Slashdot Mirror
Silicon Valley Thinks It Invented Roommates. They Call It 'Co-living' (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Have you heard of this cool new trend called co-living? It's a bit like co-working, except instead of sharing an office with a bunch of randoms you share a home with a bunch of randoms. Oh, you might be thinking, is it like ye olde concept of "roommates"? Why, yes. Yes it is. As a viral tweet pointed out earlier this week, "co-living", which has inspired a spate of trend-pieces in recent months, is actually "called *roommates* ... you invented ***roommates***." Now, to be fair, co-living isn't just living with a bunch of roommates. No, it's rich millennials living with a bunch of roommates in a fancy building in a recently gentrified part of town. The co-living space is also full of cool amenities like yoga classes and micro-brew coffee bars, meaning you can minimise unnecessary interactions with the outside world. In startup speak, this is what is called "community." The Collective, for example, a co-working space in London, describes co-living as "a way of living focused on a genuine sense of community, using shared spaces and facilities to create a more convenient and fulfilling lifestyle."
I think we actually used to call these nursing homes! ;).
And we're supposed to encourage our daughters to pursue a career in STEM? Wow, that music appreciation diploma is looking like a better lifestyle choice than a STEM degree. I know I'll be encouraging my daughter to avoid an IT related job.
$subject already says all I've to say on the matter.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
'The Collective, for example, a co-working space in London, describes co-living as "a way of living focused on a genuine sense of community, using shared spaces and facilities to create a more convenient and fulfilling lifestyle."'
We also may refer to that as a 'commune', 'compound', or 'cult'
It was on South Park. Their entire half-season was about this. I'm pretty sure South Park invented this, not Silicon Valley.
...it's "Friends"?
I, for one, am enthusiastic about this new form of living. I'm also quite enthusiastic about my "pre-owned" car, which I wouldn't have even considered if it was "used".
...that's not what "progressives" want.
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
Poverty.
Make 100K a year and live like you are 18 with your first apartment, all your life in SV.
...that's not what "progressives" want.
That's funny, because it's the sum of their policies.
To each their own, but if an area can't get rent costs under control, I'll gladly take a pay cut if it means privacy and having my own space. This fine if you are a student, but not beyond that. This sounds like an advertisement to move somewhere else.
Welcome to the progressive wet dream. Home ownership is for the 1% only (and optional).
You've misspelled conservative. Progressives want more housing and better housing affordability.
The rest get to live in shared housing, tied to it by monthly rent that is just high enough to ensure they can't accumulate wealth, and just low enough to ensure that anyone can get a 12x12 ft box for themselves.
Basically you're describing Feudalism, which is definitely not progressive. Its quite the opposite. Feudalism is where the lord maintains the ownership of all the lands and the tenants (serfs and freemen) rent off the lord for a portion of their produce. The tenants, well at least the freemen are permitted to work it as they see fit as long as the lords get their tribute. This is very much a conservative wet dream who are still bitter about having to give up any of their rights to the peasantry.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Because it is only a matter of timr
"We are The Collective. Your Millennials will be assimilated. Resistance is effort and will hurt your feelings. You will become one with The Collective."
they could live better in NY, despite NY's expensive reputation. Rent an entire apartment in Queens for the price, work in corporate/healthcare/academic I.T rather than chasing the dream of making it big in an "app" "startup". (As if other cities don't have those as well.)
Problem with Silicon Valley is congestion, lack of decent public transport, and the fact that former cities have become bedroom communities for former suburbs, leading to travel patterns not intended by planners 20-30 years ago.
Would the butthurt mod please step forward. That was pretty quick, however it fails to address the point that its not a progressive attitude to limit housing affordability.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
News at 11. The similarities between millennial hipsters and yuppies are significant, including the absolute hatred towards them by those that are outside the culture. I feel like I'm living the 80s all over again sometimes.
Welcome to the progressive wet dream. Home ownership is for the 1% only (and optional). The rest get to live in shared housing, tied to it by monthly rent that is just high enough to ensure they can't accumulate wealth, and just low enough to ensure that anyone can get a 12x12 ft box for themselves. You don't need a bathroom - you can share. You certainly don't need a kitchen - you won't be doing any cooking of your own. And you surely don't need a garage because you'll use public transportation, or god forbid rent once in a while. Everything is disposable... and you're dependent on your betters for every aspect of your life. You won't even have a job of your own - you'll get free money from the government.
Actually, it seems like the 1 percenters are the ones who benefit from this system. Is a 1 percenter a progressive?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Conservative policies you mean.
You cons ALWAYS project your failings on others!
the next recession and .com bust will fix rent costs in SV ... until the next bubble, of course. Seems to happen every 10 years or so, get ready.
If I make $50,000 in IT in Silicon Valley can I join your co-living space?
The difference here is that instead of a ruling family you have "the government". The Soviets used to have an expression: "you own what you guard". When the government owns and controls everything, the bureaucrats own and control everything, including you. In Soviet Union, the government officials had property, income, and quality of life that far exceeded the rest, and was proportional to their position. I fail to see the difference.
Have you been to Manhattan, San Francisco, Silicon Valley - they so-called havens of the progressives? They are far more segregated, stratified, with their high castles inaccessible to the common citizens, compared to the South, for example.
Do not make the mistake of eating shit that's in a fancy wrapper. It's still shit.
The place roommates used to congregate and had places like pools, rec rooms, bars (sometimes) that roommates liked to use to hang out. I wonder when millennial decide they invented this thing called sex?
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
There's no reason to stifle your clothing, keeping it cluttered up in lonely drawers and boxes while you're wearing something else. Download our co-wearing app and let people send you their spare clothing for free! Here's how it works. Take a picture of yourself and fill in a few likes and interests. Your closest peers will see your gorgeous body and will pick out their best outfits which will look amazing on you. You'll receive three sets in the mail and you get the final choice in what to wear that day. Be empowered! Not only do you not have to worry about washing clothes or mixing and matching articles, you can feel confident knowing those around you know you look good. Because they picked it! Never be criticized for your clothing again. Always fit in. Stay safe. Sign up today.
Where's my $15 million? I have a website. The app will be released next quarter. It's a totally legit business (and sadly it could be with enough marketing behind it).
I own my home (and have a nice if small kitchen). I can't say that I miss owning a car though -- I can walk or bike to work and grad school these days, there's public transportation, and renting a car occasionally isn't expensive compared to the cost of minding a car. I'll probably get a used motorcycle this year and fix it up -- should satisfy my craving for motorized toys for a while.
Could the summary possibly be any more condescending? I'm fine with the occasional "SV is silly" story, but do we really need another story crapping on millennials?
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
I was generous. It's probably 0.1-percenter, or 0.01 percenter.
Yes they're progressive as long as they get to remain a 0.01 percenter. Just ask Jimmy Kimmel.
The progressives in the government remain so because they realize that when the government owns everything, and they control how to distribute it, they will just distribute it according to their wants and needs.
In the 60's we called them communes. (except nobody actually had a job.) Peace, Love, Dope!
The difference here is that instead of a ruling family you have "the government". The Soviets used to have an expression: "you own what you guard". When the government owns and controls everything, the bureaucrats own and control everything, including you. In Soviet Union, the government officials had property, income, and quality of life that far exceeded the rest, and was proportional to their position. I fail to see the difference.
And where did I advocate government ownership? Sure its better than Feudalism, but I'd still rather not have it (Communism originated from a time where Feudal lords still controlled much of eastern Europe like they did in dark age England, Feudalism in England was over before the US even existed).
Have you been to Manhattan, San Francisco, Silicon Valley - they so-called havens of the progressives? They are far more segregated, stratified, with their high castles inaccessible to the common citizens, compared to the South, for example.
Have you? These aren't liberal havens. The people who live in SF, Manhattan, Central London et al want to keep their property prices high and the riff raff out. They aren't progressive in any way shape or form no-matter what Fox News tells you. Why do you think multi-millionaires flock to these places to live if they're so bohemian? Clue by four, if that were true they wouldn't.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
You are slightly confused and upset mujadaddy because of that misunderstanding.
It is the Progressive dream... for YOU.
For them, they are the ones so smart and so much better, they will have their own houses, their own cars, and whatever else they want. The will be lavished with money and gifts because they are so smart because they made your life simpler. By simpler, that means you pay far higher taxes (which they use for themselves) while they allot a small shared living space for you with public transportation.
I'm sure many will disagree, but lets check a couple big name progressives...
Al Gore with his HUGE house in TN and private planes taking him everywhere telling you to ride the bus and live in a smaller house to reduce your CO2 footprint.
Clintons literally making millions in bribes while in office and then telling the middle class they shouldn't have a tax cut because of the poor. Oh yea, they also "forgot" to report their bribes on their taxes and pay tax on them until they got caught and were not given penalties by the IRS for it.
Yea, you are correct. But the progressives think *they* will have better while they shovel you like cattle into tiny boxes, all they while they take as much of your money in taxes for the "poor and children" while they take bribes and steal your tax money for themselves. Funny thing is most voting for them will be the first in those tiny boxes (see Silicon Valley and this story and it is already happening and they still vote that way)
...that's not what "progressives" want.
That's funny, because it's the sum of their policies.
RLY? So the concept of having to live communally because you can't afford an actual place of your own is now somehow a progressive goal?
I live in a college town where something like 4 families own pretty much everything, Students live as many per apartment as the law allows, which was brought into being because some actual progressives didn't think that 12 people shouldn't live in a small two bedroom apartment.
And the people who own the town are pissed because you know - "regulations" . They're even rather staunch Republicans who vote straight ticket.
We need to tell them that they are actually progressives.
Seriously dude, that kind of logic only works down at the legion when it's 2 AM and y'all start fantasizing about taking out a second 'mendment solution on liberals. Cuz cat's and dogs will be living in sin because liberal reasons.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Need a way to purge these hippy communes, government has failed us.
We're living in an insane moment in history where political labels and governing philosophy are extremely fluid and unrelated.
In this very specific example of home ownership... the neo-conservative ideal of universal home ownership was the driving factor behind enabling banks to give out large loans to people who generally did not meet actuarial requirements for large loans (this was also known as bank de-regulation). That didn't work out so well, and I'm not sure you'd find a lot of self-described "progressive politicians" willing to sign up for universal home ownership as a governing philosophy today.
High density, resource efficient, and environmentally friendly urban housing is instead the preferred model. And that implies renting... and maybe feudalism.
Co-nuptuals?
Welcome to the progressive wet dream. Home ownership is for the 1% only (and optional). The rest get to live in shared housing, tied to it by monthly rent that is just high enough to ensure they can't accumulate wealth, and just low enough to ensure that anyone can get a 12x12 ft box for themselves. You don't need a bathroom - you can share. You certainly don't need a kitchen - you won't be doing any cooking of your own. And you surely don't need a garage because you'll use public transportation, or god forbid rent once in a while. Everything is disposable... and you're dependent on your betters for every aspect of your life. You won't even have a job of your own - you'll get free money from the government.
You do realize that you have just described where our capitalist system has led and is leading us, right? Are Republicans "progressives" now?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Your argument is literally "liberals temper the negative consequences of their policies to be the maximum allowable without revolt." It's not a win that the economy is structured that people lack the ability to control their own lives, Hell, you couldn't even move off to live in the woods if you wanted to. You don't get to opt-out of society anymore.
I see you haven't heard of Agenda 21. No cars, warehoused in cities, the future of mankind.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
After all, we are in the era of the "side hustle". Which I guess is not a side-job in the same way co-living isn't "roommates".
Multiple generations living in a home just to get by. Seems the same for this except you don't have family living with you.
Progressives want the US to be like the Soviet Union, so yes.
Oh, that thing both sides do so they can tell themselves that only the other side does it?
Millennials claim they have invented everything, nothing happened on earth before they were born, and what was already here is theirs to co-opt. Their parents never exposed them to anything, never let them directly experience anything, and never challenged anything they said or did. The current insanity in our society is the end result of doing this for three generations. Critical thinking, strength of character, true diversity of thought, creativity, intestinal fortitude - they are all in their death throes. Lest you think I'm a troll, those parents are my generation. We have been some of the worst parents in history, and have unleashed a crisis on the world of epic proportions. It is a problem we fail to address again and again, even though we know better. Still, no parents are perfect and yet people used to mature regardless - I honestly believe now that some millennials are approaching 40 and nothing about them has changed, that they are beyond help, and they will continue to drag the rest of us down to their level until we say 'enough'.
but this sure as hell is it. Folks can't afford their own place, even into their late 20s or even 40s? Not getting on with the kind of life normal humans are expected to have? No problem, just change the name for all your social ills. A tiny apartment with 5 people crammed into it becomes co-living. Millennials now want 'experiences' instead of houses and cars. You're not single and lonely due to your crap economic position, your an independent free thinker. Now get back to work. These mansions, yachts and private jets (and accompanying private airports) aren't gonna pay for themselves.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
English boarding schools came first. No the Papal and the Holy See beats that. But a monastery is hardly IT work. Leper colonies and penal colones probably don't fit yuppidom.
Japan used to provide their workers cheap homes, think Sanyo, Toyota, - Volksberg in Germany, and Detroit used to be a GM town. IBM and the Manhattan project had their own town. technically a sub or an aircraft carrier is its own city. Sometime later, Silicon Valley, which was after Hollywood.
Google and Microsoft have just figured out reducing degrees of freedom will increase their bottom line? Happy worker = productive worker. Financially stressed with job insecurity = not optimal. The coal mine model , slavery model , Army fodder model. looks like the 1950 model is coming back.
Actually, what the parent post describes is Bernie Sanders' wet dream.
"The difference here is that instead of a ruling family you have 'the government'. "
Except that in this instance "The Government" does *not* own the building. The building is owned privately by one or more of the people living there.
Now, to be fair, co-living isn't just living with a bunch of roommates. No, it's rich millennials living with a bunch of roommates in a fancy building in a recently gentrified part of town.
Now there's an oxymoron if I ever heard one.
>> In startup speak, this is what is called "community."
I believe the proper term is "co-munity".
That's just what progressive projectionists always say.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Co-living suggest cooperation which is too much asumption.
I suggest named it "living threads".With the plus that "thread" and "threat" are close words and in reality too.
The difference here is that instead of a ruling family you have "the government". The Soviets used to have an expression: "you own what you guard". When the government owns and controls everything, the bureaucrats own and control everything, including you. In Soviet Union, the government officials had property, income, and quality of life that far exceeded the rest, and was proportional to their position. I fail to see the difference.
You seem to be conflating Communism with Progressivism. Or perhaps you think there are only two economic systems, so if one is not Capitalist it must be Communist. It is true that Progressives are concerned about extreme inequality, but they do not advocate that everyone should have exactly the same amount of wealth or that the state should own the means of production.
Have you been to Manhattan, San Francisco, Silicon Valley - they so-called havens of the progressives? They are far more segregated, stratified, with their high castles inaccessible to the common citizens, compared to the South, for example.
The dynamic you describe is wealth inequality, not Progressivism. You have noticed that the wealthy use their money to separate themselves from the lower classes. That is true no matter where they are; it is just more apparent where there is more wealth and a higher living density.
Do not make the mistake of eating shit that's in a fancy wrapper. It's still shit.
Indeed.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I would think they would prefer the US to be like Germany or, say, Canada...
Progressives want more housing and better housing affordability.
Only when paying lip service to certain constituencies. As soon as one of their other constituencies claims its encroaching on the habitat of the cuddle wumpus or something, than its those awful conservatives and their hatred for anything sustainable again always trying to build stuff.
Progressives really are just idiots who think its possible to have their cake and eat it too.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
And this is exactly what I am looking for. I am a single, 40 y/o man who does not even need a space the size of a one bedroom apartment. I would like something small and studios are hard to find in my area. There is not a huge demand for them. The prices are sky high. By choice, I work in a low-skilled, fairly menial job so I would like to make my meager earnings go a little bit farther. Instead of paying almost 1,000.00 per month for this one bedroom, I could really like a 300 sq foot space with common living room and other areas. All I really need would be a kitchenette, a bed, and maybe a tiny bathroom. This is all about sustainable living from an environmental and wage standpoint.
Everthing is called differently now.
Hitchhiking is called Ubering, your granny's bed-and-breakfast is now called Airbnb, mooching off your friends is now called Couchsurfing and living with Roomates are no longer a Hippie-Commune but Co-living.
Well, if this keeps the hipsters from interacting with the rest of us, I'm all for it!
For the 99% this is not very different from the "conservative" position, where they control the government such that they keep the money in their own pockets so that *they* control the money how they see fit.
The 1% seek to control everyone else no matter if they are conservative or progressive. The only difference is which values they want to force on you.
Only a child thinks differently.
I remember the first time I heard the term "Makers". It was as if garage tinkerers and fabricators hadn't existed before the vaguely sci-fi Makers had arrived
And the same goes for "Tiny Houses". They are trailers people.... Ridiculously heavy and expensive trailers
Rebranding run amok.
Yeah, the Koch brothers are progressive as hell, right?
You're such a brainwashed trumpflake rethuglikkkan tool.
BBBBBZZZZZTTTT
Did you hear that? The period bell just rang. Better get going to your next class. Don't want to get a citation from the hall monitor. (I've heard those things stay on your record even after you make it to high school. Don't chance it.)
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
So you are going to go with the "no true Scotsman argument".
Sorry you need to come to grips with the fact that progressives are either stupid enough to believe their own nonsense, or cynical enough to inflict it on others. The progressive "agenda" is nothing but a bunch of pandering to groups whose actual needs are in direct conflict.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Not quite true, there is a trend towards small/micro-condo's in places like Montreal that are reasonably affordable aimed at the folks who don't wish to collect lots of stuff yet want to have "their" place... Ownership, of course, is (very) risky unless job change can occur easily without changing geographic region.
I was generous. It's probably 0.1-percenter, or 0.01 percenter.
Yes they're progressive as long as they get to remain a 0.01 percenter. Just ask Jimmy Kimmel.
The progressives in the government remain so because they realize that when the government owns everything, and they control how to distribute it, they will just distribute it according to their wants and needs.
I'm not certain what on earth you are talking about.
Trying to piece something together, there are wealthy people of all political stripes.
The concept of "The Government owns everything" well duh. The part that most people both left and right don't take into account is someone is going to own it.
We are now under Governance by corporatism. Corporations pay for and get proxy votes to run the country.
If people were to actually think about it, what they have chosen is that they demand that WalMart is to run the USA rather than elected citizens.
Now as a center right person, I'm not so certain that that is an improvement.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Wait nope, not at all. Yes conservatives and neo-conservatives a like pushed home ownership but they did it thru favorable tax policy.
It was progressives (who also were behind universal home ownership for a long time) who created the lending crisis. Conservatives have always hated fannie and fredy. Those were liberal/progressive inventions designed to make below market rate loans to people who were not qualified to borrow. That created a government competitor to the private industry that forced private banking to water down their own standards to continue to get business.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I didn't say anything about limiting affordability. I clearly stated that they would like everyone neatly stacked into little boxes... affordably.
Your argument is literally "liberals temper the negative consequences of their policies to be the maximum allowable without revolt." It's not a win that the economy is structured that people lack the ability to control their own lives, Hell, you couldn't even move off to live in the woods if you wanted to. You don't get to opt-out of society anymore.
WalMart has taken your input into consideration and will get back to you on your fate.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Progressives want the US to be like the Soviet Union, so yes.
No that's part of the Republican Party Platform.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I would think they would prefer the US to be like Germany or, say, Canada...
Some folks would just like the country run by people who are working for citizens, not corporations.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Living near NYC, I'm not one to throw stones about expensive housing markets. But, California's real estate markets (especially around SF/SV) are a level above everything outside of Midtown Manhattan. When old, crappy houses on tiny lots start in the low million-dollar range, and 1-bedroom apartments are renting for over $4000 a month, the system needs to be fixed. Rebranding having to share a small space with "co-living companions" is not the answer. I know not everyone wants a big house and a big lawn, etc. But. people should have options.
I know everyone says the answer is to build more skyscrapers and provide more condos, but i think the answer is actually to have companies realize they don't have to have all of their staff crammed into the same tiny area anymore. We're close enough with UC being what it is today to allow almost everyone in technology fields to work remotely.
Have you been to Manhattan, San Francisco, Silicon Valley - they so-called havens of the progressives? They are far more segregated, stratified, with their high castles inaccessible to the common citizens, compared to the South, for example.
Have you? These aren't liberal havens...
This is a joke, right? You're joking. OP made some ridiculous statements made about cities and segregation, and you're going to argue with the part that describes these cities as liberal havens?
How could you miss the voting maps the rest of us have pored over for the last year?
This isnâ(TM)t new to SV. Everyone before them did this. Itâ(TM)s called marketing and we all fell for it. They were called villages, towns, military posts, military bases, mining towns, factory towns, retirement homes, campuses, UGA, dormitories, roomies, friends with benefits, cube hotels, etc.
Just 10 years ago the real estate industry was freshening up âoeThe Villageâ. You know, âoeDonâ(TM)t you want to go back to the village?â But the dirt replaced by concrete, metal, and glass; the local food replaced by expensive restaurants; the village heads replaced by an overly expensive and intrusive HOA, I mean VOA! Everything in walking distance but you need a segway. YEAH! Just like a village!
Would the butthurt mod please step forward.
That was pretty quick, however it fails to address the point that its not a progressive attitude to limit housing affordability.
It was I, the Great UberConservativePoster, who must vehemently insist that all things liberal and progressive are dastardly and despicable, that they create all things wrong in the world, whether it be racism, warmongering, bigotry, bankruptcy, poverty, irresponsibility, inflammability, hypocrisy, ignorance, despite, adultery, debauchery, or the wretched folly that is inter-league play in Major League Baseball.
Posted anonymously to retain my copious mods of your offensive sort. Tut-tut! Away with you sir! To the bottommost pits of rating you go!
You seem to have forgotten that progressives believe that "we all belong to the government".
Sounds like a focused rich people circle jerk to protect them from ever having to face how the real world works or ...*gasp*...opinions they don't agree with!! oh no!
I've read it. Which section are you referring to?
Shoes, maybe? Perhaps they'll invent things you can put on your head if it's cold, or something.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
It's this super cool way where you hack your monthly rent bill by having other people live in the same house!
Look dude, it's quite obvious you hate silicon valley and millenials, plus the idea of gentrification, but this is nothing really new nor recent, much less exclusive to millenials or silicon valley. Including the renaming of the idea or separation from stuff like frat houses, roommates or student dormitories.
Think you are some sort of genius for making the association? Think again.
Co-living and other shared styles of housing have been around since early 20th century in one form or another, in several different countries if you didn't know about it including Japan, Denmark, and others.
It's far from being a Silicon Valley thing, and it's targeted towards single people who just graduated and are looking for jobs or just started working, particularly in urban areas where rent is cost prohibitive.
And neither the idea of having ammenities in commonground areas, the gentrification part, positive spins or the general philosophy of it is anything new. It's just how the market works. This is ad targetting. It passes a specific image not only of what you should expect of the space you'll be living in, but also of people landlords are looking for in tenants.
While some people might find this kinda fake or stupid, it's actually not. Saves a whole lot of money and time, plus it's a very effective marketing strategy. And more importantly, this isn't so dissimilar to things like stars and categorization of hotels, vacation spots, and whatnot.
Nope, sorry, DarkOx,that bill of goods the right-wing conservatives tried to sell us has long been discredited.
They were as frenetic to blame the government policies advanced by liberals and progressives as ever, especially Barney Frank and the CRA, but it was bogus. As bogus as Bernie Madoff's spreadsheets.
It was banks and other financial institutions playing fast and loose, ignoring their own rules and good sense in pursuit of profit. They built towering values for rundown shacks, ignored their own paperwork, misrepresented the facts, and then when it came out what they were doing was going to fail, perjured themselves to get massive amounts of foreclosures in order to hold their victims hostage.
Even with the recent revelations about Wells Fargo encouraging its own employees to lie, and you are still pushing this false narrative?
Why don't you just keep blaming Environmentalists for how Enron caused the California power crisis, Blacks for forcing segregated schools upon themselves and Poles for being invaded by the Soviets and Nazis?
Its lucky the world is so binary.
This is why we can't have nice discussions anymore.
But then we can't have an enemy. Remember liberalism = communism and conservatism = nazi. Now get in the ring!
SV has always had the co-bedding lifestyle.
This is the confusing part of politics today. "Long-standing" and "right now" are really quite different. Regardless of whether you think Barney Frank or George Bush is really responsible for the critical policy, the liberals today are staying away from universal house ownership with a 10 foot pole.
The NY Times had a great summary of the policies that led to the housing bubble. It's an easy article to find. I think Bush removing the requirement for down payments was key... but other views are valid.
I also definitely agree with you that conservatives hated fannie and freddy, but those types of conservatives are now essentially invisible in government. It's not just the definition of "progressive" that has changed. Most of this thread is about how today's "progressive" politicians may or may not be advocating for feudalism, which is highly entertaining. To be fair, I don't look at proposals from "conservatives" in power today and recognize anything I would have considered "conservative" 20 years ago.
"The difference here is that instead of a ruling family you have 'the government'. " Except that in this instance "The Government" does *not* own the building. The building is owned privately by one or more of the people living there.
In right wing nut job speak you use "the government" to mean "anything I don't like".
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
All I can think of when reading that is that movie "The Island". In the end, it's all just an illusion to harvest organs.
Slavery never died.
It just evolved.
There is a very clear divide between progressives and establishment democrats at the municipal level. I live in Seattle, which isn't one of the cities you list but has similar problems of officially being controlled by the "liberal" party but the municipal policy effectively greatly favoring current land-owners over renters (according to this site, 46% of the population, but likely non-citizens are overrepresented as Seattle has a lot of immigrants), homeless, and future residents.
Because Washington state has top-two primaries (instead of Democrat and Republican party primaries), this divide is very visible in Seattle politics, especially in our mayoral race last week where the primary had the eventual winner establishment candidate Jenny Durkan with 28% of the vote and the two leading progressive candidates each with 17% of the vote (and another with 12% of the vote; if only we had ranked choice primaries...). One of the main issues was that Durkan wanted to zone for less new housing and slower. And she won in part because home owners think that increases their property values. But "increased property values" is bad for anyone who wants to live in the area who does not presently own a home.
If you want to see progressive housing policy, look to Seattle Transit Blog calling for upzoning near any major transit route. Multiple people in the comments put forth arguments for eliminating zoning limitation on residential construction entirely. These policies are not even within the Overton window of political discourse at the level of campaigns for Seattle city positions.
Centralization breaks the internet.
So you are going to go with the "no true Scotsman argument".
So you are going to go with the "OMG, OMG, Look wats them Libbruls is doing now" argument?
Seems pretty consistent that that is all you have to offer.
It's not very persuasive. Rather the opposite.
Sorry you need to come to grips with the fact that conservatives are either stupid enough to believe their own nonsense, or cynically hypocritical enough to inflict it on others. The conservative "agenda" is nothing but a bunch of pandering to groups whose actual needs are in direct conflict.
FTFY, HTH. HAND.
High density, resource efficient, and environmentally friendly urban housing is instead the preferred model. And that implies renting... and maybe feudalism.
Or condos. Or non-profits owning apartment building like happens in Europe. The United States obsession with privately-owned for-profit housing is a large part of why housing is so expensive, but it isn't the only way.
You do realize the overwhelming majority of the 1% are liberals, right? Oh, you just ignored that for your strawman? Got it.
"Two men, a neat freak and a slob separated from their wives, have to live together despite their differences."
I think the ideal of universal home ownership crosses political boundaries, but with regard to pressure on banks to give out loans to people who really weren't fiscally qualified, that was done by liberals and progressives in that they saw that as a way to make sure more minorities were able to get house loans on par with potential white home owners.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Look, you're just not putting the right spin on it. You're living in a commune because by sharing resources you reduce your ecological impact. By increasing population density to Tokyo levels, you reduce dependency on CO2 emitting personal vehicles. Come on, now, Bessie. Mosey on up the cow ramp to your new home!
With my fiancé and her hot friend. Woke up one night to find it wasn't my fiancé on top of me grinding away while my fiancé was asleep on the couch.
So you are going to go with the "no true Scotsman argument".
Sorry you need to come to grips with the fact that progressives are either stupid enough to believe their own nonsense, or cynical enough to inflict it on others. The progressive "agenda" is nothing but a bunch of pandering to groups whose actual needs are in direct conflict.
Or you're going to have to just deal with that when you try and divide everything into one of two groups that are supposed to diametrically opposed to each other, that you're usually going to fail. The world is complex and doesn't work cleanly like that. Hell, there are multiple definitions for things like "liberal" or "conservative" that differ by context and even then not everybody is on the same page about them let alone all features associated with them.
No, shared housing is a great way to save money. And learn to live with other people.
A six-figure salary, and you have to resort to room sharing in order to be able to live there. Thanks but, no, thanks. I'll earn less somewhere where I can get my own home and a decent standard of living.
Are Republicans "progressives" now?
Acutally, yes. The GOP is a total failure.
If you drop three marbles off a building in 1 second intervals, the gap between marble 1 and 2 will always grow faster than the gap between marbles 2 and 3. And the distance between the marbles will continue to accelerate. Now apply this to a growing economy. No matter how large the gap gets, the marbles will still hit the ground exactly 1 second apart.
I have seen hindi movies in 70s showing multiple couples sharing a single residence in Mumbai because they can't afford rent. I myself grew up in a house (if you can call it that) which had 8 people and less than 100 sq ft space (no, there is no typo anywhere in this statement).
The 80's were fun and a lot less negativity - except for the whole cold war thing. Although people seem to be down with starting that up again. Seems very watered down and a half hearted attempt. And NK, please. Not the same thing as the largest country on earth pointing 50,000 ICBMs at each other
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wow this contributes so much to the conversation! Amazing.
-- I would like everyone to know that the above poster, Chris Dale Reimer, aka cdreimer, aka creimer, aka fatty discusses obtaining child brides with an unusual regularity. I personally would not allow him near children.
When it only invented YOUR world.
Sucker.
ACs discussed child brides in 50+ comments yesterday. What a bunch of perverts!
charge you with.
A fat man wakes up at 4AM to "train" his trolls
his trolls get up at 8 and eat breakfast
His name is Chris
To be fair, for people who think that at age 30, they are entitled to a 3000 sq ft home in the center of Mountain View, within walking distance of both work and shops, the idea of having to get a "roommate" is indeed an "innovation" of sorts.
Hey now, it took a shit ton of decisions to take us where we are now. I'd be remiss to mention that massive immigration (both illegal and visa workers) have driven down wages. Business owners want cheap, compliant workers, while certain politicians see their electoral futures. Illegals don't seem to mind being packed like sardines into tiny houses, so that can't be helping.
The current tax proposal in Congress (change tax-free home sales from two years to five) should discourage flipping, hopefully. That might help with home prices.
Not invention, but stolen idea from communist Russia and re-branded as silicone valley cool thing...
What are you on about now? I presume you're not referring to the CRA, since it contains the phrase "...consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions." which I don't interpret as meaning anything like that.
It's a scientific fact that they prefer sleeping under the trees in the park because it reminds them of the jungle, right?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"Cancer..., now there we have a branding problem. You don't want that, cancer is expensive.
I got it! 'Closure'!
Congratulations! You've got Closure! Now you can freely spend your savings, and enjoy your days of Closure to the fullest!
So, they invented the Single-home HOA?
I'm not sure what that proves, other than that things generally don't fall up.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You do realize that you have just described where our capitalist system has led and is leading us, right? Are Republicans "progressives" now?
You're not getting it.
Progressive (n.) - Someone who holds any of the values I dislike and therefore wants to make the world into an imaginary unworkable "utopia" in their view.
That's the closest definition I could come up with for what that word apparently means in this thread.
You fail because you have an axe to grind.
The Swedes aren't miserable, that would be the Finns. And the Finns are miserable not because of external economic or social factors, they are miserable because that's the national culture! Finnish misery all comes from within and not from without.
The Swedes, Norwegians and Danes are cheery by comparison.
We used to call living with someone else "cohabitation." That's a good word.
Under special circumstances also referred to as "living in sin."
Is there anything we can do to neutralize this threat to our children?
It's bad enough sharing a bathroom with your own family ... what kind of masochists are you??
Ah, so "progressive" is "anything I don't like". If conservative policies lead to outcomes you don't like, then "they were progressives all along, and I don't have to face the fact that I was wrong".
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
I belong to the government in the same way I belong to a certain charitable organization. Neither of them owns me.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Ah, another person who doesn't know anything about what Sanders wants, but finds it more convenient to make it up. There were lots of them during the campaign.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Progressives would like you to have had a better education, so you could read and comprehend better.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Not so much the Soviet Union as Fascist Italy. The Soviets wouldn't have put up with what the Republicans want.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Look, you come up with your own dreams, because you really suck at projecting ours. US Progressives want people to be able to afford things, including better housing. We'd like workers to share more in the productivity improvements of the last few decades.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
We're going with the "no true Scotsman" argument and not consider those Germans you included in the mix.
When there's a group of people who share something and call themselves by some name, an outsider trying to stretch the name to include others for rhetorical purposes is being intellectually dishonest.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
They tend to be Democrats. Since 1992, that hasn't been synonymous with "liberals".
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
This completely fails to explain the actual lending that took place. If you, as a lender, could arrange a mortgage, you could sell it to someone who'd divide the income streams up into tranches and sell them off to somebody else. There were plenty of places offering mortgages that had absolutely no intention of keeping any of them. This was all justified because the rising price of housing would mean that, when the foreclosure occurred, the mortgage holder would be left with a more valuable house, and the mortgage holder wouldn't be too bad off (not that anyone cared about the little guy).
I worked on mortgage performance modeling at that time. One of the parameters was how fast housing prices were going to go up, and some runs were done with no increase in housing prices.
Really, if someone can issue a mortgage that's mostly worthless and sell it for cash, the mortgage is going to be issued. It wasn't a matter of needing to lower standards, it was a matter of making money by lowering standards.
I don't know how the whole edifice was constructed, where everybody made money while the mortgage holder paid pretty much nothing, but I doubt it was done by liberals or the government.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Have you stopped raping your 12 roommates?
Pretty much, yes. It's always been part of the American Dream, at least until recently.
Nope. That was business, pure and simple. Institutions were able to make the worst possible mortgage deals and sell what they'd done. If you're not going to keep the mortgage, why do you care if the mortgagee has no income stream and no assets aside from the marijuana? That would become somebody else's problem, presumably whoever bought the mortgage, but it got a lot more complicated.
You can't openly reward sleazy behavior and expect not to get it. (Well, you can if you're stupid.) If you'll pay me ten thousand dollars for a couple of days' work setting up something I know will fail, why shouldn't I?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
... Come and knock on our door, we'll be waiting for you!
In fact, "co-living" companies such as HubHaus and similar companies *own* the house, they charge rent per room and service them like a hotel. It's just an expensive boarding house where you don't get any any say on who else rents. It's not like an Uber or AirBNB type sharing app.
Basically this is a move towards corporate rental landlords, but trying to make it sound hip and modern. "Co-living" is in fact an Orwellian euphemism to make it sound nice and friendly rather than an alarming thing where people lose more control over how they live.
Contradiction much? Millennials as a generation as flat fucking broke.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Can you believe these young people? 'Millenials' I believe you call them, disparagingly. Can you believe them wanting to get together in a community of 'liberal' values, people who want to separate themselves from the 35% of Trump-voting, self-described 'patriots'? Wanting to separate themselves from the almost 40% of Australians just voted against gay marriage?
The youth of today have no respect and should get off my lawn. This has never happened before this point. We are surely the first to criticise the next generation. Outrageous!
Everything is ruined!
Not so much the Soviet Union as Fascist Italy. The Soviets wouldn't have put up with what the Republicans want.
It is one of those strange things in that outside of some of the details, far right and far left start to look very much alike. Only there is almost no far left in the USA these days.
Stand by for a barrage of howaboutism.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Look, you're just not putting the right spin on it. You're living in a commune because by sharing resources you reduce your ecological impact. By increasing population density to Tokyo levels, you reduce dependency on CO2 emitting personal vehicles. Come on, now, Bessie. Mosey on up the cow ramp to your new home!
Ugh! Nightmare fuel for me. I like the idea of a world with about a quarter of the population that it has now.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Right, you have no argument so just passively aggressively insult the opposition. You don't even have balls.
And this is how virtual bubbles turn into live bubbles.
Roommate was always a problem. In college, we often did have someone living in the same room. Working in Silicon Valley though, mostly it's families in the same room, not strangers lumped together by housing. Strangers share a house, but not the same room. This didn't have its own word until now. Co-living is a pretty lousy word for it though.
You have to make housing that costs so damn much that even professionals need roommates to afford it sound good somehow. So drop the term "roommates" and had some cool-sounding made up euphemism and now it's GOOD that you can't afford your own apartment or house.
Seriously, how housing prices be sustained in places where you can only afford to buy a house when you already have one there to sell?
... are just simply FABulous.
Holy crap, narcissism has become endemic in the tech industry. I miss the money, but I am so happy to have gotten out of the culture.
This sig is out for a fag.
Hilarious sig, creimer! I LOLed!
For those who don't get it. "Fag" is an offensive term for gays that only a hateful idiot would say unironically. BUT (and this is where the joke comes in) it also means "cigarette" in England!
So it's kind of like a pun, except there's no clever second meaning to the sentence because nobody was talking about cigarettes. Really it's just an excuse to say "fag" in a sig, but it's all done in fun.
Actually, it means even his sig has more sex than creimer!
How's the air pollution in Beijing today, comrade Wang?
When I was growing up, 'Roommates' meant people actually sleeping in the same bedroom - bunkbeds optional.
People sharing a house but not bedrooms were called 'Flatmates'.
So for quite some time, I'd turn down offers to be roommates because I snore and I don't want to be murdered in my sleep by someone a few feet away.
It all depends. As one who believes in democracy and somewhat limited capitalism, and believes the individual to be the important thing, they all look like collectivist dictatorships to me. If I believed in collectivism and dictatorship, I'd see the nuances.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes