Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

inpractice.yimbyaction.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 539 posts

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#401

Post by silverlake »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #121
anon7000 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s more about long term, but I see what you mean about lighting a fire under butts. One of the most eye opening discoveries for me on my urbanism journey is how Amsterdam got better. It wasn’t always a bicycle paradise; its city center had massive parking lots, huge roads, and a poor pedestrian environment. But today it’s much different — because policies were enacted decades ago which ensure roads are re-configure…

Boston was a mess before the big dig. Enough ink has been spilled over how long it took, but just about everybody agrees the city is better for it.

There’s a great podcast that delves into the Big Dig. It was an exceedingly difficult giant construction project. The original cost estimate was a made up number for political expediency. They lied knowing once they dug a big hole the sunk-cost fallacy would pull them over the finish line.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#402

Post by giantg2 »

anon7000 wrote: post #73
legitster wrote: post #46

I've grown a little bit more skeptical of what can realistically be achieved by the passive nature of YIMBY-ism. In Portland, they passed some radical new zoning laws a few years ago that allowed anyone, anywhere the ability to zone ADUs on their property. And the cost to get permits is almost nothing. I have lots of friends and family in the area with property. But not a single one has added an ADU. It seems like it…

It’s more about long term, but I see what you mean about lighting a fire under butts. One of the most eye opening discoveries for me on my urbanism journey is how Amsterdam got better. It wasn’t always a bicycle paradise; its city center had massive parking lots, huge roads, and a poor pedestrian environment. But today it’s much different — because policies were enacted decades ago which ensure roads are re-configure…

Those are legal requirements for the roads, unlike this being legally permissible. It's not going to fix the concerns about problem tenants.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#403

Post by tokioyoyo »

MattGaiser wrote: post #102
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #4

Instead of getting tangled up in social issues, liberal politicians should be prioritizing housing, infrastructure and government services supporting people's economic activity of all kinds. Delivering better lives for people, and having the courage to stand up to vested interests, from house owners to corporations, would create a huge and lasting political win across a broad section of the electorate.

Home owners are by far the majority, so battling home owners is an easy ticket to defeat.

Yeah, I was about to write the same thing. I’ve been a lifelong renter, but have friends who converted from renting to owning (in Canada). Once you pay $1M+ for your place, you won’t vote for anyone who says they will lower your home prices. And since they’re the majority in every state, it just doesn’t work.

Unless you have some sort of government that plans for “long term”, good luck. On the bright side, decreasing birth rates around the world will solve this problem by itself, if people can wait long enough.

It’s the same in Japan. Tokyo house prices are going YoY because of foreign investments and growing population, but all other prefectures not so much (excluding special zones where they are building big semiconductor factories).

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#404

Post by krapp »

Braxton1980 wrote: post #377
lotsoweiners wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being anti woke/DEI does not mean you oppose civil rights. Plenty of African Americans and other minorities dislike woke/DEI. They don’t want to be thought of as a diversity hire but still enjoy their rights to vote and use the same bathrooms as their white peers.

Just to be clear, what's the definition of "woke"?

The Wikipedia page is useful here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

    Woke is an adjective derived from African-American English used since the 1930s or earlier to refer to awareness of racial prejudice and discrimination, often in the construction stay woke. The term acquired political connotations by the 1970s and gained further popularity in the 2010s with the hashtag #staywoke. Over time, woke came to be used to refer to a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism and denial of LGBTQ rights. Woke has also been used as shorthand for some ideas of the American Left involving identity politics and social justice, such as white privilege and reparations for slavery in the United States.
Like a lot of leftist terms, "woke" been co-opted and intentionally corrupted by the right so that most people will now insist that it refers to a system of anti-white racism, which is a bad faith interpretation of what it represents, and completely disregards the actual history and context of the term. Asking what "woke" means on the internet and expecting any sort of unprejudiced response is about as useful as asking a Klansman to define civil rights or an incel to define feminism.

So I encourage people to do their own research and make their own decisions from first, rather than second or third-hand principles.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#405

Post by rayiner »

wwweston wrote: post #326
rayiner wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voters don’t take campaign platforms at face value, they view them through their experience. People in California aren’t experiencing Democrats actually fixing housing. But they are seeing large employers like Google post stuff like: “Google is proud to be an equal opportunity and affirmative action employer .” (Google deleted that language from its website recently enough that it still shows up in the Google search…

> Voters don’t take campaign platforms at face value Huh. That sounds like validation of my original point that the Democratic Party has been "prioritizing housing, infrastructure and government services supporting people's economic activity of all kinds", so dkjaudyeqooe's suggestion that candidates/officeholders should do that seems ... idempotent at best. Maybe people should pay attention to what candidates campai…

Statements on the websites of massive employers aren’t “vibes and trigger phrases.” They are disclosures of employment practices. And the term “affirmative action” directly conveys to whites and asians that, at Google and similar places, they’ll be treated differently than if they were black or hispanic. The majority of voters being white—and employment being a core concern of voters—that makes for an obviously salient issue.

And voters are correct to connect the employment practices they are seeing to Democrat policies. Democrats have interpreted civil rights laws to allow particular practices with respect to black and hispanic applicants that would be deemed illegal if applied to white applicants.

And of course, voters are entitled to weight platform points based on likelihood of achievement. They might put more weight on a “footnote” if they think the candidate will actually make that happen, and less weight on promises they think won’t transpire. Democrats who voted for DEI have gotten what they voted for. But the ones that voted for high speed rail in California have not.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#406

Post by Gareth321 »

keepamovin wrote: post #363

I have a theory that echoes the surprising premise of the well known HN-famous article "The optimum amount of fraud is not zero" that states "The optimum amount of poverty, to governments, is not zero." It seems to me that if governments deliver too well for their citizens, if the citizens because too wealthy, if they are too well off, then they will begin to demand even more. This would cause problems for government…

It's not a crazy theory but I wouldn't ascribe consciousness to it. It's probably more of an accident. It echoes the fact that 0% unemployment is also bad, because then no one would be available to take jobs, and all jobs would have to poach, massively increasing costs and crippling the economy. Of course no politician would ever run on a platform of, "make more people unemployed!" We are seeing some of the consequences of abundance now with the FIRE movement. Many people in the U.S. are able to retire early. That's great for them, but a society with too few people working quickly runs in to labour issues.

My pet theory on this revolves around the G. Michael Hopf quote: "Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times". When society is too comfortable and the average person experiences too few challenges, they become weak. Physically but particularly mentally. They lose touch with those truly in need. They even begin to secretly despise them. They adopt bourgeoise values and policies which are quite detrimental to society but feel good to declare. Toxic empathy is associated with this. People end up voting for bad policies which lead to worse times. Human societies appear to like to repeat this cycle.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#407

Post by Lendal »

jon-wood wrote: post #361
BrenBarn wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The path forward from this is to stop trying to write laws that are wealth-neutral on these kinds of matters. Small mom-and-pop should be allowed to do many things that extremely wealthy landlords and/or corporations are not allowed to do. The penalties for violations should be ruinous for the wealthy and small for the non-wealthy.

Why? If I'm renting a place it doesn't matter whether my landlord is a big corporation or some guy and his wife, I still need to know that the rent isn't going to triple next week, I still need to know I won't be evicted without notice, and I still need the heating the work. If mom-and-pop can't cope with the responsibilities of being a landlord they should sell up to someone who can, not expect to be let off the hoo…

Because that is a short-sighted system where society is incentivized to, over time, concentrate all property and power into the hands of fewer and fewer wealthy individuals and corporations, until eventually one day there is no more mom-and-pop. Mom-and-pop is shrinking and will continue to shrink because of "wealth-neutral" policies. Just like what's happened with agriculture. You can't buy a ranch or farm today if you're not a millionaire, and eventually the same will be true of all property that is resource-constrained.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#408

Post by hayst4ck »

Braxton1980 wrote: post #374
hayst4ck wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democrats are largely controlled opposition. If you ask where democratic power comes from, it comes from campaign donations by America's richest and most powerful people. Bloomberg ran for president under their banner, think about that. At minimum it communicates that the democratic platform is compatible with oligarchs. How are they supposed to wrangle corporate power, when that is exactly where their power comes fr…

>without challenging corporate power. Why would expect this in a capitalist country?

FDR's New Deal was widely celebrated. There was almost a corporate coup against him (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot). Teddy's trust busting was also very celebrated. We used to have stronger unions that checked corporate power. OSHA is a hard check on corporate power.

There is a strong legacy of checking corporate power.

Unfortunately now that almost all media is oligarch owned it's hard to understand corporate abuses of power because both politicians and "journalists" are on the oligarch's payroll, quite literally.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#409

Post by lotsofpulp »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #351
lotsofpulp wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The courts should be speedy at forcing landlords to rectify problems just as the courts should be speedy at forcing out squatters. There is no reason either should take 6 months+ to litigate (real world example). I even had an email from the tenant stating they would start paying again if we would reduce the rent. No damage, no question about the facts, just someone who knew that worst case scenario is 6 months free…

> The courts should be speedy at forcing landlords to rectify problems just as the courts should be speedy at forcing out squatters. This raises an interesting point. In the United States, in the last 30 years, many states have introduced a voluntary "family court" system. If both sides opt-in during divorce proceedings, then the process can be much faster, cheaper, and lower friction. What if there was something sim…

I see no reason to add multiple tracks to a legal/justice system, except to add avenues for corruption.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#410

Post by keepamovin »

Gareth321 wrote: post #406
keepamovin wrote: post #363

I have a theory that echoes the surprising premise of the well known HN-famous article "The optimum amount of fraud is not zero" that states "The optimum amount of poverty, to governments, is not zero." It seems to me that if governments deliver too well for their citizens, if the citizens because too wealthy, if they are too well off, then they will begin to demand even more. This would cause problems for government…

It's not a crazy theory but I wouldn't ascribe consciousness to it. It's probably more of an accident. It echoes the fact that 0% unemployment is also bad, because then no one would be available to take jobs, and all jobs would have to poach, massively increasing costs and crippling the economy. Of course no politician would ever run on a platform of, "make more people unemployed!" We are seeing some of the consequen…

Thank you! So, basically a feedback cycle of good times leading to bad policy via bourgeois corruption prevents society ever experiencing higher abundance - which, in some forms, is anyway detrimental by increasing labor costs?
Post reply on HN