3 ms·

Permaculture is another word for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture The city where I live in the PNW ha

Permaculture is another word for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture The city where I live in the PNW has had a huge influx of immigrants from red and blue states who either don't respect the dignity of nonhuman life or want to gentrify communities to their liking. It seems like the first thing they do when they get here is cut down the biggest tree(s) in their yard to live out their pioneer fantasies. I'd say we've lost around 25 trees 75 years or older in just my immediate neighborhood. Then they plant ornamental pears and similar that smell like rotten garbage/death/sex. Heaven forbid they plant a plumb, walnut or anything they have to (gasp) clean up after. Bumblebees, butterflies and small birds have all but disappeared compared to when we moved in around 2010. With housing prices going from $100,000 to $500,000 since 2000, while wages haven't even doubled, I'm starting to not recognize this place anymore. It's heartbreaking because it didn't have to be this way. It's not a supply and demand problem, it's a cultural issue. What we value as a society, what we prioritize, how we fund institutions for checks and balances against predatory private equity firms that can't be stopped by the private sector, etc.

ch4s3 2y ago
> or want to gentrify communities to their liking. I think you've bent this word beyond breaking. > I'd say we've lost around 25 trees 75 years or older in just my immediate neighborhood. What kind of trees? Red Alder which are native to the area for example don't live much more than 70 years. > while wages haven't even doubled, Median household income in current dollars has more than doubled in Portland since 2000[1]. > It's not a supply and demand problem Yes it is. Housing prices increase when demand increases. Portland has an arbitrary growth boundary around the city and a lot of restrictions on height. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/205988/median-household-income-in-oregon/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/205988/median-household-...
- zackmorris 2y ago
  > while wages haven't even doubled, Median household income in current dollars has more than doubled in Portland since 2000[1]. > It's not a supply and demand problem Yes it is. Housing prices increase when demand increases. Portland has an arbitrary growth boundary around the city and a lot of restrictions on height. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/205988/median-household-income-in-oregon/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/205988/median-household-... Ok I double-checked, and it looks like that graph isn't adjusted for inflation. Here's one that is: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSORA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSORA672N From 2000-2023, yours shows $42,499-$88,740, but that shows $70,870-$88,740 in 2023 C-CPI-U Dollars. Apparently cumulative inflation has about doubled nationally since 2000, making the consumer price index (CPI) about double, so $1 in 2000 was worth the same as about $2 today: https://inflationdata.com/articles/2022/08/10/u-s-cumulative-inflation-since-1913/ https://inflationdata.com/articles/2022/08/10/u-s-cumulative... So real inflation-adjusted wages in Oregon have risen about ($88,740 - $70,870)/$70,870 = 25% from 2000-2023. If household incomes had actually doubled and also kept up with inflation, they would be ($70,870 * 2) = $141,740 in today's dollars. Or by your graph, year 2000 wages that doubled and also kept up with inflation (so two doublings) would be ($42,499 * 2 * 2) = $169,996. Admittedly, I don't know where the $28,256 discrepancy comes from, so expected wages would probably be somewhere between $141,740 and $169,996. Maybe someone more studied in economics can tell us. From Jan 2000 to Jan 2023 and not adjusting for inflation, housing prices in Oregon have risen from $102,749 to $338,927: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/POXRMTNSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/POXRMTNSA So a $100,000 home in 2000 would cost $200,000 by inflation and $250,000 if housing prices matched the 25% wage increase. But they cost $338,927, so are about 1.36 times more expensive than expected, even accounting for higher wages. After writing this out, I question what a wage increase means if housing prices just match it. Is it really a raise if it's eaten up by rising housing costs? Had people invested in things besides housing bubbles, say medical breakthroughs or renewable energy, then today's housing costs vs inflationary costs would be $338,927/$200,000 = 1.69. So homes today are 69% more expensive/overengineered than in 2000. To me, this doesn't represent supply and demand. It shows that people have put their wage gains into more expensive homes, which reduced the supply of building materials and raised housing costs for everyone else. It also shows that a larger segment of the population today isn't working, because our economy has been moving from manufacturing to finance. Meaning that young working people are carrying a higher load to support the retirements of older people who have invested in real estate, mostly through private equity firms. You bring up a good point about aging and sick trees though. Most in our neighborhood were cut down due to neglect and disease. The 2008 housing bubble crash left lots empty for a year or two and the banks didn't bother paying the water bill, so the trees died. We've also had unusually mild winters where I live in Idaho, allowing invasive pests and diseases to survive and harm trees. There's no talk of any of this in the local media or messaging from our city council though, so there's no consensus on saving the trees. I sympathize that trees must be cut down sometimes for safety, but it's been hard to watch.
  - ch4s3 2y ago
    My point about income is that it has doubled in the same way housing prices have. If you inflation adjusted the housing prices they aren’t so out of line with median household income. If your theory about housing prices is building materials, you’re just flatly wrong. The underlying land values have had very large increases in value, and materials are a small portion of the court of a frame built house. Land and labor costs dominate.
underlipton 2y ago
Not that this is a new idea - when was the term "rat race" coined? - but I imagine that part of the issue is people who are so caught up in their unexamined expectations that they don't have the wherewithal to question them. You then factor in that the examining and decision-making is taken up by people with a lot more money or political influence. Such is the genesis of, say, white flight (and maybe even "manifest destiny"). Doesn't absolve participants of culpability, but helps us to understand the how and a bit of the why.

ch4s3 2y ago

> or want to gentrify communities to their liking. I think you've bent this word beyond breaking. > I'd say we've lost around 25 trees 75 years or older in just my immediate neighborhood. What kind of trees? Red Alder which are native to the area for example don't live much more than 70 years. > while wages haven't even doubled, Median household income in current dollars has more than doubled in Portland since 2000[1]. > It's not a supply and demand problem Yes it is. Housing prices increase when demand increases. Portland has an arbitrary growth boundary around the city and a lot of restrictions on height. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/205988/median-household-income-in-oregon/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/205988/median-household-...

zackmorris 2y ago
> while wages haven't even doubled, Median household income in current dollars has more than doubled in Portland since 2000[1]. > It's not a supply and demand problem Yes it is. Housing prices increase when demand increases. Portland has an arbitrary growth boundary around the city and a lot of restrictions on height. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/205988/median-household-income-in-oregon/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/205988/median-household-... Ok I double-checked, and it looks like that graph isn't adjusted for inflation. Here's one that is: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSORA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSORA672N From 2000-2023, yours shows $42,499-$88,740, but that shows $70,870-$88,740 in 2023 C-CPI-U Dollars. Apparently cumulative inflation has about doubled nationally since 2000, making the consumer price index (CPI) about double, so $1 in 2000 was worth the same as about $2 today: https://inflationdata.com/articles/2022/08/10/u-s-cumulative-inflation-since-1913/ https://inflationdata.com/articles/2022/08/10/u-s-cumulative... So real inflation-adjusted wages in Oregon have risen about ($88,740 - $70,870)/$70,870 = 25% from 2000-2023. If household incomes had actually doubled and also kept up with inflation, they would be ($70,870 * 2) = $141,740 in today's dollars. Or by your graph, year 2000 wages that doubled and also kept up with inflation (so two doublings) would be ($42,499 * 2 * 2) = $169,996. Admittedly, I don't know where the $28,256 discrepancy comes from, so expected wages would probably be somewhere between $141,740 and $169,996. Maybe someone more studied in economics can tell us. From Jan 2000 to Jan 2023 and not adjusting for inflation, housing prices in Oregon have risen from $102,749 to $338,927: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/POXRMTNSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/POXRMTNSA So a $100,000 home in 2000 would cost $200,000 by inflation and $250,000 if housing prices matched the 25% wage increase. But they cost $338,927, so are about 1.36 times more expensive than expected, even accounting for higher wages. After writing this out, I question what a wage increase means if housing prices just match it. Is it really a raise if it's eaten up by rising housing costs? Had people invested in things besides housing bubbles, say medical breakthroughs or renewable energy, then today's housing costs vs inflationary costs would be $338,927/$200,000 = 1.69. So homes today are 69% more expensive/overengineered than in 2000. To me, this doesn't represent supply and demand. It shows that people have put their wage gains into more expensive homes, which reduced the supply of building materials and raised housing costs for everyone else. It also shows that a larger segment of the population today isn't working, because our economy has been moving from manufacturing to finance. Meaning that young working people are carrying a higher load to support the retirements of older people who have invested in real estate, mostly through private equity firms. You bring up a good point about aging and sick trees though. Most in our neighborhood were cut down due to neglect and disease. The 2008 housing bubble crash left lots empty for a year or two and the banks didn't bother paying the water bill, so the trees died. We've also had unusually mild winters where I live in Idaho, allowing invasive pests and diseases to survive and harm trees. There's no talk of any of this in the local media or messaging from our city council though, so there's no consensus on saving the trees. I sympathize that trees must be cut down sometimes for safety, but it's been hard to watch.
- ch4s3 2y ago
  My point about income is that it has doubled in the same way housing prices have. If you inflation adjusted the housing prices they aren’t so out of line with median household income. If your theory about housing prices is building materials, you’re just flatly wrong. The underlying land values have had very large increases in value, and materials are a small portion of the court of a frame built house. Land and labor costs dominate.

underlipton 2y ago

Not that this is a new idea - when was the term "rat race" coined? - but I imagine that part of the issue is people who are so caught up in their unexamined expectations that they don't have the wherewithal to question them. You then factor in that the examining and decision-making is taken up by people with a lot more money or political influence. Such is the genesis of, say, white flight (and maybe even "manifest destiny"). Doesn't absolve participants of culpability, but helps us to understand the how and a bit of the why.