I bolded what I still say is not accurate or supported (unattainable expensive by Western standards). Three cities Chile is the only price listed above (1720, 943 and 1899 per square meter). Compare to Boston (my city in the US), 4,000+ outside city center, 6500+ in the city center. Housing in the developing world is not comparable to the developed world. It may be that by local income standards housing is becoming relatively very expensive, but not by Western standards.
My claim was never that prices everywhere else rivaled prices in the most expensive cities in the U.S. Rather, if you find housing in the U.S. unobtainably expensive (which, for most people, $4,000 - $6,500 / m^2 is), then you're going to be in for some sticker shock if you start looking for attractive destinations in developing countries; they're already not particularly cheap, and prices are rising at an incredible clip. You'll note those prices in Santiago jumped 20% y/o/y. You'll also note the prices you quoted from Santiago are a city-wide average. Where are the Boston numbers from? Do they incorporate the entire metropolitan area?
Pi-r8, I'm not sure where you're getting that no highrise development is allowed in the SF bay area.
I'm sure some municipalities don't allow it (I know Santa Cruz doesn't, but they're a long way from SF) but there's been recent highrise development along the peninsula.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Pi-r8, I'm not sure where you're getting that no highrise development is allowed in the SF bay area.
I'm sure some municipalities don't allow it (I know Santa Cruz doesn't, but they're a long way from SF) but there's been recent highrise development along the peninsula.
I know theres some, just not nearly enough to satisfy the demand.
Sometimes that's because of zoning and sometimes it's just because the people who own the land don't want to do it. But either way it's a form of privileging people who bought houses in the 70s at the expense of young people now who want to rent a cheap place in a city.
The young are in for a wild ride when even modest housing in marginal countries is becoming unattainably expensive by Western standards.
Real estate is insane in a lot of places at the moment, and I doubt it's going to reverse course anytime soon.
This, I reckon, is mostly due to the fact that populations are expanding but centralized locations of employment are not (and actually, most are shrinking).
And in the few places it is (like where I live), you should see the fucking sprawl. The greater DFW area is about 75 miles across now.
Traffic patterns in the San Francisco bay area are all kinds of wacky because the region has a lot of cross-exurb commutes - basically people who live in one suburban (or semi-urban) area and commute to a different one. For example, people who live in Fremont and commute to Palo Alto, or who live in San Mateo and commute to Sunnyvale.
In a lot of the urban planning, you can see remnants of the old idea that people would live in the suburbs and commute to a central urban economic center. That's just not really the gold standard anymore.
It's long past time to abandon the idea that everyone will get their own house. There just isn't enough land or gas for that to be readable anymore. Unfortunately our whole society still promotes houses at the expense of apartments (and in the case of the sf bay area they often just won't allow any construction of new apartments)
What does the amount of land have to do with the amount of housing available?
Because, unless you invent some sort of anti-gravity device, a house requires some land to put it on. Giving everyone their own house requires an enormous amount of land. Nice places like the sf bay have long ago been filled up, and since they can't build upwards (highrise apartment buildings) that means the housing price goes way up instead, so that only rich people can afford to buy a house there.
There's still cheap houses available in less desirable locations, but then you're probably stuck driving long distances all the time. With gas continually rising I don't see that being sustainable for long.
On the other hand, housing and real estate prices were stable until the 1990's and the bubble was based on this logic.
Pi-r8, I'm not sure where you're getting that no highrise development is allowed in the SF bay area.
I'm sure some municipalities don't allow it (I know Santa Cruz doesn't, but they're a long way from SF) but there's been recent highrise development along the peninsula.
I know theres some, just not nearly enough to satisfy the demand.
Which is likely to change after both the developers and the city's department of revenue begin pocketing more checks. NIMBYism is hard to overcome. Cash is even harder.
A major problem I see with the older generation is the high barrier of entry into the workforce they have put into place. Many babyboomers went straight from highschool (if that) into respectable jobs with good pay.
We on the otherhand have to go through at least 3 years of college/university paying massive costs for a chance at getting a job. Oh but wait! Sorry, you need at least 3 years experience for this job to apply. It's the biggest bullshit catch-22 going right now. So you can either find any old job at that point, or take an unpaid internship (which is a highly competitive position to attain) and hope that company doesn't just take you for a free ride while you get the "experience" necessary to be employable.
I went to college, was unable to find any permanent work in the field I studied for beyond some scant contract work and ended up settling on a career in telecommunications. I've been trying to keep my skills up in my chosen field, progressing towards starting my own business, but it's hard when you're working full time.
I'm sure I'm not alone in this either. The longer it takes for you to actually get a job (if you can find one) the less relevant your education becomes. It's a big issue and it's one that's being perpetuated by the baby boomers. How they can sit in their positions of power and tell us we need experience, when they entered the job market with none, is beyond ridiculous.
Pi-r8, I'm not sure where you're getting that no highrise development is allowed in the SF bay area.
I'm sure some municipalities don't allow it (I know Santa Cruz doesn't, but they're a long way from SF) but there's been recent highrise development along the peninsula.
I know theres some, just not nearly enough to satisfy the demand.
Which is likely to change after both the developers and the city's department of revenue begin pocketing more checks. NIMBYism is hard to overcome. Cash is even harder.
Well, from what I've been seeing, the issue isn't the amount of development, but the affordability. Developers like Lennar want every building to contain nothing but occupant-owned $1m/$2m luxury condos.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I think an upper-limit age restriction on voting and government jobs would help the situation out more than hurt. I think (if we aren't already) we're at a point where an age restriction for voting at the upper end should be discussed.
The much older generation leading society is, to me, atrocious. Yes, the elderly should be respected and their wisdom should not be discounted; however, their comes a point where the physical and psychology limitations of age cause a serious problem when the very elderly pass policy and create laws for modern society.
A major problem I see with the older generation is the high barrier of entry into the workforce they have put into place. Many babyboomers went straight from highschool (if that) into respectable jobs with good pay.
We on the otherhand have to go through at least 3 years of college/university paying massive costs for a chance at getting a job. Oh but wait! Sorry, you need at least 3 years experience for this job to apply. It's the biggest bullshit catch-22 going right now. So you can either find any old job at that point, or take an unpaid internship (which is a highly competitive position to attain) and hope that company doesn't just take you for a free ride while you get the "experience" necessary to be employable.
I went to college, was unable to find any permanent work in the field I studied for beyond some scant contract work and ended up settling on a career in telecommunications. I've been trying to keep my skills up in my chosen field, progressing towards starting my own business, but it's hard when you're working full time.
I'm sure I'm not alone in this either. The longer it takes for you to actually get a job (if you can find one) the less relevant your education becomes. It's a big issue and it's one that's being perpetuated by the baby boomers. How they can sit in their positions of power and tell us we need experience, when they entered the job market with none, is beyond ridiculous.
I think an upper-limit age restriction on voting and government jobs would help the situation out more than hurt. I think (if we aren't already) we're at a point where an age restriction for voting at the upper end should be discussed.
The much older generation leading society is, to me, atrocious. Yes, the elderly should be respected and their wisdom should not be discounted; however, their comes a point where the physical and psychology limitations of age cause a serious problem when the very elderly pass policy and create laws for modern society.
Capping the age for holding office would be fine, but I don't agree with taking away voting rights based solely on age. Also, any cap you could get through the amendment process would probably be a good deal higher than whatever you're thinking of right now. You'd never get anything through that said "anyone over 65 can't hold office" - it would have to be more like 75 or 80, at which point you'd just be getting rid of the Strom Thurmonds of the world and not really changing anything.
I bolded what I still say is not accurate or supported (unattainable expensive by Western standards). Three cities Chile is the only price listed above (1720, 943 and 1899 per square meter). Compare to Boston (my city in the US), 4,000+ outside city center, 6500+ in the city center. Housing in the developing world is not comparable to the developed world. It may be that by local income standards housing is becoming relatively very expensive, but not by Western standards.
My claim was never that prices everywhere else rivaled prices in the most expensive cities in the U.S. Rather, if you find housing in the U.S. unobtainably expensive (which, for most people, $4,000 - $6,500 / m^2 is), then you're going to be in for some sticker shock if you start looking for attractive destinations in developing countries; they're already not particularly cheap, and prices are rising at an incredible clip. You'll note those prices in Santiago jumped 20% y/o/y. You'll also note the prices you quoted from Santiago are a city-wide average. Where are the Boston numbers from? Do they incorporate the entire metropolitan area?
You'll find using that metric US cost per square meter exceeds that of most of the developing world by quite a bit. You'll find similar results looking at national prices (such as http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/North-America/rent). Americans (and residents of other developed nations) by and large make much more than people in developed nations. You can't increase prices beyond what people can pay and still sell property, and to make it unaffordable for Westerners, prices would have to be extremely unaffordable for native citizens.
The young are in for a wild ride when even modest housing in marginal countries is becoming unattainably expensive by Western standards.
Real estate is insane in a lot of places at the moment, and I doubt it's going to reverse course anytime soon.
This, I reckon, is mostly due to the fact that populations are expanding but centralized locations of employment are not (and actually, most are shrinking).
And in the few places it is (like where I live), you should see the fucking sprawl. The greater DFW area is about 75 miles across now.
Traffic patterns in the San Francisco bay area are all kinds of wacky because the region has a lot of cross-exurb commutes - basically people who live in one suburban (or semi-urban) area and commute to a different one. For example, people who live in Fremont and commute to Palo Alto, or who live in San Mateo and commute to Sunnyvale.
In a lot of the urban planning, you can see remnants of the old idea that people would live in the suburbs and commute to a central urban economic center. That's just not really the gold standard anymore.
It's long past time to abandon the idea that everyone will get their own house. There just isn't enough land or gas for that to be readable anymore. Unfortunately our whole society still promotes houses at the expense of apartments (and in the case of the sf bay area they often just won't allow any construction of new apartments)
What does the amount of land have to do with the amount of housing available?
Because, unless you invent some sort of anti-gravity device, a house requires some land to put it on. Giving everyone their own house requires an enormous amount of land. Nice places like the sf bay have long ago been filled up, and since they can't build upwards (highrise apartment buildings) that means the housing price goes way up instead, so that only rich people can afford to buy a house there.
There's still cheap houses available in less desirable locations, but then you're probably stuck driving long distances all the time. With gas continually rising I don't see that being sustainable for long.
On the other hand, housing and real estate prices were stable until the 1990's and the bubble was based on this logic.
Well, first of all bear in mind that according to that chart, house prices are still about 20% higher than they were in the 60s and 70s. On top of that, entry level wages are significantly lower than they were then, especially for anyone that doesn't have a college degree, and student loan debt is way up.
More importantly, that's for all housing costs averaged over the whole country. There's plenty of cheap houses for sale in Nevada or Detroit, but living there would make it extremely hard to get a job. In most places, there's a wicked tradeoff between spending all your money on rent, or finding a cheap place and then spending all your money on gas for commuting.
There's also the quality of life issue of moving to Bumfuck, Montana when you're fresh out of college and trying to start your career and looking for a spouse, but I won't even address that because people will just say I'm spoiled for complaining about that.
I bolded what I still say is not accurate or supported (unattainable expensive by Western standards). Three cities Chile is the only price listed above (1720, 943 and 1899 per square meter). Compare to Boston (my city in the US), 4,000+ outside city center, 6500+ in the city center. Housing in the developing world is not comparable to the developed world. It may be that by local income standards housing is becoming relatively very expensive, but not by Western standards.
My claim was never that prices everywhere else rivaled prices in the most expensive cities in the U.S. Rather, if you find housing in the U.S. unobtainably expensive (which, for most people, $4,000 - $6,500 / m^2 is), then you're going to be in for some sticker shock if you start looking for attractive destinations in developing countries; they're already not particularly cheap, and prices are rising at an incredible clip. You'll note those prices in Santiago jumped 20% y/o/y. You'll also note the prices you quoted from Santiago are a city-wide average. Where are the Boston numbers from? Do they incorporate the entire metropolitan area?
You'll find using that metric US cost per square meter exceeds that of most of the developing world by quite a bit. You'll find similar results looking at national prices (such as http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/North-America/rent). Americans (and residents of other developed nations) by and large make much more than people in developed nations. You can't increase prices beyond what people can pay and still sell property, and to make it unaffordable for Westerners, prices would have to be extremely unaffordable for native citizens.
But they are extremely unaffordable for native citizens. Which is why multi-generational households are the norm.
In any case, since I'm talking about American youth, whose median household net worth is $3,662 (with 37% of all households having a worth of "0"), I'm going to go ahead and say that $1,720 a square meter is just as unaffordable as $4,000 a square meter.
Another fun graph:
Real gas prices are now higher than they were when the Iran-Iraq war broke out, and almost double what they were in the 60's and 70's.
Pi-r8 on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Peak oil and increased demand from the developing world'll do that.
The solution to this is to simply repeal Medicare.
No government healthcare for us? Fine, then, no government healthcare for you, either.
I would have trouble really entertaining the idea of doing this to my grandparents.
I wouldn't. "You want to financially and socially cripple me? Fine, but don't expect me to work for the next 20 years to pay for your hospital bills/pension." Seems like a fair enough arrangement to me.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The solution to this is to simply repeal Medicare.
No government healthcare for us? Fine, then, no government healthcare for you, either.
I would have trouble really entertaining the idea of doing this to my grandparents.
I wouldn't. "You want to financially and socially cripple me? Fine, but don't expect me to work for the next 20 years to pay for your hospital bills/pension." Seems like a fair enough arrangement to me.
Yes, the boomer generation is horribly guilty of being both horribly entitled and vehemently against helping anyone other than themselves.
The solution to this is to simply repeal Medicare.
No government healthcare for us? Fine, then, no government healthcare for you, either.
I would have trouble really entertaining the idea of doing this to my grandparents.
I wouldn't. "You want to financially and socially cripple me? Fine, but don't expect me to work for the next 20 years to pay for your hospital bills/pension." Seems like a fair enough arrangement to me.
But... my grandparents are actually staunchly liberal. I wouldn't want to do that to them...
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
The solution to this is to simply repeal Medicare.
No government healthcare for us? Fine, then, no government healthcare for you, either.
I would have trouble really entertaining the idea of doing this to my grandparents.
I wouldn't. "You want to financially and socially cripple me? Fine, but don't expect me to work for the next 20 years to pay for your hospital bills/pension." Seems like a fair enough arrangement to me.
But... my grandparents are actually staunchly liberal. I wouldn't want to do that to them...
They're staunchly pro-Medicare, which has been a bastion of American Liberalism for generations.
Yes, but I meant to imply that their previous betrayals would evince that they would back the dreaded "compromise" that everyone knows is looming on the horizon, so it would be better to take that bargaining chip away from them and then make sport of their deaths.
EDIT:forgot my
But seriously, they all but did it already, so it would not be surprising to see them literally say 'NO SOCIAL SECURITY FOR ANYBODY AFTER US, FUCK YOU ALL.'
Edith Upwards on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
But seriously, they all but did it already, so it would not be surprising to see them literally say 'NO SOCIAL SECURITY FOR ANYBODY AFTER US, FUCK YOU ALL.'
But seriously, they all but did it already, so it would not be surprising to see them literally say 'NO SOCIAL SECURITY FOR ANYBODY AFTER US, FUCK YOU ALL.'
They're basically already doing that.
Is AARP supporting a constitutional amendment that even manages to fuck the Vietnam Generation out of their pension? Because otherwise they aren't, and I'm being hella ineloquent.
EDIT:I'm not saying that a constitutional amendment will ever get passed, I'm saying when are these fucks going to actually say the shit that they believe, eg, that we are all subhuman guttertrash and that we're destroying the nation, so no more entitlements ever.
Like, I expect it to happen before SS runs out of money, not after.
Edith Upwards on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
But seriously, they all but did it already, so it would not be surprising to see them literally say 'NO SOCIAL SECURITY FOR ANYBODY AFTER US, FUCK YOU ALL.'
They're basically already doing that.
Is AARP supporting a constitutional amendment that even manages to fuck the Vietnam Generation out of their pension? Because otherwise they aren't, and I'm being hella ineloquent.
EDIT:I'm not saying that a constitutional amendment will ever get passed, I'm saying when are these fucks going to actually say the shit that they believe, eg, that we are all subhuman guttertrash and that we're destroying the nation, so no more entitlements ever.
Like, I expect it to happen before SS runs out of money, not after.
The Silent Generation and the Boomers have already effectively shut the door behind them. Gen X and we Millennials have to start saving for retirement right now if we want to have the same quality of life our parents and grandparents had.
Only none of us are going to be able to because the price of literally everything has gone up while real wages have stagnated.
But seriously, they all but did it already, so it would not be surprising to see them literally say 'NO SOCIAL SECURITY FOR ANYBODY AFTER US, FUCK YOU ALL.'
They're basically already doing that.
Is AARP supporting a constitutional amendment that even manages to fuck the Vietnam Generation out of their pension? Because otherwise they aren't, and I'm being hella ineloquent.
EDIT:I'm not saying that a constitutional amendment will ever get passed, I'm saying when are these fucks going to actually say the shit that they believe, eg, that we are all subhuman guttertrash and that we're destroying the nation, so no more entitlements ever.
Like, I expect it to happen before SS runs out of money, not after.
The Silent Generation and the Boomers have already effectively shut the door behind them. Gen X and we Millennials have to start saving for retirement right now if we want to have the same quality of life our parents and grandparents had.
Only none of us are going to be able to because the price of literally everything has gone up while real wages have stagnated.
Real wages have only stagnated for the old.
They've gone down for the young.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
But seriously, they all but did it already, so it would not be surprising to see them literally say 'NO SOCIAL SECURITY FOR ANYBODY AFTER US, FUCK YOU ALL.'
They're basically already doing that.
Is AARP supporting a constitutional amendment that even manages to fuck the Vietnam Generation out of their pension? Because otherwise they aren't, and I'm being hella ineloquent.
EDIT:I'm not saying that a constitutional amendment will ever get passed, I'm saying when are these fucks going to actually say the shit that they believe, eg, that we are all subhuman guttertrash and that we're destroying the nation, so no more entitlements ever.
Like, I expect it to happen before SS runs out of money, not after.
The Silent Generation and the Boomers have already effectively shut the door behind them. Gen X and we Millennials have to start saving for retirement right now if we want to have the same quality of life our parents and grandparents had.
Only none of us are going to be able to because the price of literally everything has gone up while real wages have stagnated.
The solution to this is to simply repeal Medicare.
No government healthcare for us? Fine, then, no government healthcare for you, either.
I would have trouble really entertaining the idea of doing this to my grandparents.
I wouldn't. "You want to financially and socially cripple me? Fine, but don't expect me to work for the next 20 years to pay for your hospital bills/pension." Seems like a fair enough arrangement to me.
My grandparents are beat generation liberals who live in subsistence poverty . . .
I wonder what my generation's approach to this sort of thing will be when we get that old, if it'll be "oh this totally sucked for us, let's not do that to our kids" or "we didn't have shit and neither will you!"
I feel like it tends to be cyclical but I don't know enough about history to make a decent judgement
I wonder what my generation's approach to this sort of thing will be when we get that old, if it'll be "oh this totally sucked for us, let's not do that to our kids" or "we didn't have shit and neither will you!"
I feel like it tends to be cyclical but I don't know enough about history to make a decent judgement
Well, the Greatest Generation, that lived through the Great Depression, certainly made things way better for their entitled little shits that grew up to be the Baby Boomers.
The solution to this is to simply repeal Medicare.
No government healthcare for us? Fine, then, no government healthcare for you, either.
I would have trouble really entertaining the idea of doing this to my grandparents.
I wouldn't. "You want to financially and socially cripple me? Fine, but don't expect me to work for the next 20 years to pay for your hospital bills/pension." Seems like a fair enough arrangement to me.
Sounds great, you can be the first to pony up money for all the funerals.
:bz: :bz: :bzz:
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
edited March 2012
I don't think I'd blame the greatest generation here, most of them are dead and they had sustainable plans for their retirement.
The selfishness lays squarely on the boomers, things started to go to shit when they came of age and I don't think they'll start being not shit until millenials start taking over. Gen X kind of got screwed on this one.
The solution to this is to simply repeal Medicare.
No government healthcare for us? Fine, then, no government healthcare for you, either.
I would have trouble really entertaining the idea of doing this to my grandparents.
I wouldn't. "You want to financially and socially cripple me? Fine, but don't expect me to work for the next 20 years to pay for your hospital bills/pension." Seems like a fair enough arrangement to me.
Sounds great, you can be the first to pony up money for all the funerals.
It'll be way cheaper than paying for their medical care.
Plus, the newly-booming funeral industry should create a ton of jobs, and with all the new cemeteries we'll need, a bunch of currently-unused housing will need to be bought up, thus boosting housing prices some more.
It's win-win-win.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I wonder what my generation's approach to this sort of thing will be when we get that old, if it'll be "oh this totally sucked for us, let's not do that to our kids" or "we didn't have shit and neither will you!"
I feel like it tends to be cyclical but I don't know enough about history to make a decent judgement
Well, the Greatest Generation, that lived through the Great Depression, certainly made things way better for their entitled little shits that grew up to be the Baby Boomers.
Maybe that was a mistake.
It probably was; suffering builds character.
Hacksaw on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
The solution to this is to simply repeal Medicare.
No government healthcare for us? Fine, then, no government healthcare for you, either.
I would have trouble really entertaining the idea of doing this to my grandparents.
I wouldn't. "You want to financially and socially cripple me? Fine, but don't expect me to work for the next 20 years to pay for your hospital bills/pension." Seems like a fair enough arrangement to me.
Sounds great, you can be the first to pony up money for all the funerals.
It'll be way cheaper than paying for their medical care.
Plus, the newly-booming funeral industry should create a ton of jobs, and with all the new cemeteries we'll need, a bunch of currently-unused housing will need to be bought up, thus boosting housing prices some more.
It's win-win-win.
Who said anything about cemeteries? Cremate them and thrown their ashes into the woods.
It comes back to what I said about the generation as a whole being incredibly selfish. On their watch the education they got for free or a small (relativity) amount of money has now become prohibitively expensive, the jobs they walked into out of highschool now require a degree and/or years of experience, the houses they were able to buy with modest incomes when they were young are now priced out of reach for anyone but them, the post war wealth they grew up in has been spent unsustainably leaving massive debt, the list goes on.
Personally I don't think it matters if they understand what they've done to us or not, the world will be better off once they're all dead.
Point of reference: I had an interview last week for a fulltime retail scutwork job paying $10.50 an hour. The job listing was up for 14 days. In that time, it received 330 applications. I only got the interview because I pretty much showed up and said "INTERVIEW ME NOW." Then they told me I had a job. Then they told me I needed a second interview, this week. After waiting all week to hear about when I was supposed to show up for this interview, I went back over this afternoon and asked why I hadn't been contacted and that I felt kind of jerked around, and the manager told me that he didn't like my attitude for going up there and he wasn't sure he wanted to hire me anymore.
He is, unsurprisingly, of prime Boomer age, based on his appearance and demeanor.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
It comes back to what I said about the generation as a whole being incredibly selfish. On their watch the education they got for free or a small (relativity) amount of money has now become prohibitively expensive, the jobs they walked into out of highschool now require a degree and/or years of experience, the houses they were able to buy with modest incomes when they were young are now priced out of reach for anyone but them, the post war wealth they grew up in has been spent unsustainably leaving massive debt, the list goes on.
Personally I don't think it matters if they understand what they've done to us or not, the world will be better off once they're all dead.
Point of reference: I had an interview last week for a fulltime retail scutwork job paying $10.50 an hour. The job listing was up for 14 days. In that time, it received 330 applications. I only got the interview because I pretty much showed up and said "INTERVIEW ME NOW." Then they told me I had a job. Then they told me I needed a second interview, this week. After waiting all week to hear about when I was supposed to show up for this interview, I went back over this afternoon and asked why I hadn't been contacted and that I felt kind of jerked around, and the manager told me that he didn't like my attitude for going up there and he wasn't sure he wanted to hire me anymore.
He is, unsurprisingly, of prime Boomer age, based on his appearance and demeanor.
Something something the unfaithful husband suspected his wife was cheating on him.
Posts
My claim was never that prices everywhere else rivaled prices in the most expensive cities in the U.S. Rather, if you find housing in the U.S. unobtainably expensive (which, for most people, $4,000 - $6,500 / m^2 is), then you're going to be in for some sticker shock if you start looking for attractive destinations in developing countries; they're already not particularly cheap, and prices are rising at an incredible clip. You'll note those prices in Santiago jumped 20% y/o/y. You'll also note the prices you quoted from Santiago are a city-wide average. Where are the Boston numbers from? Do they incorporate the entire metropolitan area?
I'm sure some municipalities don't allow it (I know Santa Cruz doesn't, but they're a long way from SF) but there's been recent highrise development along the peninsula.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Sometimes that's because of zoning and sometimes it's just because the people who own the land don't want to do it. But either way it's a form of privileging people who bought houses in the 70s at the expense of young people now who want to rent a cheap place in a city.
On the other hand, housing and real estate prices were stable until the 1990's and the bubble was based on this logic.
Which is likely to change after both the developers and the city's department of revenue begin pocketing more checks. NIMBYism is hard to overcome. Cash is even harder.
We on the otherhand have to go through at least 3 years of college/university paying massive costs for a chance at getting a job. Oh but wait! Sorry, you need at least 3 years experience for this job to apply. It's the biggest bullshit catch-22 going right now. So you can either find any old job at that point, or take an unpaid internship (which is a highly competitive position to attain) and hope that company doesn't just take you for a free ride while you get the "experience" necessary to be employable.
I went to college, was unable to find any permanent work in the field I studied for beyond some scant contract work and ended up settling on a career in telecommunications. I've been trying to keep my skills up in my chosen field, progressing towards starting my own business, but it's hard when you're working full time.
I'm sure I'm not alone in this either. The longer it takes for you to actually get a job (if you can find one) the less relevant your education becomes. It's a big issue and it's one that's being perpetuated by the baby boomers. How they can sit in their positions of power and tell us we need experience, when they entered the job market with none, is beyond ridiculous.
Well, from what I've been seeing, the issue isn't the amount of development, but the affordability. Developers like Lennar want every building to contain nothing but occupant-owned $1m/$2m luxury condos.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The much older generation leading society is, to me, atrocious. Yes, the elderly should be respected and their wisdom should not be discounted; however, their comes a point where the physical and psychology limitations of age cause a serious problem when the very elderly pass policy and create laws for modern society.
Because fuck you, got mine. That's why.
Capping the age for holding office would be fine, but I don't agree with taking away voting rights based solely on age. Also, any cap you could get through the amendment process would probably be a good deal higher than whatever you're thinking of right now. You'd never get anything through that said "anyone over 65 can't hold office" - it would have to be more like 75 or 80, at which point you'd just be getting rid of the Strom Thurmonds of the world and not really changing anything.
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/city_result.jsp?country=United+States&city=Boston,+MA
You'll find using that metric US cost per square meter exceeds that of most of the developing world by quite a bit. You'll find similar results looking at national prices (such as http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/North-America/rent). Americans (and residents of other developed nations) by and large make much more than people in developed nations. You can't increase prices beyond what people can pay and still sell property, and to make it unaffordable for Westerners, prices would have to be extremely unaffordable for native citizens.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
More importantly, that's for all housing costs averaged over the whole country. There's plenty of cheap houses for sale in Nevada or Detroit, but living there would make it extremely hard to get a job. In most places, there's a wicked tradeoff between spending all your money on rent, or finding a cheap place and then spending all your money on gas for commuting.
There's also the quality of life issue of moving to Bumfuck, Montana when you're fresh out of college and trying to start your career and looking for a spouse, but I won't even address that because people will just say I'm spoiled for complaining about that.
But they are extremely unaffordable for native citizens. Which is why multi-generational households are the norm.
In any case, since I'm talking about American youth, whose median household net worth is $3,662 (with 37% of all households having a worth of "0"), I'm going to go ahead and say that $1,720 a square meter is just as unaffordable as $4,000 a square meter.
You're welcome to disagree.
Real gas prices are now higher than they were when the Iran-Iraq war broke out, and almost double what they were in the 60's and 70's.
I would have trouble really entertaining the idea of doing this to my grandparents.
I wouldn't. "You want to financially and socially cripple me? Fine, but don't expect me to work for the next 20 years to pay for your hospital bills/pension." Seems like a fair enough arrangement to me.
Yes, the boomer generation is horribly guilty of being both horribly entitled and vehemently against helping anyone other than themselves.
They're staunchly pro-Medicare, which has been a bastion of American Liberalism for generations.
"will"?
It already happened.
EDIT:forgot my
But seriously, they all but did it already, so it would not be surprising to see them literally say 'NO SOCIAL SECURITY FOR ANYBODY AFTER US, FUCK YOU ALL.'
They're basically already doing that.
Is AARP supporting a constitutional amendment that even manages to fuck the Vietnam Generation out of their pension? Because otherwise they aren't, and I'm being hella ineloquent.
EDIT:I'm not saying that a constitutional amendment will ever get passed, I'm saying when are these fucks going to actually say the shit that they believe, eg, that we are all subhuman guttertrash and that we're destroying the nation, so no more entitlements ever.
Like, I expect it to happen before SS runs out of money, not after.
The Silent Generation and the Boomers have already effectively shut the door behind them. Gen X and we Millennials have to start saving for retirement right now if we want to have the same quality of life our parents and grandparents had.
Only none of us are going to be able to because the price of literally everything has gone up while real wages have stagnated.
They've gone down for the young.
Oh.
Well.
Fuuuuuuuuuck everything.
My grandparents are beat generation liberals who live in subsistence poverty . . .
I feel like it tends to be cyclical but I don't know enough about history to make a decent judgement
Maybe that was a mistake.
Sounds great, you can be the first to pony up money for all the funerals.
The selfishness lays squarely on the boomers, things started to go to shit when they came of age and I don't think they'll start being not shit until millenials start taking over. Gen X kind of got screwed on this one.
Plus, the newly-booming funeral industry should create a ton of jobs, and with all the new cemeteries we'll need, a bunch of currently-unused housing will need to be bought up, thus boosting housing prices some more.
It's win-win-win.
It probably was; suffering builds character.
Who said anything about cemeteries? Cremate them and thrown their ashes into the woods.
Point of reference: I had an interview last week for a fulltime retail scutwork job paying $10.50 an hour. The job listing was up for 14 days. In that time, it received 330 applications. I only got the interview because I pretty much showed up and said "INTERVIEW ME NOW." Then they told me I had a job. Then they told me I needed a second interview, this week. After waiting all week to hear about when I was supposed to show up for this interview, I went back over this afternoon and asked why I hadn't been contacted and that I felt kind of jerked around, and the manager told me that he didn't like my attitude for going up there and he wasn't sure he wanted to hire me anymore.
He is, unsurprisingly, of prime Boomer age, based on his appearance and demeanor.
Something something the unfaithful husband suspected his wife was cheating on him.