yimby

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

In a word, yes. Subsides to the tune of 100s of billions of dollars a year across the USA.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think a more fair take is that we need growth in underdeveloped places and degrowth in highly developed places. It's less about changing the total economic output and more about changing how that output is distributed.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

Connect is a great android app where you can block instances. Though I agree this should be a site wide feature.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What about if I need a knot that allows me to take a rope around a pole? Like a hitch.

Also a bowline haha. Wrap the rope around the pole and then tie a bowline as you usually would: make a bight on the trailing end and thread the leading end through. Bonus points for using a bowline with a yosemite finish to stop it from coming undone.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Isn't this obviously an ad for DD?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

TIL a 1.5 hour drive away from Toronto is "just West of Toronto".

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Clearly the statistics include fast fashion georg

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Great analogy with cars, I'm definitely going to steal that one.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

A free market requires stringent regulation to function humanely and morally. The two are at odds with each other. My final sentence is a critique of neoliberalism, an ideology in which regulation is reduced and power is given to corporate entities and away from regulators. It's been impossible to escape in politics since Thatcher and Reagan, and leads to some of the worst aspects of today's society that we havr to suffer. One of which is the poor people who bought a car assuming it'd be safe, just to find that the companies saved a quick buck to their loss. I hope the people win these lawsuits, but I doubt the justice system has the teeth (or willingness) to prosecute this negligence as it should be.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You're being downvoted because this is the attitude that got us into, and is keeping us in, this mess. Let us be precise with terms: housing is not a speculative investment. You don't buy a house because you presume it will appreciate 100-1000% by the time you sell it. That attitude leads to the paradox that the government is unable to stop: you either build/allow affordable housing, lowering prices and crashing people's speculative investment, or you restrict new home building through restrictive zoning and NIMBYism run wild, letting houses appreciate to the point of unaffordability.

You buy a house to live in long term: to buy it back from the bank and own it all to yourself. You have right to sell it for an equal or roughly price tracking rate with inflation. That's a good investment. Every Canadian has the right to buy affordable housing. Saying affordable housing is affordable renting is not only reductive but downright prejudicial: people don't rent because they're poor. They rent because they want the freedom to move without selling a house. They rent because they are building lives as students or young families or their careers. They rent because they choose to invest their money in something other than house equity. And all the real, concrete policies which help new homeowners (ie building more housing) help renters: these two groups are not at odds with each other.

view more: ‹ prev next ›