71–80 of 280 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "higher earners" would receive an even larger increase in that case.
Not if you take into account taxes.
The higher earners receive a larger increase than they would have under a different regime (where everyone receives a constant $ increase [normalized for the "lowest earner"]).
If this guy wanted to help his under-40K employees, there were multiple ways to do it (a) quietly (b) without pissing off other people who worked for him. I don't know if it's a poorly throught through PR stunt or if it's just a vanity / mid-life crisis thing, but it sure wasn't executed smartly.
Talking about "cost of living" in a place like Seattle, as if it were an ordinary economic issue, masks the real problem, which is that liberal US cities have made it very difficult to construct new housing. If a million families want to live in a city, and the city only allows half a million houses to be built, then a lot of people are going to be forced out. It's not a question of economics, it's a simple question…
Coastal cities aren't expensive because of bad housing policy (though they certainly have that). They're expensive because lots of highly economically productive people and companies are located in them.
Crab Mentality[0]: Not just for people earning slightly-above minimum wage anymore. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality
Anthropomorphize much? Are the crabs aware of their situation? Are they actually consciously preventing the other crabs from escaping? Or are they just trying to grab on to anything they can get get out of the crab-pile? Seems like a deeply flawed metaphor that will likely lead you astray.
Like, if a human meerely intends "to grab on anything they can to get out of the [human]-pile", & they're quite rude/destructive while doing so, they're still rude/destructive regardless of how sympathetic we may judge their intentions to be.
Talking about "cost of living" in a place like Seattle, as if it were an ordinary economic issue, masks the real problem, which is that liberal US cities have made it very difficult to construct new housing. If a million families want to live in a city, and the city only allows half a million houses to be built, then a lot of people are going to be forced out. It's not a question of economics, it's a simple question…
There's no need to toss "liberal" in there. Dense cities tend to have rent-control, and Dense cities tend to have people with policies generally referred to as "liberal" (to the extent that "liberal" means anything. But NIMBYism and status-quoism is not just a liberal issue, and "not changing the neighborhood" is right in line with the definition of "conservative", which means a preference for how things already are…
Talking about "cost of living" in a place like Seattle, as if it were an ordinary economic issue, masks the real problem, which is that liberal US cities have made it very difficult to construct new housing. If a million families want to live in a city, and the city only allows half a million houses to be built, then a lot of people are going to be forced out. It's not a question of economics, it's a simple question…
There's no need to toss "liberal" in there. Dense cities tend to have rent-control, and Dense cities tend to have people with policies generally referred to as "liberal" (to the extent that "liberal" means anything. But NIMBYism and status-quoism is not just a liberal issue, and "not changing the neighborhood" is right in line with the definition of "conservative", which means a preference for how things already are…
By the way, conservatives would not object to developing a neighborhood if that development meant more economic opportunities and more jobs.
If you want to split hairs over a dictionary definition, conservatives would prefer to keep things how they are and continue economic growth through expanding the private sector rather than expanding government to direct businesses on how to operate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no need to toss "liberal" in there. Dense cities tend to have rent-control, and Dense cities tend to have people with policies generally referred to as "liberal" (to the extent that "liberal" means anything. But NIMBYism and status-quoism is not just a liberal issue, and "not changing the neighborhood" is right in line with the definition of "conservative", which means a preference for how things already are…
Dictionary definitions of words are usually not very close to the use of these words in political contexts. Regardless of dictionary definitions, if we agree that building restrictions are a bad policy, it is a valid and IMO interesting empirical question whether most people supporting it self-identify as liberal, conservative or something else. (I honestly don't think I could guess the answer.)