U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-07-2017, 10:46 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,863 posts, read 57,900,981 times
Reputation: 29281

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
"Naturally" doesn't excuse "socially unacceptable."
It doesn't have to.

It doesn't even have to acknowledge such an imposed artificial ethic
however one might define the term being passed around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-07-2017, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Holly Neighborhood, AUSTINtx
3,457 posts, read 5,092,842 times
Reputation: 2048
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
or supported by gov't. we have so many affordable housing projects going up that the general rental market has been neglected for decades. in all of nyc and the boroughs not one pure rental building that is not luxury , low income or part of an affordable housing program has been built since the 1970's .

only co-op's ,condo's and luxury buildings have been put up once you get away from the income restricted stuff ..
I think this is because low cost, non-stick built high rises on expensive real estate that must meet building codes and zoning restrictions cannot pencil out without subsidies. A partial analogy is there not being a new car available for $6,000. The labor and material costs plus compliance with safety and emissions standards make this impossibility thus sending low income people to the used market. There really isn't a moral facet to it unless the regulations created had a primary purpose of exclusion versus public safety, environmental protection, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2017, 12:16 PM
 
64,656 posts, read 66,158,228 times
Reputation: 43080
it is simply because developers wanted no part of stabilization . while you did not have to be stabilized after the 1970's landlords were tricked once with stabilization .

they much rather go in to co-ops ,condo's , luxury buildings where they were in the clear .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2017, 06:19 PM
 
24,738 posts, read 26,803,263 times
Reputation: 22723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondebaerde View Post
Of course it is interesting. More far-Left propaganda talking about "fair" and "equal outcomes." That's where wacko legislation and Socialist City Council members come from, referencing my home (Seattle) specifically as one example.

This gibberish arises in society from time to time, it's been on the ascendency here in the U.S. past few decades, some say since the hippie movements in the 1960s to start. It was dumb then, it's twice as dumb now. The American Dream is being replaced with Gub'ment Handouts mentality.

Here in Seattle they start in with the "lack of affordable housing" lament too, though here it is constant. In fact, there is plenty of affordable housing in outlying areas, neighborhoods not relevant to this national thread. It just takes longer to get into the core city from those areas. Natural economic forces are causing the rise in prices, and supply hasn't caught up (and may or may not, based on other economic forces). The movement to subsidize mass transit for the poor, on the other hand, has every indication of making a bit more sense somewhat subjectively. Problem solved.

The role of "..(as a) community and (as a) government to provide protections against immortal market forces." Uh huh. Get a job, pursue the real American dream, as I and all my colleagues did. Colleagues from all over the world, btw. Hippie bum. Agitate for something that makes sense, like cleaning the streets of bums and vagrants and burning down mass bum camps: that's what the people, those actually already paying oppressive taxes, really want you to do.
I don't know how it is in Seattle, but here in the Bay Area, zoning restrictions make it difficult and expensive to build, which means less housing gets built, and rent and home prices go up as a result. Yet this rarely gets brought up in these discussions. I suspect it's the same in Seattle.


Even the New York Times is finally admitting it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/u...ng-crisis.html

....the churning economy has run up against 30 years of resistance to the kind of development experts say is urgently needed......officials say the combination of a booming economy and the lack of construction of homes and apartments have combined to make this the worst housing crisis here in memory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2017, 10:44 PM
 
Location: Greater Houston
4,514 posts, read 8,601,555 times
Reputation: 2086
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
It doesn't have to.

It doesn't even have to acknowledge such an imposed artificial ethic
however one might define the term being passed around.
Despite the religion/moral bashing from the mammon-worshippers but yet they peddle cafeteria right-wing Christianity, mostly in the South and now in the Midwest, to serve their ends.

Adam Smith was a Christian theologian and would have rolled in his grave once he found out the immorality and injustices being committed/perpetuated through extreme implementations of his theories. Had he known that Capitalism was going to be used to justify sins, he probably would have kept silent with his economic ideas. The only reason he is popular is because his ideas propped up the British Empire that became humongous in the 19th century.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2017, 06:23 AM
 
3,724 posts, read 1,670,856 times
Reputation: 5123
I think he should go out, start a company and build some affordable housing.

"But denunciatory rhetoric is so much easier and cheaper than good works, and proves a popular temptation. Yet is it far better to light the candle than to curse the darkness." - W. Watkinson
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2017, 06:23 AM
 
Location: Holly Neighborhood, AUSTINtx
3,457 posts, read 5,092,842 times
Reputation: 2048
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown View Post
Despite the religion/moral bashing from the mammon-worshippers but yet they peddle cafeteria right-wing Christianity, mostly in the South and now in the Midwest, to serve their ends.

Adam Smith was a Christian theologian and would have rolled in his grave once he found out the immorality and injustices being committed/perpetuated through extreme implementations of his theories. Had he known that Capitalism was going to be used to justify sins, he probably would have kept silent with his economic ideas. The only reason he is popular is because his ideas propped up the British Empire that became humongous in the 19th century.
This may be true regarding Adam Smith but how would you relate it to the topic of housing, lack of affordability and gentrification? Would Smith roll in his grave if some of his fellow Glaswegians could no longer afford to rent in the city center and were forced to the city limits? Of course the 18th century Glasgow city council probably didn't interfere much with the creation of new housing......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2017, 07:28 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,863 posts, read 57,900,981 times
Reputation: 29281
Quote:
Originally Posted by verybadgnome View Post
Would Smith roll in his grave if some of his fellow Glaswegians could no longer afford to rent in the city center
and were forced to the city limits? Of course the 18th century Glasgow city council probably didn't interfere much
with the creation of new housing......
More to the point... they would proactively build (aka develop) mill houses and such to be within a reasonable
walking distance of the no/low skill jobs the people there had ...and these employers needed done.

The difference TODAY in most cities is that much of, too much of, the existing housing in reasonable
proximity to most jobs are inhabited by the same sort of no/low skill people as in Smith's day...
but TODAY the jobs in reasonable proximity are of the high and specialized skill sort.

It creates a highly inefficient allocation of assets.
Smith would see that in a heartbeat and be first in line with the practical remedy needed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2017, 08:16 AM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,907,654 times
Reputation: 3782
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
It doesn't have to.
Then "natural" shouldn't be held up as it was as some sort of sacred, virginal, untainted quality to pursue. It should recognized that societies and economies are human constructs that have capacities for going off the rails in manners so serious as to require direct human intervention.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2017, 08:22 AM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,907,654 times
Reputation: 3782
It is perhaps the case that no one with the possible exception of Karl Marx is more widely misapprehended and hence misrepresented than Adam Smith.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top