Wave of US labor unrest could see tens of thousands on strike within weeks
1–10 of 100 posts
Re: Wave of US labor unrest could see tens of thousands on strike within weeks
#2The price of everything, from my perspective, has gone insane within the last few months.
I would __much__ rather the market were satisfied with more houses, apartments, everything such that people could afford to live places and thus inflation / stagflation weren't the natural result of everyone trying to get ahead and increasing just their own wage.
All of the other aspects of the jobs, such as safety conditions and work assignments are also important; but the cost of living, healthcare, everything, is also an underlying factor.
Re: Wave of US labor unrest could see tens of thousands on strike within weeks
#3Good for them. I wish them all the best of luck.
Re: Wave of US labor unrest could see tens of thousands on strike within weeks
#4There are some people trying to organize a general strike for October 15th. I just see mentions of it on social media, but I have yet to hear of any big unions getting involved.
Re: Wave of US labor unrest could see tens of thousands on strike within weeks
#5The price of everything, from my perspective, has gone insane within the last few months. I would __much__ rather the market were satisfied with more houses, apartments, everything such that people could afford to live places and thus inflation / stagflation weren't the natural result of everyone trying to get ahead and increasing just their own wage. All of the other aspects of the jobs, such as safety conditions an…
" such as safety conditions and work assignments are also important"
These are very important, probably more than anything else, if you actually work in these jobs. They make your life miserable.
Re: Wave of US labor unrest could see tens of thousands on strike within weeks
#6The price of everything, from my perspective, has gone insane within the last few months. I would __much__ rather the market were satisfied with more houses, apartments, everything such that people could afford to live places and thus inflation / stagflation weren't the natural result of everyone trying to get ahead and increasing just their own wage. All of the other aspects of the jobs, such as safety conditions an…
That would be basic supply and demand, but I think we are beyond that. Demand for the product (housing) has moved beyond basic consumers (people who want to live in them). Real estate is now a primary investment vehicle. So building more doesn't necessarily mean more houses for people to live in. Rather it will mean more investment opportunities for people seeking to move money into a "safe" asset. That is the cycle we need to break. Real estate needs to become a less stable investment vehicle. Then we can start lowering prices by building more houses.
Re: Wave of US labor unrest could see tens of thousands on strike within weeks
#7There are some people trying to organize a general strike for October 15th. I just see mentions of it on social media, but I have yet to hear of any big unions getting involved.
You won't see the big, "respectable" unions get involved because under the Taft-Hartley Act general strikes are pretty much illegal.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120501041417/http://inthesetim...
The thing is, they can't arrest everybody without turning the USA into more of a prison than it already is and setting the stage for John Carpenter's ESCAPE FROM AMERICA.
October 15 is a good day for a strike, but in the USA every day is a good day for a strike.
Re: Wave of US labor unrest could see tens of thousands on strike within weeks
#8The price of everything, from my perspective, has gone insane within the last few months. I would __much__ rather the market were satisfied with more houses, apartments, everything such that people could afford to live places and thus inflation / stagflation weren't the natural result of everyone trying to get ahead and increasing just their own wage. All of the other aspects of the jobs, such as safety conditions an…
That would be basic supply and demand, but I think we are beyond that. Demand for the product (housing) has moved beyond basic consumers (people who want to live in them). Real estate is now a primary investment vehicle. So building more doesn't necessarily mean more houses for people to live in. Rather it will mean more investment opportunities for people seeking to move money into a "safe" asset. That is the cycle…
Don't most investment homes rely on tenants to offset the maintenance and tax costs of owning the home? Construct enough to meet demand for places to live and the rental market should drop, which would hurt the home-as-investment model, which in turn should bring down home prices, right?
Re: Wave of US labor unrest could see tens of thousands on strike within weeks
#9The price of everything, from my perspective, has gone insane within the last few months. I would __much__ rather the market were satisfied with more houses, apartments, everything such that people could afford to live places and thus inflation / stagflation weren't the natural result of everyone trying to get ahead and increasing just their own wage. All of the other aspects of the jobs, such as safety conditions an…
That would be basic supply and demand, but I think we are beyond that. Demand for the product (housing) has moved beyond basic consumers (people who want to live in them). Real estate is now a primary investment vehicle. So building more doesn't necessarily mean more houses for people to live in. Rather it will mean more investment opportunities for people seeking to move money into a "safe" asset. That is the cycle…
The state needs to build a slew of affordable housing. I think the market has shown quite clearly it's ill-equipped to deal with the problem. Housing needs to be built for the purpose of housing people rather than the purpose of making profit.
Re: Wave of US labor unrest could see tens of thousands on strike within weeks
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be basic supply and demand, but I think we are beyond that. Demand for the product (housing) has moved beyond basic consumers (people who want to live in them). Real estate is now a primary investment vehicle. So building more doesn't necessarily mean more houses for people to live in. Rather it will mean more investment opportunities for people seeking to move money into a "safe" asset. That is the cycle…
Don't most investment homes rely on tenants to offset the maintenance and tax costs of owning the home? Construct enough to meet demand for places to live and the rental market should drop, which would hurt the home-as-investment model, which in turn should bring down home prices, right?
Not these days. In hot markets (Vancouver, SF etc) real estate tends to appreciate faster than rent. Having a tenant in a property, along with all the associated rights and obligations, makes a property more difficult to develop or sell. Once upon a time a rental unit with a good tenant was worth more than one without. These days you need to get the tenant out in order to refit and show the property to prospective buyers. Unless an owner plans to keep the property unimproved for many years, having a long-term tenant is just an inconvenience.
Yearly rent is generally going to be about 1/20th the total value of the property. So if the owner plans on doing anything to improve the value of the property by more than 5% in a given year, that improvement process is worth more than having a tenant. In a market like Vancouver, where rent-to-cost ratios are even lower, a tenant paying rent is almost irrelevant in the equation.