anon1m0us

IQ is a measure of one's ability to think, speed of thought, capacity of thought, memory, predictions of the future. A century ago you had to be smarter to survive than now because there were more problems to be solved by the individual. People still built their own homes back then. Grew their own food. Fixed their own cars.

There were more constraints, so people had to be more clever to survive.

Are you suggesting it's just ... like porn then? You know it when you see it?

Do you not think in general, people who score higher on IQ tests are in fact "more intelligent" than people who score lower on IQ tests?

Even the ones that just have shapes in them and you have to find the correct next matching one for the position? How can those be culturally biased?

I disagree. I think the quote is more generally applicable than just mathematics. For example, we can now almost drive a car without thinking about it. We can order groceries just by saying, "hi alexa, please order me some groceries." You don't even have to think about where the car keys are or even how to drive.

"It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy-books and by eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate the habit of thinking of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them. "

-- Alfred North Whitehead

What he is saying is that as civilization advances, the amount we need to think to survive decreases. We don't need high IQ's to survive anymore. While being smart is a selective criterion in a mate, other criteria will tend to overweight IQ when the amount of IQ needed to survive decreases.

Thus, IQ will decrease as civilization advances past a certain threshold. Perhaps we have passed that threshold.

If IQ isn't intelligence, then what is?

You need to consider the difference between something being right and something being a right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property

Article 23 of the declaration states: “Every Person has the right to own such private property as meets the essential needs of decent living and helps to maintain the dignity of the individual and of the home.[10]”

-- This is not the case with real estate in America. It isn't dignified.

There are fewer than 10,000 homes for sale in the SF Metro area. That means, there are 10x as many homes vacant as are for sale.

If there were 10x as many homes for sale as are currently for sale, what do you think that'd do to the price of homes in the area?

Source: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/14/the-bay-area-has-more...

The bay area has a high concentration of wealth where average salaries are almost twice the rest of the country. Programmers there make $300,000 or more. That's a doctor or lawyer in other areas of the nation.

I don't think high vacancy rates are the problem, I think they are a symptom.

Most of the people in this thread are only looking at the bay area from the past dozen years or so. In 2002, the picture was much different. In 1999, it was the opposite of 2002.

When you've lived in an area for decades, you can pick and choose where and when you buy. If you just moved there for a job, you're stuck without that time diversification and leverage ladder used by the folks who have lived there for a long time and accumulated many properties.

I would be forced to sell many pieces of property I do not want to sell if my ideas were implemented.

I don't think it's my right to own all that. I don't need it. Someone else does. Unfortunately, they can't afford it and I can. Doesn't make it right.

The subtitle of that article is "But that still leaves more than 100,000 Bay Area homes empty"

So, yes -- it does.

It's a chicken/egg problem. The jobs are in the cities. The population density in other areas makes it even harder. People move to the cities for jobs because there aren't any where they are from.f

as I posted somewhere else as well: https://www.fastcompany.com/90305242/taxing-empty-apartments...

There are lots of vacant homes. Foreign buyers are pushing their wealth to the west to protect it from their own governments.

So yes, another strategy to lower housing costs is to reign in foreign ownership.

It's not suffering to some of us. But those of us, like in another thread who feel like we should have the right to own multiple homes and big cars and keep the A/C too high or low -- or at all.

Those who want steak every day. Those who want fully automated houses. They are going to suffer more. Lots of them.

That is done. If you live in a rural area, hitting a deer is not uncommon. If you take it home to eat it though, you're poaching. A game ranger told us on a class trip one time after a student asked about hitting a deer if you could eat it. He said, "If you hit a deer, call us. We know lots of hungry families, but don't load it up and taking it home. That's illegal."

My ideas are well thought out. What is confusing you?

I personally own many pieces of real property. This law would affect me too. I'm actually one of the wealthy who think what we are allowing to happen is wrong.

The data suggest otherwise: https://www.fastcompany.com/90305242/taxing-empty-apartments...

You're fine then with one person owning all the property?

That's not actually what happens though. Ask someone trying to staff a restaurant how easy it is to find employees.

Basically the service industry just ... evaporates. I've seen it happen in areas with a lot of foreign ownership.

No. It's to outlaw the purchase of more than 2 pieces of real property. Renting is fine by me.

Buying something is not a right. It's a privilege. You can't buy drugs. You can't buy lots of things. It's not "life, liberty, and the right to buy stuff." It's "the pursuit of happiness" which clearly is an inalienable right that is being taken from people.

It's no different than a bully on the playground taking the ball from a weaker kid. They both have a right to play with that ball, right? The bullying force just comes from a bank account -- that's all.

No, we shouldn't allow financial bullies to run rampant either.

If a real estate agent in Australia helps a foreign buyer buy a house in Australia, it's a $400,000 fine, iirc. We are talking about stiff penalties.

I think access to shelter is a human right. I think access to an empty house is not a human right.

If your family sits down for dinner and one person gobbles up all the food before anyone else eats, were they within their rights? Will the rest of the family ever invite that person to dinner again?

No. We implement these controls on consumption in all areas of life. "Limit 2" when there's a coupon, for example. "All you can eat" restaurants don't allow take home and sometimes charge you for what you do not actually eat.

We must limit the wealthy's ability to consume all the goods so there are goods left over for people who need to live in them.

How does this not make sense? Why do you think it's better that someone owns 2 houses leaving 1 without a home, than two families owning 2 homes (one each).

Isn't that a better world?

Yes, I'm suggesting my proposal would solve the problem in your neighborhood. If you reduce the demand for something, the price falls. My suggestion clearly reduces demand for something, thus due to the laws of economics, prices will drop.

In areas where people are hungry, hitting a deer and being forced to leave it to rot on the side of the road is a real tragedy.

One deer is enough meat for a whole family for many months.

And the only solution is to suffer even more.

We have to turn down air conditioners, then We have to stop buying air conditioners We have to stop buying new cars we have to stop buying new phones new tvs new computers We have to learn how to fix things We have to learn how to grow things We have to learn how to kill and eat things

We have to wind the clock back and go backwards in our lifestyles to a time when we didn't have cheap oil. We'll ride horses again. Take trains again.

That's what the future looks like -- the past.

The simplest solution to all this is limiting the number of houses a person can own. You only NEED one. Two is more than enough. Three is excessive.

It's not gold or silver or stocks and bonds.

People need houses to live in. Other investments don't have practical value. If people want to protect their assets, do it outside real estate.

We have dual tracks now. We are allowing it. You mean at a national level?

Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I think we can do it right. We had two tracks in high school. the ones who could go to college stayed in class all day. The others who were slated for blue collar jobs went to trade school for the first half of the day, then took essential classes in the afternoon.

Ah, I see. So we should have free practical education. Free engineering universities and such, but not free ... let's call them, humanities universities?

I'd be ok with that. If you want a humanities degree, then you have to pay. Maybe those still have student loans, but not big ones.

I think it's a great idea. It's always wise to invest in education. The student loans ARE an investment.

The only real problem with the student loans is that they gave them to people without concrete earning potential. They should have only gave out loans to educate people at real institutions (not U. of Phoenix eg) in practical areas like engineering or science. Instead, they gave a lot of loans to people who wouldn't have good employable potential post graduation.