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.
it's simply a fact, those in cities who rent are more likely to desire bigger government to "protect" them, while a population of primarily property owners don't want the government sticking its nose in their business
I'd like to see the source of this fact. I know plenty of renters who either choose not to own because of the extra work it takes to maintain property or can't afford to own who want the government to mind their own business. I also know plenty of homeowners who are in favor of certain bigger government programs. I fall right about in the middle of those 2 groups.
People rent for a multitude of reasons. Many like the ability to get up and move around and live lots of places without having to worry about selling a home. I fall into that category. That was the beauty of renting. I lived in some great neighborhoods in Providence. Many can't afford to buy or don't think they can afford to buy (I was the latter, until I actually sat down and crunched the numbers). And many just don't want the responsibility that comes with owning a home. It's a lot of work and some would rather pay rent and let the landlord take care of that work (and that is not indicative of people who want the government to protect them).
Jim has a valid point. I know a bunch of folks that are renting but could afford to buy, some that are selling and renting. Mobility is key, buy a house and the town, county, and state own a piece of your flesh. Rent and you get a slightly better job offer somewhere else and it might be worth it, own and it takes a lot more to be worth moving. School district goes to pot, so does local housing prices, good luck moving a town over if you own. All of the Northeast has a coming demographics nightmare, owning anywhere up here doesn't make sense.
All of the Northeast has a coming demographics nightmare, owning anywhere up here doesn't make sense.
This is sort of a blanket statement, I'll agree that for many people owning doesn't make sense, and you give some very legitimate reasons and situations. We have no kids, solid jobs where we are, not huge pay, but enough to make things work,we are fortunate to own two homes, the first home is where we need to be to make money, the second is where we actually "live". Unfortunately this is a necessity for all the reasons people have mentioned, the numbers don't work for Vermont only, at least for us at least.
I think the population eluded to early in another post about how a group of folks would rather have things provided for them…………..to me this is where the traditional New England sensibilities clash with that “gimme that” approach to life. To me this is one of the core issues with the “flatlander” vs. “native” argument. I’m not all that old (34 years old) and my parents taught me if you want something you have to work hard to get it and that my actions have consequences, if you take the right actions, you get positive outcomes, bad decisions reap bad outcomes…….it isn’t all that complicate. Unfortunately, we have a growing number of “takers” some willingly, some unwillingly part of that group.
At some point when more citizens are in the cart being pulled by the taxes of others, the hitch breaks due to the imbalance and your have an immediate catastrophic crisis. Vermont is a very real example of a cart filled with more people than are pulling it…….something has to give.
The Northeast is full of old people and a good portion of the young people raised here leave after school. Who is going to buy all of those expensive metro suburban houses? Who is going to pay the taxes to keep the robust public infrastructure moving along? I'm close to your age and by the numbers there are a lot less of us then boomers, when all the boomers retire there won't be enough working folks in the NE to keep things going the way states are accustomed. Tax rates will go up to try and fill the revenue gaps and housing prices will tank. The infrastructure keeps getting worse. Educated high earners are not going to flood in and fill the gap.
The Northeast is full of old people and a good portion of the young people raised here leave after school. Who is going to buy all of those expensive metro suburban houses? Who is going to pay the taxes to keep the robust public infrastructure moving along? I'm close to your age and by the numbers there are a lot less of us then boomers, when all the boomers retire there won't be enough working folks in the NE to keep things going the way states are accustomed. Tax rates will go up to try and fill the revenue gaps and housing prices will tank. The infrastructure keeps getting worse. Educated high earners are not going to flood in and fill the gap.
This is a problem all around the country, not just the Northeast. There are many more baby boomers nearing retirement age than there are people from the next generation.
The people from our generation (I'm also close to your age) have flocked to cities around the country, including the Northeast. Places like Boston, NYC, Philly, and DC are full of people our age. Even smaller cities like Providence, Hartford, New Haven, Worcester, Albany, Manchester, etc. have also seen an increase in the number of 30-somethings.
I know Providence is working on trying to retain much of the college students from our 5 colleges - people who tend to leave for Boston or NYC. But the problem still remains that once the baby boomers retire, there will be far fewer people in the workplace to support them. Perhaps it will drive up wages as companies compete for some of this talent (supply/demand works in wages as well as goods).
The Northeast is full of old people and a good portion of the young people raised here leave after school. Who is going to buy all of those expensive metro suburban houses? Who is going to pay the taxes to keep the robust public infrastructure moving along? I'm close to your age and by the numbers there are a lot less of us then boomers, when all the boomers retire there won't be enough working folks in the NE to keep things going the way states are accustomed. Tax rates will go up to try and fill the revenue gaps and housing prices will tank. The infrastructure keeps getting worse. Educated high earners are not going to flood in and fill the gap.
That is one potential scenario, the housing market is pretty efficient in adjusting prices to reflect the economic situation. Basic supply and demand will address that. As tax revenues decrease, if spending stays the same, basic arithmetic tells you that is a no win situation and recipe for disaster, and that is where the folks making the decisions need to be removed in favor of someone with a calculator and a plan.
The doom and gloom stuff gets old pretty quick. The whole baby boomers retire, where will the tax money for programs come from angle is pessimistic. As I mentioned in another post, the way to get closer to a balanced economy and government is not going to come from a silver bullet but from a combination of things working in conjunction as part of a plan. There is no doubt spending needs to be reduced, government programs need to be reduced. On the flip side people complain about no jobs or prospects; well here we have an impending boom in older retirees that will be in Vermont, what do they need as far as services, goods, recreation, healthy lifestyle items etc. It seems to me there are some interesting opportunities for new businesses regardless of the difficulties in starting them. Seized opportunities lead to job creation and less reliance on handouts.
It will be a lot easier to move away from the old folks rather than try and outvote them or pay the bills they left us.
This is an interesting discussion.
That link has some interesting points, assuming the facts are correct and I have no reason to believe they aren’t. I don’t think running away from old people is a real option seeing as how they are the largest generation to ever reach this age and they are everywhere……………kinda a like bad zombie movie.
I think the pension issues are a microcosm of a lot of things, Social Security is in the same boat, many health plans are in the same boat etc. This is also a cultural thing, here in the US when people retire and age to the point where they need supporting help we tend to leave them on their own. In other cultures their children care for them and it isn’t an option, hence why you see many Indian, Asian etc. households with 3 generations living together. The majority of Americans try to maintain their freedom and independence for longer than they economically can, (ie. a single 90 year old man still living in his house relying on public services etc.). I have no answers for this, it is merely an observation on my part.
The wealth transfer issue isn’t just between old to young, but me to someone else my age or younger. I love Wednesday around late morning, want to know why? Because about 10-11am is when I actually begin keeping what I earn for myself instead of giving it to the government to redistribute. As I mentioned in another post, I was brought up to understand there are consequences for my actions, therefore I worked for good grades and where I struggled I made up for it with effort. So now I am reaping some benefit from my hard work, which is the true American Dream; yet we have others who while I went without the latest video game system, studied, learned etc. and worked my arse off wasted their teens and early 20’s as couch potatoes and now I work to pay for their bad decisions. Awesome.
I also understand the plight of the older American, they worked their butts off for years with a system/agreement that a pension would be there for them when they retired. You can’t abandon that promise at this point. Unfortunately not every older American has enough saved on their own to survive retirement. Running away from them isn’t going to make the problem go away.
I'd like to see the source of this fact. I know plenty of renters who either choose not to own because of the extra work it takes to maintain property or can't afford to own who want the government to mind their own business. I also know plenty of homeowners who are in favor of certain bigger government programs. I fall right about in the middle of those 2 groups.
People rent for a multitude of reasons. Many like the ability to get up and move around and live lots of places without having to worry about selling a home. I fall into that category. That was the beauty of renting. I lived in some great neighborhoods in Providence. Many can't afford to buy or don't think they can afford to buy (I was the latter, until I actually sat down and crunched the numbers). And many just don't want the responsibility that comes with owning a home. It's a lot of work and some would rather pay rent and let the landlord take care of that work (and that is not indicative of people who want the government to protect them).
Observations, and research. Not just in Vermont either but VT is a good example of this. I know people rent for many reasons, but, when someone is renting, they're more likely to want the government tightly regulating everything from issues like lead paint to smoke detectors to wiring to plumbing to door size to stairs design, etc., in case they get a bad landlord. VT recently made a law requiring all landlords install CO detectors in addition to smoke alarms, and there's the new lead regulations (which had the bill not been modified after outcry would have regulated casting bullets out of existence). Then those regulations spill over onto everyone else who builds a house even if they don't rent it out (the building codes that is that are increasingly strict)...it's worse as I see it, this tendency to want bigger government, with the welfare and section 8 types than those renting for reasons of, perhaps, not wanting to be tied to the area for job reasons, etc.
Now, myself, I've always put in my own CO detectors since I burn so many lamps and some heaters indoors, and lead paint? I don't eat paint chips and a lead paint testing kit is cheap enough to check if there's a problem with it. But the notion of doing these things themselves is foreign to some people.
That is one potential scenario, the housing market is pretty efficient in adjusting prices to reflect the economic situation. Basic supply and demand will address that. As tax revenues decrease, if spending stays the same, basic arithmetic tells you that is a no win situation and recipe for disaster, and that is where the folks making the decisions need to be removed in favor of someone with a calculator and a plan.
It isn't in VT. If the market were working, prices would be considerably lower...
I think the other side of the coin with less baby boomers is less spent on the services they use too, so it may not get as bad as some think.
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.
