• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-Tech Protesters Target VC With Vulgar Flyer

Grant said:
How would it harm the community? Usually when prosperity arrives neighborhoods and the infrastructure improves.
Click to expand...

The primary damage is from increases in prices for homes and home/apartment rentals and commercial space. This results is drastic rent and home price increases, evictions and displacement.
 
ludin said:
It isn't benefiting a few people thousands of people work for those companies so evidently it is being a good source of income for a lot of people.
again if the people protesting did something like i don't know get the skills to maybe work for those companies they to could enjoy the benefits.

you cry about good wage jobs then when they come you cry about something else. there is no pleasing the leftist of this country.
Click to expand...

Not everyone is in a position to learn new job skills that are highly specialized and somewhat difficult, especially older and low income people. There is also the problem that when there is another tech bust there will be a lot of unemployed tech workers. This happened last time. The young workers could move in with their parents. The older people were screwed for the next several years.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
It seemed more like a character from Deliverance.
Click to expand...

Do you remember one of the final scenes from that movie, where the guys had finally gotten away from the hillbillies and were sharing dinner with some old ladies? They were saying how big the corn was this year, how their gardens were growing...

...and that was my youth in a nutshell, sitting at the table listening to my family talk about how the garden was growing, how the crops of the local farmers were doing, and so forth.
 
Hard Truth said:
Not everyone is in a position to learn new job skills that are highly specialized and somewhat difficult, especially older and low income people.
Click to expand...

then they will have to deal with the realities of not doing anything to improve yourselves. as i said you can't have it both ways. markets adjust to the situation.
higher paying jobs and more people mean higher prices as demand grows.
 
Hard Truth said:
The primary damage is from increases in prices for homes and home/apartment rentals and commercial space. This results is drastic rent and home price increases, evictions and displacement.
Click to expand...
Home prices generally go up in areas which become more prosperous. Many who own homes look on this as a good thing.

Yes, rents are higher in prosperous areas moreso than in poorer neighborhoods. If we can't afford to live in high-end areas then we are generally forced to move to areas which we can afford, though few call it 'displacement'.. That's been generally accepted everywhere.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Do you remember one of the final scenes from that movie, where the guys had finally gotten away from the hillbillies and were sharing dinner with some old ladies? They were saying how big the corn was this year, how their gardens were growing...

...and that was my youth in a nutshell, sitting at the table listening to my family talk about how the garden was growing, how the crops of the local farmers were doing, and so forth.
Click to expand...

It's like that in rural areas everywhere, including mine when I was a child. Greater freedoms and closer families, for sure.
 
Hard Truth said:
The primary damage is from increases in prices for homes and home/apartment rentals and commercial space. This results is drastic rent and home price increases, evictions and displacement.
Click to expand...

Are you advocating national price deflation in real estate values? It would be good for the economy, right?
 
ludin said:
if they spent half the time working and investing as they did protesting then they might be in better shape.

last time i checked you didn't earn anything protesting.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the Union Bosses. ;)
 
Grant said:
It's like that in rural areas everywhere, including mine when I was a child. Greater freedoms and closer families, for sure.
Click to expand...

Closer families, yes...but the 'greater freedoms' is quite debatable, particularly if you're a racial minority. I mean, yeah, I can understand why you probably said that - no HOA rules, we can go shoot our guns if we want, have a beer and take a whiz in our front yard if we want, drive down the road like a bat out of hell, enjoy a sunrise or sunset in peace from your front porch, and the only noise you hear is from the doves or the crickets...yeah, been there, done that. There's things I do so greatly miss about life in the MS Delta.

But there's more to freedom than that. In urban areas there's far more opportunities for work and education, and significantly better health care. I mean, life out in the boonies is nice, it's fine...but most parents also want their kids to have better opportunities, and for them to live in safer places.

And this is why, if you'll look up the stats, rural states generally have lower educational attainment rates, lower percentages of health insurance coverage, higher poverty rates, higher divorce rates, higher teenage pregnancy rates, higher homicide rates.

Rural states are generally conservative red states...but these statistics are NOT because of conservative governance - it's just the other way around. Rural (red) states have conservative governance because they are rural states...and people who grow up in rural areas are generally more conservative (I was once strongly conservative) - and that's true not just in America, but all over the world.
 
I believe merely being more Faithful to an existing federal doctrine and State laws regarding employment at will could solve this simple social dilemma.
 
Grant said:
Home prices generally go up in areas which become more prosperous. Many who own homes look on this as a good thing.

Yes, rents are higher in prosperous areas moreso than in poorer neighborhoods. If we can't afford to live in high-end areas then we are generally forced to move to areas which we can afford, though few call it 'displacement'.. That's been generally accepted everywhere.
Click to expand...

It is considered displacement when it is a sudden process that changes the character of neighborhoods and creates widespread hardship.
 
RiverDad said:
Are you advocating national price deflation in real estate values? It would be good for the economy, right?
Click to expand...

No. I don't advocate price deflation. It is an issue best addressed at a local or regional level. Rent control and eviction protections are the best solutions for rentals. The best solution for owned property that I know about is requiring that larger new developments are required to offer a portion of the units at affordable prices. All three of these measures are in place in SF, they probably only need some expansion or adjustment.

One issue in San Francisco is that the regional boundaries used to officially determine median income includes a very prosperous adjacent county, which makes the median income for the area much higher than the actual median income for the city.
 
Hard Truth said:
It is considered displacement when it is a sudden process that changes the character of neighborhoods and creates widespread hardship.
Click to expand...

The same happens when blacks start moving into a white neighborhood except that instead of price increases there are price decreases. If ethical principles prevent us from stopping this process from occurring and thus saving people from an erosion of wealth, what do you imagine can be done to stop the processes you highlight when one significant byproduct is that the wealth of homeowners is increased. Give us some specific solutions that you favor.
 
Hard Truth said:
Rent control and eviction protections are the best solutions for rentals.
Click to expand...

If I have a million bucks, I can invest it in mutual funds, I can buy baseball cards, I can go on trips, or I can buy investment property.

If you see a social problem in San Francisco why do you feel justified in devaluing my property to solve that COMMUNITY problem? The landlord can no longer earn the return he counted on, the value of his investment diminishes because value is linked to returns.

Why don't we just seize your car and sell it, then take the money and put it into a rental subsidy pool and give that money to low income renters? What's that, why should your car be seized to pay for that rental pool? I don't know, probably for the same reason that a landlord has to have his asset devalued.

The best solution for owned property that I know about is requiring that larger new developments are required to offer a portion of the units at affordable prices.
Click to expand...

Again this shifts the burden of fixing a social problem onto only a few individuals and those who buy their product. Why should the new buyer pay for the problems of the whole community?
 
RiverDad said:
If I have a million bucks, I can invest it in mutual funds, I can buy baseball cards, I can go on trips, or I can buy investment property.

If you see a social problem in San Francisco why do you feel justified in devaluing my property to solve that COMMUNITY problem? The landlord can no longer earn the return he counted on, the value of his investment diminishes because value is linked to returns.

Why don't we just seize your car and sell it, then take the money and put it into a rental subsidy pool and give that money to low income renters? What's that, why should your car be seized to pay for that rental pool? I don't know, probably for the same reason that a landlord has to have his asset devalued.

Again this shifts the burden of fixing a social problem onto only a few individuals and those who buy their product. Why should the new buyer pay for the problems of the whole community?
Click to expand...

In places with rent control landlords are not denied a profit, they are only denied the profit they might have gotten without the regulations. San Francisco has had rent control since at least the late 1970s, so no is going to be surprised by the system at this time. In some cases rent control can benefit a landlord because rent control may increase the rents one can get with a vacant unit. However, the point you make is legitimate and I am not opposed to a system that compensates landlords (perhaps with tax breaks) who provide below market rate housing. I believe federal Section 8 housing vouchers pay market rate, so that is another possible model for landlord compensation while providing affordable housing to those who need it.

I don't see a same problem with requiring affordable units in large new projects because the developers benefit greatly from the tax payer provided infrastructure (transportation, water, sewer etc) but it is the condo owners who will pay local taxes. It does reduce developer profits, but not significantly. Large residential developments in San Francisco are extremely profitable.
 
Last edited:
Hard Truth said:
I believe federal Section 8 housing vouchers pay market rate, so that is another possible model for landlord compensation while providing affordable housing to those who need it.
Click to expand...

Why though do you believe that society has an obligation to subsidize someone's rent so that they can live where they please? If I move from Hardscrabble, Wyoming to Beverly Hills, California, should the residents of Beverly Hills subsidize my rent because I can't afford to live in Beverly Hills?

We all know that Beverly Hills and San Francisco are nicer places to live than Bum****, Iowa but wanting to live where you want doesn't seem to be a good enough reason to obligate other people to pay for a part of your rent.
 
RiverDad said:
Why though do you believe that society has an obligation to subsidize someone's rent so that they can live where they please? If I move from Hardscrabble, Wyoming to Beverly Hills, California, should the residents of Beverly Hills subsidize my rent because I can't afford to live in Beverly Hills?

We all know that Beverly Hills and San Francisco are nicer places to live than Bum****, Iowa but wanting to live where you want doesn't seem to be a good enough reason to obligate other people to pay for a part of your rent.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting question that I wrestle with: do people have a right to live in an expensive place? I tend to think that there is no such right when it is a residential area, but it seems to me that cities should be accessible to people at a variety of income levels, although there are limits to what government can or should do to achieve that goal.

I have long suggested that Oakland should be merged with San Francisco, which would instantly increase the affordable housing and commercial space supply.

Unlike Beverly Hills (I assume), the people of San Francisco want an economically and culturally diverse city, the stated goal of the measures the city took that I described. There are significant environmental advantages to discouraging suburban sprawl and reducing commutes. Reducing commute times also improves the quality of life and increases family time and reduces stress, improving parenting. Keeping emergency personnel within a city helps with safety. A serious lack of low income housing within a city makes it more expensive to hire low wage workers, increasing the price of products.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
Why do leftists so frequently feel the need to talk like hillbillies? Is it a throwback thing?
Click to expand...

Is there anything you perceive as a negative that "leftists" DON'T do, Grant?
 
Hard Truth said:
That's an interesting question without definitive answers.

Unlike Beverly Hills (I assume), the people of San Francisco want an economically and culturally diverse city, the stated goal of the measures the city took that I described. There are significant environmental advantages to discouraging suburban sprawl and reducing commutes. Reducing commute times also improves the quality of life and increases family time and reduces stress, improving parenting. Keeping emergency personnel within a city helps with safety. A serious lack of low income housing within a city makes it more expensive to hire low wage workers, increasing the price of products.
Click to expand...

San Francisco is noted as being a very liberal city. If they want to do this, then that's fine with me. If your answer to my question of "why should someone's rent be subsidized" is "the people want to create economic diversity" then that's good enough for me.

I don't actually believe this is so because I see a lot of revealed preferences which show that people flee some kinds of cultural diversity and I don't see people stepping up and volunteering their own dollars to fix the problem instead of shifting the cost onto other people (rent control, developers building rent subsidized housing).

As for the reasons you trot out, they mostly benefit the commuters, (quality of life, more family time, reduced stress, improved parenting) not the residents. I'm still left wondering why the city residents should feel an obligation to subsidize other people's rent so that they can live in a nice location. I'd rather see that low income housing be sold for market value because that would improve the quality of the city. Then if there are problems filling city worker jobs, keep raising the pay until people from afar are willing to take on the commute. What actually benefit would I get from having a garbage man live in the city rather than commute from a distance? Same with a city planner or bureaucrat or teacher.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Closer families, yes...but the 'greater freedoms' is quite debatable, particularly if you're a racial minority. I mean, yeah, I can understand why you probably said that - no HOA rules, we can go shoot our guns if we want, have a beer and take a whiz in our front yard if we want, drive down the road like a bat out of hell, enjoy a sunrise or sunset in peace from your front porch, and the only noise you hear is from the doves or the crickets...yeah, been there, done that. There's things I do so greatly miss about life in the MS Delta.

But there's more to freedom than that. In urban areas there's far more opportunities for work and education, and significantly better health care. I mean, life out in the boonies is nice, it's fine...but most parents also want their kids to have better opportunities, and for them to live in safer places.

And this is why, if you'll look up the stats, rural states generally have lower educational attainment rates, lower percentages of health insurance coverage, higher poverty rates, higher divorce rates, higher teenage pregnancy rates, higher homicide rates.

Rural states are generally conservative red states...but these statistics are NOT because of conservative governance - it's just the other way around. Rural (red) states have conservative governance because they are rural states...and people who grow up in rural areas are generally more conservative (I was once strongly conservative) - and that's true not just in America, but all over the world.
Click to expand...

The diversity of the different states is what gave America its strength. Now, as the feds gain more control, that is changing.
 
Hard Truth said:
It is considered displacement when it is a sudden process that changes the character of neighborhoods and creates widespread hardship.
Click to expand...

With prosperity the character of the neighborhood tends to go up and crime tends to go down. Parks improve as do schools and the general infrastructure. If people don't want to be 'displaced' they should work towards owning their own home as well as improving their own situation so this problem is less likely to arise,
 
Grant said:
With prosperity the character of the neighborhood tends to go up and crime tends to go down. Parks improve as do schools and the general infrastructure. If people don't want to be 'displaced' they should work towards owning their own home as well as improving their own situation so this problem is less likely to arise,
Click to expand...

That's easy for people to say when the don't know others' actual situation, but its not so easy for people who work multiple jobs, older people and people with obligations such as children or elder care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom