Oakland Gentrification 3.0 (San Francisco, Sacramento, Carson: 2014, crime, homes)
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.
I can't decide whether your statement is pompous, self-righteous or naive.
People who don't earn enough to save money can save (and should, even if its just to get into the good habit of doing so), but it's an extremely small amount compared to what someone who earns a lot more can save.
Thus, those who have more can save more. It doesn't mean that they actually do, though, as there have been many cases of multimillionaires who squander their money by living over-the-top lifestyles.
You are making my point, saving money is about spending habits, not how much you earn.
Someone making more with good habits will obviously save more, but millions have had low paying jobs and have been able to save money.
I would recommend people read/learn about Dave Ramsey and his recommendations on how to live a financially responsible life. He has helped my wife and I make better financial decisions so that we can weather financial issues. Of course it is not glamorous not going on vacation and having basic cars, but it is why we are where we are today.
You have to live like no one else so that one day you can live like no one else.
You are making my point, saving money is about spending habits, not how much you earn.
Someone making more with good habits will obviously save more, but millions have had low paying jobs and have been able to save money.
I would recommend people read/learn about Dave Ramsey and his recommendations on how to live a financially responsible life. He has helped my wife and I make better financial decisions so that we can weather financial issues. Of course it is not glamorous not going on vacation and having basic cars, but it is why we are where we are today.
You have to live like no one else so that one day you can live like no one else.
Yes, spending habits is a factor of saving, but the scale isn't leveled to begin with. People with lower incomes can't save because they are trying to meet basic needs and they shell out larger proportions of their income for subsistence. They spend more relative to their income in healthcare, education, cost of living, childcare, transportation, food, etc.
Yes, spending habits is a factor of saving, but the scale isn't leveled to begin with. People with lower incomes can't save because they are trying to meet basic needs and they shell out larger proportions of their income for subsistence. They spend more relative to their income in healthcare, education, cost of living, childcare, transportation, food, etc.
Not his problem.
I get the philosophy of taking responsibility for one's actions. It's something I believe in, too.
That said, one can have that mindset and also recognize the wackiness of the current world we live in, and that it is unfair. And have empathy for people stuck in these situations.
Contrary to what one might believe, there are a ridiculous amount of outside factors that dictate how our lives play out. What do you say to people that grew up in terrible environments with little to no parental structure? Sure, they could "make the right" decisions...and many (many) do. But these people that do are often the exception because they are (by definition) exceptional. These individuals brought up in a more stable home would probably turn out to be the brightest/best students regardless. The issue is what you do with average people.
It's fine if you don't care about the average person, or what happens to them - but at a certain point, what affects average people on a whole affects the entire society at a global level. These things don't exist in a vacuum, however much one wants that to be the case. Especially if you want to live in a vibrant and dense area where there is so much interdependence between what each of us do.
Yea, you can shrug your shoulders and say "life isn't fair" - and you'd be right. But that doesn't mean we have to settle for that. It comes down to a question of what kind of society we want. Do we want something that is purely run only by money and what one can afford? Do we want to take the current trends out to their logical conclusion where potentially only the top 10% (or less) can afford to live in an area? How do we address the problem of people that aren't engineers? or Doctors? Or other high-paying jobs? We can't just have a society filled with these professions. At least, not a very functional one.
How do we seriously address issues where key people are literally priced out of areas that extend up to 70 miles away from a city? "Commute in like the rest of us!" - OK, but at a certain point that becomes literally unsustainable. How far do we let that go before we address the core issue with affordability?
I think the affordability issue is partly solvable, but most people don't like the solutions. Too many people here believe they live in a suburb and want to keep it that way, and it's partly the downfall of this area (although I agree it brings some charm to many areas). The most unfortunate part is that we could actually keep many of these "charming" areas (and keep those people happy) and still build a ridiculous amount of smart (very dense) development (with infrastructure improvements to go along with it).
But, no one will want it. Everyone will complain that it's too expensive. People will fight it until it's either too expensive to build or the developers give up. And we'll be stuck basically where we are now. Awesome.
Last edited by HockeyMac18; 11-06-2015 at 12:47 PM..
I get the philosophy of taking responsibility for one's actions. It's something I believe in, too.
That said, one can have that mindset and also recognize the wackiness of the current world we live in, and that it is unfair. And have empathy for people stuck in these situations.
Contrary to what one might believe, there are a ridiculous amount of outside factors that dictate how our lives play out. What do you say to people that grew up in terrible environments with little to no parental structure? Sure, they could "make the right" decisions...and many (many) do. But these people that do are often the exception because they are (by definition) exceptional. These individuals brought up in a more stable home would probably turn out to be the brightest/best students regardless. The issue is what you do with average people.
It's fine if you don't care about the average person, or what happens to them - but at a certain point, what affects average people on a whole affects the entire society at a global level. These things don't exist in a vacuum, however much one wants that to be the case. Especially if you want to live in a vibrant and dense area where there is so much interdependence between what each of us do.
Yea, you can shrug your shoulders and say "life isn't fair" - and you'd be right. But that doesn't mean we have to settle for that. It comes down to a question of what kind of society we want. Do we want something that is purely run only by money and what one can afford? Do we want to take the current trends out to their logical conclusion where potentially only the top 10% (or less) can afford to live in an area? How do we address the problem of people that aren't engineers? or Doctors? Or other high-paying jobs? We can't just have a society filled with these professions. At least, not a very functional one.
How do we seriously address issues where key people are literally priced out of areas that extend up to 70 miles away from a city? "Commute in like the rest of us!" - OK, but at a certain point that becomes literally unsustainable. How far do we let that go before we address the core issue with affordability?
I think the affordability issue is partly solvable, but most people don't like the solutions. Too many people here believe they live in a suburb and want to keep it that way, and it's partly the downfall of this area (although I agree it brings some charm to many areas). The most unfortunate part is that we could actually keep many of these "charming" areas (and keep those people happy) and still build a ridiculous amount of smart (very dense) development (with infrastructure improvements to go along with it).
But, no one will want it. Everyone will complain that it's too expensive. People will fight it until it's either too expensive to build or the developers give up. And we'll be stuck basically where we are now. Awesome.
If you want to solve the problem you need to increase the housing supply, which is fought tooth and nail in almost every city in the Bay Area and has been for decades. Frankly, low or no growth nimbyism in local government is the cause to the housing problems. Pitting the poor and middle class against the wealthy is just a scapegoat to keep local politicians in power.
If you want to solve the problem you need to increase the housing supply, which is fought tooth and nail in almost every city in the Bay Area and has been for decades. Frankly, low or no growth nimbyism in local government is the cause to the housing problems. Pitting the poor and middle class against the wealthy is just a scapegoat to keep local politicians in power.
I agree we need to build more, 100%. We agree on that.
But it's psychologically convenient to denigrate the poor so that we don't feel any responsibility to them. If the poor are at fault for their own circumstances, it's easier to disregard them without any guilt. Of course, I thought this was a "Christian country" with compassion and empathy even for those who have made mistakes. That's why Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, and others are promising to feed and shelter the poor, right?
The rich blaming the poor for this country's ills has really gone on long enough. Economic inequality is as bad, if not worse, as it was right before the Great Depression.
Sure, people should take responsibility for their actions if they spend frivolously and don't think about the future, but what's going on the Bay Area is way, way beyond just that.
I get the philosophy of taking responsibility for one's actions. It's something I believe in, too.
That said, one can have that mindset and also recognize the wackiness of the current world we live in, and that it is unfair. And have empathy for people stuck in these situations.
Contrary to what one might believe, there are a ridiculous amount of outside factors that dictate how our lives play out. What do you say to people that grew up in terrible environments with little to no parental structure? Sure, they could "make the right" decisions...and many (many) do. But these people that do are often the exception because they are (by definition) exceptional. These individuals brought up in a more stable home would probably turn out to be the brightest/best students regardless. The issue is what you do with average people.
It's fine if you don't care about the average person, or what happens to them - but at a certain point, what affects average people on a whole affects the entire society at a global level. These things don't exist in a vacuum, however much one wants that to be the case. Especially if you want to live in a vibrant and dense area where there is so much interdependence between what each of us do.
Yea, you can shrug your shoulders and say "life isn't fair" - and you'd be right. But that doesn't mean we have to settle for that. It comes down to a question of what kind of society we want. Do we want something that is purely run only by money and what one can afford? Do we want to take the current trends out to their logical conclusion where potentially only the top 10% (or less) can afford to live in an area? How do we address the problem of people that aren't engineers? or Doctors? Or other high-paying jobs? We can't just have a society filled with these professions. At least, not a very functional one.
How do we seriously address issues where key people are literally priced out of areas that extend up to 70 miles away from a city? "Commute in like the rest of us!" - OK, but at a certain point that becomes literally unsustainable. How far do we let that go before we address the core issue with affordability?
I think the affordability issue is partly solvable, but most people don't like the solutions. Too many people here believe they live in a suburb and want to keep it that way, and it's partly the downfall of this area (although I agree it brings some charm to many areas). The most unfortunate part is that we could actually keep many of these "charming" areas (and keep those people happy) and still build a ridiculous amount of smart (very dense) development (with infrastructure improvements to go along with it).
But, no one will want it. Everyone will complain that it's too expensive. People will fight it until it's either too expensive to build or the developers give up. And we'll be stuck basically where we are now. Awesome.
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.
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.
