. If developers want to build a 45 storey apartment block they can, under the caveat that 20% of apartments must be for low-income earners. In Australia if you tried to build the same building even a km from the CBD of Sydney people would be up in arms, politicians would be leading rallies to halt development and it would eventually have to go through the courts dragging the process out for years until the builder goes broke from legal fees. It's a tried and true method across the country.

slg 3y ago
Do you mind sharing the specific country/state you are referring to here because Asia is a big place that includes both democracies that aren't growing and growing countries that aren't democracies?
- Grimburger 3y ago
  Not really. I find mentioning a specific place tends to attract and set certain types off about whatever they read in the news within the last 12 months. Not entirely sure but seems you want to go down that path also and start arguing about how it's "not actually a good place" when my lived experience is the opposite. I've had it happen far too many times and simply don't bother now, people in Australia get strangely defensive about anyone who leaves, and clamour to tear holes in the idea while never once having set foot in the country, let alone spent even a month there, it's an odd phenomena. But to answer your question, yes it's definitely a democracy and that growth rate is real. I live completely surrounded by nature, with ocean views, ten minutes from my office in the city while working remotely for western companies. In the end I'm happy, that's all that matters.