many already commute to work. All this does is make us drive farther. What’s in it for me? Cheaper house prices - well we had cheaper house prices but they went away, so now I have to commute more. And when I move, prices go up. so I commute more. And then prices go up again. and so i move. And when I move, prices go up. so I commute more. and so i move.
You really look at the world we’re in now and think “you know what this world needs? More vehicle exhaust emissions, tire wear, and longer working hours - but hey, at least Blackstone got to create a monopoly on empty houses!”
Why do I have to take the soggy end of a short straw? Why do I have to burn fossil fuels and my free time otherwise I’m SOL? Why can’t it be the billion dollar companies who sacrifice a fraction of a percent instead of me sacrificing double-digit percents of my time and money?
Nowhere did I say that any of that “is what the world needs”
I just explained the current reality and a solution for people who might want an answer to their current problems. There’s nothing you or I can do about the prices of real estate and rent in the big cities. You can wish it was cheaper to live in the city all day but it’s not going to accomplish anything, and Congress and the President are not going to fix it for you either, probably at least in the span of a few decades from now.
So if you want to be able to afford a place to live NOW the answer is what I said.
I’m sorry but you “explaining the current reality” does not solve the issue that myself and I’d wager the vast majority of people cannot just move out of a city without extreme consequences.
You can “explain the current reality” as much as you like. “Just move out of a city bruh” is a phenomenally short sighted idea.
Are you saying it’s impossible to live outside of major cities? Or are you trying to argue that life outside of one isn’t good enough for you?
Do you think you deserve more before others who have less? Ex: You can’t afford living in a major city, but you think someone else should help you out before everyone living outside of major cities?
You can’t afford living in a major city, but you think someone else should help you out before everyone living outside of major cities?
Not this person but, the government should encourage urban residency. You might ask why and the answers are many, many fold. City residents have significantly less of a carbon footprint is for one reason (and it’s a major one).
Right now we’re subsidizing our suburbs in the US, and it’s an environmentally destructive, regressive thing to do.
2 - life without a job (by synecdoche I actually mean “money”, by which I actually mean with all the caveats of "in the system in which we live and its attendant axioms) is no good for anyone, not just me
3 - no
4 - your assumption is incorrect (that i think that) and your example is not relevant here (not analogous to what i said) so no I don’t think that.
4 - I think my example is very relevant. Either we put measures in place to limit the cost of property, or we spread out and reduce demand.
Our governments are built on making rich people richer as quickly as possible. There’s no way we are going to implement safeguards to prevent that unless there is a massive cultural shift.
2 - That’s not my point. My point is that you can find a job and even own property from its salary outside of major cities easier than inside of them.
4 - Cool, so the government should step in to funnel money to you before those who have less than you? Why should you get more before people living in places you deem unworthy of you?
I’ll just answer #4 for you: Entitlement. You think you’re entitled to more while others have less. Other people should step in for you to subvert supply and demand. Where demand is low and supply is high is not good enough for you, even though millions of people live there.
2 - source on “it’s easier to find a job outside of cities?” A quick Google suggests the top places for jobseekers are Atlantic City, Charleston NC, DFW, Nashville, Atlanta and Portland, and rural West Virginia and Kentucky as the worst. Edit: and you are the one backing the argument I should move. I don’t need to find a new job or move if the area is livable, and the only thing making it unlivable is someone else’s greed.
4 - no. and they shouldn’t. Again, nonsequiturs. Also I disconcur on your “answer for me” as you freely admit you are strawmanning me with stuff I didn’t say.
4 - re properties: rent control. prevent companies from owning residential property. tax empty properties. regulate cost assessments. more programs for first time buyers.
re: cost of living: programs to eliminate food deserts, invest in public transport, fines for monopoly/price fixing on groceries, regulate gas prices
other ideas: fund childcare, universal Healthcare, more education/school funding.
edit: not to mention tracking wages to inflation including minimum wage, UBI, better implementation of disability services, fund carers for disabilities, tax cuts for community programs, end right to work, strengthen unions, prevent banks from sub prime lending on property and vehicles.
my wife’s a university lecturer. Do we have to move the buildings or do we just hold classes in the open fields?
In the fields. Charlemagne it up in there!
You simply commute to work. That’s what people in rural areas who work in cities have done since forever.
If you can’t afford to live in the city, then you don’t live in the city. That’s how you make ends meet and stay financially solvent.
many already commute to work. All this does is make us drive farther. What’s in it for me? Cheaper house prices - well we had cheaper house prices but they went away, so now I have to commute more. And when I move, prices go up. so I commute more. And then prices go up again. and so i move. And when I move, prices go up. so I commute more. and so i move.
You really look at the world we’re in now and think “you know what this world needs? More vehicle exhaust emissions, tire wear, and longer working hours - but hey, at least Blackstone got to create a monopoly on empty houses!”
Why do I have to take the soggy end of a short straw? Why do I have to burn fossil fuels and my free time otherwise I’m SOL? Why can’t it be the billion dollar companies who sacrifice a fraction of a percent instead of me sacrificing double-digit percents of my time and money?
Nowhere did I say that any of that “is what the world needs”
I just explained the current reality and a solution for people who might want an answer to their current problems. There’s nothing you or I can do about the prices of real estate and rent in the big cities. You can wish it was cheaper to live in the city all day but it’s not going to accomplish anything, and Congress and the President are not going to fix it for you either, probably at least in the span of a few decades from now.
So if you want to be able to afford a place to live NOW the answer is what I said.
To recap:
then
???
That’s just a pile of shit that you made. Stop trying to make up bullshit that I did not say, when what I said is STILL FUCKING THERE FOR YOU TO READ.
I’m sorry but you “explaining the current reality” does not solve the issue that myself and I’d wager the vast majority of people cannot just move out of a city without extreme consequences.
You can “explain the current reality” as much as you like. “Just move out of a city bruh” is a phenomenally short sighted idea.
Are you saying it’s impossible to live outside of major cities? Or are you trying to argue that life outside of one isn’t good enough for you?
Do you think you deserve more before others who have less? Ex: You can’t afford living in a major city, but you think someone else should help you out before everyone living outside of major cities?
Not this person but, the government should encourage urban residency. You might ask why and the answers are many, many fold. City residents have significantly less of a carbon footprint is for one reason (and it’s a major one).
Right now we’re subsidizing our suburbs in the US, and it’s an environmentally destructive, regressive thing to do.
1 - no
2 - life without a job (by synecdoche I actually mean “money”, by which I actually mean with all the caveats of "in the system in which we live and its attendant axioms) is no good for anyone, not just me
3 - no
4 - your assumption is incorrect (that i think that) and your example is not relevant here (not analogous to what i said) so no I don’t think that.
1 - thanks for being honest
2 - Can’t you get a job outside of a major city?
3 - thanks for being honest
4 - I think my example is very relevant. Either we put measures in place to limit the cost of property, or we spread out and reduce demand.
Our governments are built on making rich people richer as quickly as possible. There’s no way we are going to implement safeguards to prevent that unless there is a massive cultural shift.
2 - I challenge you to find 2 fine arts dept curriculum head or better vacancy posts at universities not based in major cities
4 - good idea. I pick the first one.
edit: re the other two honesty doesn’t enter into it. your questions were non sequiturs.
2 - That’s not my point. My point is that you can find a job and even own property from its salary outside of major cities easier than inside of them.
4 - Cool, so the government should step in to funnel money to you before those who have less than you? Why should you get more before people living in places you deem unworthy of you?
I’ll just answer #4 for you: Entitlement. You think you’re entitled to more while others have less. Other people should step in for you to subvert supply and demand. Where demand is low and supply is high is not good enough for you, even though millions of people live there.
2 - source on “it’s easier to find a job outside of cities?” A quick Google suggests the top places for jobseekers are Atlantic City, Charleston NC, DFW, Nashville, Atlanta and Portland, and rural West Virginia and Kentucky as the worst. Edit: and you are the one backing the argument I should move. I don’t need to find a new job or move if the area is livable, and the only thing making it unlivable is someone else’s greed.
4 - no. and they shouldn’t. Again, nonsequiturs. Also I disconcur on your “answer for me” as you freely admit you are strawmanning me with stuff I didn’t say.
2- My point is that you can “even own property from its salary.” This is much easier outside of major cities than inside of them.
4- What do you think should change then to make living in major cities more affordable?
4 - re properties: rent control. prevent companies from owning residential property. tax empty properties. regulate cost assessments. more programs for first time buyers.
re: cost of living: programs to eliminate food deserts, invest in public transport, fines for monopoly/price fixing on groceries, regulate gas prices
other ideas: fund childcare, universal Healthcare, more education/school funding.
edit: not to mention tracking wages to inflation including minimum wage, UBI, better implementation of disability services, fund carers for disabilities, tax cuts for community programs, end right to work, strengthen unions, prevent banks from sub prime lending on property and vehicles.