wjnqx

> we can absolutely make a case for "ripping families apart"

I don't see how that isn't a suggestion of a course of action -- one that that is a blatant misuse of a study (with small effects only measured over a small time period) toward ideological ends, i.e. supporting the seizure of children of disadvantaged parents.

Moreover, I refuse to have an evidence-based discussion about whether certain people deserve human rights. That shifts the Overton window to present such ideas as acceptable, when in a civilized society they should not be.

Thanks! Those were some interesting reads.

I am appalled that such an assertion can be made openly. It is, frankly, simply vile to suggest that children be taken away from struggling parents by society, rather than society being obligated to help those parents raise their children. To do so would be not only criminal, but profoundly immoral.

Would you be able to provide links to modern structures built with the methods you're describing or research about them? Does this conservative design resemble something like Gaudi's Sagrada Familia, or is that the wrong way to think about it?

That's only because the construction isn't as sturdy. Italy routinely experiences earthquakes similar in magnitude to California.

> "The tech giants are exploiting a US trademark-law provision that lets them effectively claim a trademark in secret."

Jamaica and some other countries don't maintain searchable databases, allowing companies to register trademarks abroad in secret and then point to those registrations when claiming the mark in the US.

Source: https://qz.com/808846/why-jamaica-knows-about-apples-new-pro...

To be fair, stock in Morgan Stanley is not marketed as "decentralized."

So why not just build social housing at a larger scale? It'd put actual downward force on the market by turning publicly-owned housing from a lottery into legitimate competition with privately-owned housing.

I'm not sure it's been studied, but I'd wager that every tax dollar spent on subsidizing public transit (or possibly even making it free) would deliver several dollars of gain. Physical mobility is one of the best predictors of economic mobility[0], and I imagine the poor would be able to find better jobs with fewer economic hurdles put in front of them.

[0] http://www.nascsp.org/data/files/csbg_publications/issue_bri...

I don't think the cost of that is justified in large cities. LA already dedicates more land area to automobile infrastructure than anything else, and the region is still plagued by traffic jams. At the end of the day, a single rail line can bring an amount of people in and out a city equivalent to multiple lanes of traffic. That's a lesson Americans forgot after 1945 for whatever reason, and now we have to re-learn it from the rest of the world now that we've hit the limits of car-oriented development.

I don't agree that they're biased. Take LA as an example: there has been a massive expansion in the highway system there (in terms of new interstate sections and lane additions). There's more land area dedicated to transport than just about anything else. The fact is that cars are inherently inefficient in terms of space — they're huge, there are tons of them, and they're not used something like 95% of the time. Sure, maybe you could build your way out of the problem, but, like, why? What's the point when rail is so much more efficient?

The popularity of detached housing is really only a post-WWII phenomenon created by massive infrastructure investments in highways and tax incentives for homeownership (versus renting, which is basically pouring money down a hole in the US). It's a historical anomaly, and I don't think you can disentangle the desire for detached homes from the policy structures that incentivize it.

That's demonstrably false. Look to cities in northern Europe like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, where bicycle use has caused a massive decrease in automobile traffic.

Can you cite any of those figures?

I'm a UC student on Pell grants. My parents were priced out of owning a home in their metro area.

What is wrong with you? What destroyed your empathy, compassion, and hope?

The technology-based economy extracts value from the rapid information exchange that takes place in cities full of highly-educated people. That doesn't exist in York, PA. Google et al. know that if they moved, their rate of innovation would falter, along with their revenue.

>Most people in CA feel the same way

What? Citation?

>being nativist is in vogue these days

You're not a nativist. If you were, you'd want a place for people like me who were born here. Instead, you're more than willing to kick us out for the sake of your own financial well-being. You're just a selfish beneficiary of the pyramid scheme that is the American housing market.

Businesses are also going to leave when they have to pay workers several times what they would in other regions because of our insane housing prices.

I don't understand how you're supposed to get a financially healthy state when it's starved of funds compared to states like MA that have reasonable and equitable property tax laws.

>the traffic is too bad >CA was an environmental gem and still is to an extent

If the traffic is bad, vote to build public transit. Germany and Japan are almost identical to California in size and both have preserved most of their natural beauty and have comparatively few problems with congestion. They do this by investing in rail, because it takes cars off the road and increases physical and economic mobility.

>i've been cheering trump deporting all 3 million illegal immigrants

I see no reason to kick people out who want a shot at the American Dream, and whom Americans like you and I have invited into this country with our insatiable desire for cheap labor, food, and construction. Instead we could let them legalize (not even necessarily become citizens, though I'd like to see that) and build housing and other infrastructure to accommodate them while growing our economy and tax base. That has been a proven success in this country for the last several hundred years.

>i dont want immigrants, rich and poor, coming here and forcing out people who were born here.

And yet, by continuing to support Prop 13 and other policies that reduce the housing supply and place an undue burden on those who wish to purchase housing, you are forcing people like me — who were born in this state — to leave.

>i believe there are too many people here

There aren't too many people here. There's too little housing at too low a density with too little public infrastructure. All of those problems are solvable — we just need to gather the political will to make investments for the continued prosperity of our state. We need to act like grown-ups living in a society: we must pay our taxes, elect responsible leaders, help those less fortunate than us, and fight for our collective interest.

Or are we just going to scapegoat the most vulnerable, dodge paying our fair share of taxes on our ever-appreciating assets, kick the ladder out beneath us, and cower behind walls? Most in my generation seem sick of this free-for-all past generations have created. I want a society where we do our share, help those less fortunate, restore civil society, embrace community support structures, and give everyone a shot at a happy existence. That's what I'll be fighting for. What about you?

How, exactly, is denying the state access to revenue supposed to improve its financial situation? If you want better use of money, you've got to vote for it.

If housing is only for people who've already been in a place, why do we allow children? Your argument is patently absurd. Especially in a growing state like California, accommodating newcomers is good if not necessary. I was born here, and I want to live in a place that welcomes outsiders and is affordable for all who want to live here. Don't you see you're just the beneficiary of a pyramid scheme?

A tax raise is not punitive if your taxes were not commensurate with what you need to contribute to society in the first place. A homeowner in California for the past 30 years has paid drastically less than what a homeowner in basically any other place would have, while probably getting more in terms of public services.

You got lucky. You got in early and now you get to benefit from the massive unfairness of Prop 13. I will also graduate in-state from a UC. What will I inherit? Will I ever be able to afford a decent home in the metro area I grew up in? I doubt it — and even if I did, how much less would the guy next door be paying than me every year?

[Edit: grammar]

I suggest you watch his testimony before UK lawmakers this morning. He appears to know what he's talking about and bases his claims on evidence supplied to the Parliamentary committee.

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1mnxeXjraDNJX