matchbok

But still, blaming the issue on conservatives when they make up such a small portion of the state is an odd tactic. Perhaps it could be that some of your proposed "left" positions are just... not popular (or don't work, like rent control or defunding the police).

On the other than, CA has the most government rules for housing and "leftist" policies in that regard and it has been nothing but an unmitigated disaster.

You are advocating for government control of housing, which has been a failure in this country and in other places. Nobody wants government housing and there is no evidence that they can do a good job. All you have is "evil landlords!". Your glorious idea of rent control is a failure - do know of the cheap city that is called San Francisco? They have the most strict rent control in the country. Do your research.

Again, look up the term "luxury belief". It's not what you think it is.

Again, you clearly have never built anything or risked anything. Building and operating housing isn't some easy job that requires no risk, investment, or effort. To suggest such exposes how little you understand about businesses. Yet, you keep asserting that you know everything about what a business is. Odd. The massive profits being generated in the housing market are mostly owners of gentrified houses, not those evil developers. This takes 5 minutes of research to confirm. The rest are due to government policies that limit housing production. Again, do your research.

And... holding up Stalin as an example. I... just can't. You must be a parody account, right? Right? Please be so, because otherwise.... jesus christ.

Ending this one, as it's clear you have major gaps in business knowledge, basic economic theory... and Stalin? lol.

As a operator in the space, I assure you I have. :)

You are misrepresenting my opinion and values because I don't agree with your particular solution to the problem of homelessness. Your ideas are bad, proven time and time again that they don't work. Instead of debating the merits, you paint me as some caricature. Thus proving that you live and operate in a world so insular that you have no idea how the real world actually works. You have no data to back up your claims, only insults. This is why nobody takes arguments like yours seriously.

I could very easily say you lack "human decency" by forcing the poor to live in run-down government housing. And that argument is just as strong as the one you are promoting.

You need to recognize that you are putting in effort here to elevate your own status in some "in group", not actually trying to argue a position with data and facts. Armchair socialism is entertaining, usually promoted by wealthy kids who have very few problems of their own. Honestly, this is me trying to help you.

Please talk to somebody (a real person) who has built a business. Broaden your perspective.

The insults are childish and prove that your arguments are completely unserious. Going through my post history just tells me this is more about elevating your own status and opinion than actually having a dialogue.

Please go live in some government-run housing before demanding that the poor do so. And look up "luxury belief". :)

That is a policy problem: we make it hard to build housing in the areas of high demand. There is nothing inherent in landlording that says a power differential needs to exist. The low-demand areas, renters have way more power.

Spoken like somebody who has never rented out property, risked $$$$ on building something, or doing anything with a business. Please read up on how real estate businesses work.

Housing is not a human right. Do you have a right to force me to build you a house? Think about it. Why would we have any nice housing at all in that situation? Why would anyone build it?

These silly things like "x is a human right" miss the point. At some point people have to take responsibility.

Spoken like somebody who has clearly never owned property, rented homes, or built anything, or risked money to build a business. You are so, so far off here. Landlords only hold "all the power" if we constrict housing. That is a policy problem, not "evil landlords". Read up!

...that's why we need more housing?

If you are interested in the country maintaining the status quo in terms of retirement benefits and quality of living, immigration is necessary.

Highways lose far more money than transit. And death? Really? Please look up how many people die on highways vs buses. You have no idea what you are talking about champ.

Unrelated, but the navigation on this site is very confusing. How have we moved from standard top heads with links to a mystery meat navigation button in the top left that hides everything, with the header vertically oriented. So weird.

Last time I checked 1.4 is less than 1.6 champ.

The balance between those "evil investors" and affordable housing needs is not zero sum, no matter what people on twitter tell you.

As a landlord, I can tell you this is false. A good tenant for cheap rent is worth much more than a few extra bucks. Have you owned rental housing before? Didn't think so.

The cute comments ("moar supply") signify your ignorance on the various aspect of the housing market at large. And that is an unproductive comment that demonstrates your overall lack of understanding of the issue at hand.

This "cartel" is a symptom, not a cause. Nobody is price fixing sedans, are they? I wonder why. Oh, supply of hundreds of options and price points? Hmmmm....

This is the natural result of policies that make it difficult to build new housing. Landlords only have immense power in areas where demand outstrips supply.

That's not how any of this works. Nor are people saying that.

To say merit doesn't exist is laughable. Get out of here lol.

Just... stop. It doesn't and is little more than ideology and religion at this point.

We already have congestion pricing - people pay in their time. Rich people have more time. So we are already fleecing low-income people.

They are building housing for people and are risking millions. How dare they make some money! How rude of them.

Hint: Developers don't have power over communities, rich homeowners do.

iPhone SE is cheaper than many Android phones, and will last much, much longer. Most people only get 2 years out of an Android phone because of how poorly designed the OS is. So, no, it's not a luxury item.

Accessibility won't be solved because this is a Google project and most likely won't exist in 3 years.

Flutter just needs to close up shop - I'm surprised it's still going after the layoffs. The value of a cross-platform SDK just doesn't make sense anymore. If you are a small startup, going iOS only is feasible. If you are a huge company, you'll need native devs anyway, so why add a Google dependency? Makes no sense.

For simple apps, maybe. But anything complex still requires native resources and expertise. So the value is greatly diminished.

With the right libraries and clean code, going native for iOS/Android is usually the solution. Building UI/networking/etc quickly in Swift/Kotlin just isn't an issue anymore. RN/Flutter won't be used in 5 years.

Huh? USB-C has a tiny, fragile tongue inside that you can very easily break off. Lightning is much, much more strong.

Why post these conspiracy theories? Seriously. You can find 1,000 people to agree to anything these days. The science is settled on this - you are convincing nobody.

A 10 minute drive is not comparable to a 10 minute walk in any way.

Not sure where you are getting at with the specialty store thing - the nicest stores are always in cities, either a walk/bus/metro ride away. People in cities do more than ... walk to places. :)

What it really comes down to is this: a preference to live/work/etc in and around big-box parking lots and highways (where 70% of the land is parking), or to do the same in walkable neighborhoods with minimal parking (space replaced with more cool stuff).

It's expensive in those areas because it's a better way of living, and more people want to do it (supply/demand). Nobody is competing to live in cookie-cutter suburbs where you need to drive 30 minutes everywhere - that's why it's cheaper. Suburban infrastructure is also massively subsidized by cities.

Also - renting is fine. Housing ownership as an investment vehicle is unsustainable.

Funny, because VR has no future outside of some niche areas. It's the new 3D TV. The average person doesn't want a computer strapped to their head all day.