U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Massachusetts
 [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 06-15-2021, 06:07 PM
 
3,804 posts, read 1,597,291 times
Reputation: 2623

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by badalchemist View Post
Those darn libs making places more desirable to live.
The liberals make them desirable so the "Progressives" can ruin them.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-15-2021, 06:25 PM
 
19,818 posts, read 14,853,755 times
Reputation: 9450
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagoliz View Post
Yes -- I have found that most people who go around using "liberal" as some kind of slur actually have no understanding at all of what liberals stand for. In ignorant areas, it becomes just a word that's used to describe anything you don't like or is in any way bad. Years ago I was in a facebook conversation with a friend who lives in Alabama and has a lot of friends who live in Alabama. We were discussing the film Bird Man and how much we hated it. Out of nowhere one of her Alabama friends makes a comment that the film received acclaim because "liberals love suicide." Not only did the comment make no sense whatsoever, even given the context of our conversation, but to me it really highlighed the brainwashing and lack of critical thought in some areas, where liberals really have been made the boogeymen for anything unpleasant.

Yeah because no liberals do the same in reverse. Like, nobody on this forum has ever attributed all bad to "conservatives" and "right wingers"...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2021, 07:37 PM
 
14,467 posts, read 17,639,466 times
Reputation: 19381
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewfieMama View Post
I'm probably overly judgmental, but if people are living a lifestyle that doesn't make sense given their incomes I assume 1.) They are going into debt 2.) They have money coming in from elsewhere (like an inheritance) that supplements their income or 3.) they live paycheck to paycheck and aren't properly investing in their future. Maybe even a combo of those.

To the OP, I understand that you are frustrated with the policies that are enacted, the general political culture where you live, and also possibly have an issue with overcrowded schools, but I think you are going to run into some of this no matter where you live. MA is obviously a blue state, but clearly there are a mix of political viewpoints here. In any given election, there are signs from both political parties plastered all over my town. And local politics can be worse--the tension is so palpable in some town meetings I'm surprised fights don't break out.

The housing stock here is old. There aren't planned community neighborhoods the way there are in newer cities with a ton of space. The COL is very high--I truly do think it would be tough to live on a $150K salary, even if you had $350K in equity to put down on a house. The traffic, even at these lower post-pandemic levels, is frustrating. The winters are long, even when you love winter sports. And New England skiing is not like what you're used to in Utah. Don't get me wrong--I love it here, so I accept all of this and think it's worth it, but it would be a huge adjustment for you. And if you love the neighborhood you have now, I'm not sure if it's worth it to give that up to live in an older house, not be in a neighborhood, feel poor, and could be sandwiched between conservative neighbors.

Nailed it perfectly
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2021, 08:35 PM
 
681 posts, read 364,341 times
Reputation: 1161
Sorry, I'm still shocked that many of you think that $150k/year salary and enough money for a $750k house is barely enough to live in the Boston area. I must be completely out of touch.

I guess if I ever move back to Mass, I'm moving to Springfield!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2021, 09:31 AM
 
7,742 posts, read 6,983,724 times
Reputation: 3953
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDee12345 View Post
Sorry, I'm still shocked that many of you think that $150k/year salary and enough money for a $750k house is barely enough to live in the Boston area. I must be completely out of touch.

I guess if I ever move back to Mass, I'm moving to Springfield!
eh housing is going up everywhere.

https://www.masslive.com/business/20...hits-285k.html

"The numbers by county:
Hampden County: The median price is up 16.1% from $224,000 in May of 2020 to
$260,000 in May of 2021. The number of sales are down 5.1% from 314 in 2020 to 298
in 2021.

Hampshire County: The median price is up 19.3% from $305,000 in May 2020 to
$364,000 in May 2021. The number of sales are up 1% from 97 in May 2020 to 98 in
May 2021.

Franklin County: The median price is up 1.9% from $263,000 in May 2020 to
$268,000 in May 2021. Sales are up 36% from 31 in May 202 to 46 in May 2021."

I'd argue Hampshire county is getting much closer to eastern mass prices. Springfield is nearly on par with Greenfield now. Heck how can Frankly only be up 1.9% when most of the state is at least 10%?

Check this one out
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2...99715084_zpid/
2003 sold for 180K
2004 sold for 255K

On the market now 888K. Of course it's also next to a courthouse and museums.

Here's the mother of all flips
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3...56229270_zpid/

Sold in january for 20K. On the market now for 335K!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2021, 10:01 AM
 
Location: East Coast
4,104 posts, read 3,213,288 times
Reputation: 6317
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71 View Post
Yeah because no liberals do the same in reverse. Like, nobody on this forum has ever attributed all bad to "conservatives" and "right wingers"...
Actually, no they haven't. There are plenty of things to be blamed on conservative policies and conservative people. (Jan 6, anyone?). Liberals don't make asinine claims like that conservatives love suicide or something like that.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2021, 12:13 PM
 
7,742 posts, read 6,983,724 times
Reputation: 3953
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagoliz View Post
Actually, no they haven't. There are plenty of things to be blamed on conservative policies and conservative people. (Jan 6, anyone?). Liberals don't make asinine claims like that conservatives love suicide or something like that.
Well they kinda do with actions and rather not words. By getting people dependent on government welfare systems it prevents social mobility. It moves people from citizens to subjects. Poverty traps do exist. So they target for it to help a given amount of people but if they make too much they have to pay more out of pocket for the same services and have less in income than they did before. Think of all the programs that exist. Housing support (section 8), EBT(food support), educational support (pell grants), lifeline phones (not obamaphone), unemployment, WIC, medicare etc. I have actually met people that have denied themselves promotions and raises because otherwise they would be cut off.

If you investigate foreign aid and development you'll find that many places do not want basic aid over the long term. If you provide the basics (food, water, shelter and clothing) then the bare bones of an economy can't work. If you have the basics provided you don't need to work and thus the economy doesn't move. In Haiti that did just that so what makes us think that domestically this isn't the case?

I'm not debating the idea of social assistance programs. Many of them were put on by Bismark in the 1880's to prevent communism and it worked. The rest of europe added them and gradually from the 1930's onward it became implemented in the US. Social security in the 1930's, medicare in the 1960's being the largest pieces. At least with these systems them come out of pay directly and go back to those on it. If someone is in the negative and keeps being in the negative it's a drag, especially for lower income people.

So yes liberals can make asinine claims, especially with programs that are "free". We've also seen time and time again the promise that programs will solve things but these dreams are just dreams. Even with ACA people still smoke, drink an do drugs. Longevity didn't skyrocket. But of course many liberals are limousine liberals and hardly ever step into any real urban area. God forbid they walk by a methadone clinic or public housing! If government becomes open ended and we keep trying to do more without looking at program effectiveness, social cost and ethical ramifications we're going to continue to have the same.

The issue with liberals (i.e. progressives) is frankly they have become the new reactionary party. Instead of being the party of tolerance it acts as if the ability to censor that is to recoil the point where something is intolerable must be remedied. I have seen more open hypocrisy and arrogance with progressives than probably any other group. Yes of course you can blame things on the right but the general consensus is usually that those on the left tend to be more educated. So it could be argued that the right can be stupid but shouldn't the left just know better? If you know a policy is only going to work for 10% of those effected by it why bother implementing it?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2021, 12:54 PM
 
Location: East Coast
4,104 posts, read 3,213,288 times
Reputation: 6317
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell View Post
Well they kinda do with actions and rather not words. By getting people dependent on government welfare systems it prevents social mobility. It moves people from citizens to subjects. Poverty traps do exist. So they target for it to help a given amount of people but if they make too much they have to pay more out of pocket for the same services and have less in income than they did before. Think of all the programs that exist. Housing support (section 8), EBT(food support), educational support (pell grants), lifeline phones (not obamaphone), unemployment, WIC, medicare etc. I have actually met people that have denied themselves promotions and raises because otherwise they would be cut off.

If you investigate foreign aid and development you'll find that many places do not want basic aid over the long term. If you provide the basics (food, water, shelter and clothing) then the bare bones of an economy can't work. If you have the basics provided you don't need to work and thus the economy doesn't move. In Haiti that did just that so what makes us think that domestically this isn't the case?

I'm not debating the idea of social assistance programs. Many of them were put on by Bismark in the 1880's to prevent communism and it worked. The rest of europe added them and gradually from the 1930's onward it became implemented in the US. Social security in the 1930's, medicare in the 1960's being the largest pieces. At least with these systems them come out of pay directly and go back to those on it. If someone is in the negative and keeps being in the negative it's a drag, especially for lower income people.

So yes liberals can make asinine claims, especially with programs that are "free". We've also seen time and time again the promise that programs will solve things but these dreams are just dreams. Even with ACA people still smoke, drink an do drugs. Longevity didn't skyrocket. But of course many liberals are limousine liberals and hardly ever step into any real urban area. God forbid they walk by a methadone clinic or public housing! If government becomes open ended and we keep trying to do more without looking at program effectiveness, social cost and ethical ramifications we're going to continue to have the same.

The issue with liberals (i.e. progressives) is frankly they have become the new reactionary party. Instead of being the party of tolerance it acts as if the ability to censor that is to recoil the point where something is intolerable must be remedied. I have seen more open hypocrisy and arrogance with progressives than probably any other group. Yes of course you can blame things on the right but the general consensus is usually that those on the left tend to be more educated. So it could be argued that the right can be stupid but shouldn't the left just know better? If you know a policy is only going to work for 10% of those effected by it why bother implementing it?
I can't even begin to adequately address everything that you've brought up, but I will say that I do support something more along the lines of Universal Basic Income, where everyone gets money without the bureaucracy of seeing whether someone really "deserves" it or is "entitled" to it. Most of the issues with our current social programs is that they don't provide enough.

Countries such as Sweden have a robust capitalist system with excellent social welfare programs, so it certainly can be done. The so called progressive, left wing programs that have been implemented work very well and are tremendously popular (i.e. Medicare, Social Security). Otherwise, we really haven't tried any truly left wing, progressive programs. That is the shame.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2021, 01:10 PM
 
10,288 posts, read 4,327,836 times
Reputation: 7482
If we ever did Universal Basic Income here people would absolutely choose not to work. And if we did have Universal Basic Income what about programs like welfare and EBT, etc? I guess we'd just get rid of those?

And what if someone is making 300k a year or is given a huge inheritance at 30 would they still get Universal Basic Income?

Universal Basic Income would still not make things equal, not even close. I also don't get the impression that if someone was living off of just Universal Basic Income that they'd be able to afford a home. Would it be based on your area COL?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2021, 01:47 PM
 
7,742 posts, read 6,983,724 times
Reputation: 3953
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagoliz View Post
I can't even begin to adequately address everything that you've brought up, but I will say that I do support something more along the lines of Universal Basic Income, where everyone gets money without the bureaucracy of seeing whether someone really "deserves" it or is "entitled" to it. Most of the issues with our current social programs is that they don't provide enough.

Countries such as Sweden have a robust capitalist system with excellent social welfare programs, so it certainly can be done. The so called progressive, left wing programs that have been implemented work very well and are tremendously popular (i.e. Medicare, Social Security). Otherwise, we really haven't tried any truly left wing, progressive programs. That is the shame.
UBI could be interesting in lieu of programs. Baby bond policies are starting. In CT the argument is $3,200 for those on medicare which should be worth five figures upon the age of 18. It's interesting.

Sweden is not a good example for a variety of reasons. First and foremost is that the US supplied Sweden and much of Europe with the marshall plan which later became the OECD. the vast majority of the defense of Europe came at the cost of the USA. So to suggest that they can do it ignores this very fact. That's like saying someone living with someone else can afford to go out to eat when they don't even pay rent! This isn't me talking this this is actual subject matter as I was international relations in my undergrad and have a masters.

But sweden was this neutral country during the war...no?

No.

https://www.thelocal.se/20131209/sec...never-neutral/

https://www.americanprogress.org/iss.../#fn-494605-16

"When NATO was formed, it was seen as a way of keeping Americans engaged in Europe and preventing the United States from reverting to a post-WWI isolationism. But the United States was also focused on encouraging European rearmament and reducing reliance on the United States, which led to strong early U.S. support for European defense restructuring and integration. U.S. efforts to spur rearmament, particularly in West Germany, were a crucial motivating factor for France to push for European integration through the merging of the coal and steel industries into the European Coal and Steel Community.14 The United States also strongly backed a French proposal to create a European Defense Community (EDC), which would have formed a pan-European army.15 In the aftermath of WWII, the United States therefore sought and encouraged ways to spur European defense reforms in an effort to strengthen the European pillar of the newly formed alliance, which would have reduced Western Europe’s military and economic reliance on the United States. Ultimately, however, the EDC never took hold and a European Army was never formed. Europe integrated economically, but not militarily.

Defense was left to nation-states, coordinated through NATO, leaving the United States not only as the lead military guarantor of European defense but also as its de facto financial backbone. As Western Europe recovered economically, individual NATO members took on responsibility for financing and sustaining investments in their military capabilities, which led to U.S. concerns during the Cold War about European underinvestment in defense.16 However, the United States’ military presence in Europe and focus on the Soviet Union meant that it made up for whatever European military deficiencies may have existed."

So of course if you don't have to pay for your own defense you have quite a bit left to work with for other things. Bismark already introduced health care mandates which were copied by Hillarycare/Romneycare years ago. There are significant differences in national health care systems
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...rld/countries/

We do have things that frankly add to the costs of operating in the country. Trade sanctions, prevailing wages and the Jones Act come to mind immediately. If we want a infrastructure bill to pass I think the F-35 could be on the chopping block. War is expensive and frankly I don't think it's that left wing to argue that we should cut military spending. We haven't had a BRAC hearing since 1995. We lost more to covid than most conflicts in decades. The era of large countries going to war with each other generally is over. I don't fear china or russia. They have more problems there then they let on and can't mobilize.

If we want to argue about a peace dividend and reinvestment into infrastructure and programs that is fine. I rather see cuts than tax increases at this point. Spending fleet costs of 1.5 trillion on the F35 is wasteful to say the least. We've been using drones for years, there's been only one "dog fight" in the past 20 years.
Rate this post positively 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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


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 > U.S. Forums > Massachusetts

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top