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! ;).
$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'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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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/
PUSHING anyone anywhere is wrong. You know, back when I was young, everyone and their dog had to become a doctor or a lawyer. Preferably both, so you can handle your own malpractice lawsuits. Anything else and you were stupid.
Today we have lawyers and doctors with huge debts for their expensive education with no chance to ever recover any of that in their lifetime (unless they're extremely lucky or extremely good at their job) because you can't throw a lawyer over your shoulder without hitting a doctor. And that's especially true for those that don't really want to be either, have zero passion for their job, actually hate it and only put in as little effort as absolutely necessary, for they will never be among the top tier of their profession and hence most likely lose any position they might have to someone more qualified and motivated.
This and nothing else is when you pretend that there is ONLY ONE career worth pursuing and that you have to do it, whether it's something you want to do or not.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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.
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)
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.
In the 60s, nobody had a job but everyone had good dope and somehow still managed to make ends meet.
Today, nobody has good dope, everyone has a job and probably a second one to make ends meet.
Where did we go astray?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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.
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
Lawyers are a good example of your complaint, but not doctors...not by a long shot. Doctors were smart enough to create professional organizations that actually have teeth. Through these orgs, they pay for the laws that will keep them employed when every other knowledge job is done by automation.
Part of the reason why it's so hard to become a doctor is that the supply of medical school slots is closely protected. The Bar Association did the reverse and allowed tons of new law schools to open up, resulting in those lawyers with unrecoverable debts because there just isn't enough work to go around anymore. Becoming a doctor requires the closest thing possible to a photographic memory even to pass the MCAT, and you have to be even more hard-wired in an academic mode to make it through the classroom part of the training. So yeah, if my kids are capable of it I would certainly encourage them to at least try...I don't know of any non-rich doctors in the US!
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.
STEM != IT
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?
Same in Germany. There is not enough of doctors here so waiting time to some specialists is ridiculous but the schools do not increase the number of seats.
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!
The hippies became yuppies and sold out. Free thinking is frowned upon by those in power. They want everything just like the 1950s. Forever.
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!
Male and female power structures are different and I can't see saddling graduates with debt as a great way to encourage entrepreneurial risk only to be told that they are too old to be there once they become useful. That's a lot of factors against IT as a career choice.
Outsourcing attracted people interested in the money, not the craft and created an adversarial aspect to IT that didn't really exist before. All the parasites that have attached themselves to IT to drive down the cost of talent have done everything they can to make IT suck as a career for the creative people they seek.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
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.
You're not exactly rich if you need roommates....
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!
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.
The people pushing for more women in IT are true misogynists.
Absolutely NOT. They are feminists that are a minority within women trying to force other women into careers they don't want because you know we need to have an equal distribution of every possible demographic in every possible discipline even if that's not what the people actually want. It's a cult.
We'll make great pets
yeah, doctors formed the only successful labor union in the united states, and republicans can't stop slobbering on their knobs (possibly just because they're rich?). go figure. the irony is killing people. literally.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
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.
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.........
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.
doctors with huge debts for their expensive education
That they pay off in 3 years. A friend worked for a dr who started college at the age of 40 and just retired with a big house near the beach in Malibu.
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.
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.
Just stay out of silicon valley. STEM is still allows rewarding careers. However the work that is in real need isn't the high press fancy job at Google. But the guy fixing and improving processes at the local manufacturer, hospital or bank. SV tries to attract talent away from these real job by using Cult reasoning, by making the initial switch from College Life to work life nearly seamless. Which isn't bad, but then you get stuck there and you will be stuck in SV for about 10 years then you are too old to work there anymore and kicked out to the rest of the world with no assets to live off of.
That guy who does STEM work for the non-tech company is the guy who has a home, family and a car, the $75,000 a year would be enough to live off of and prosper. With the freedom to leave a job and move to a different area all together if needed, as you can sell your home and pack up your car and move to wherever.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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
There's enough doctors. But they don't want to work in the smaller towns. "Village doctor" is something that's cute in some romantic movie or a dime novel, but not for a career.
And of course not for the social security pennies. You want to be dealt with on your insurance? Come again in, say, 5 months. Or do you want to pay yourself, then you can get an appointment right now. You should have called if you needed one 10 minutes ago.
Walk down the road of a medium sized town and you will see a LOT of doctors offices. And if you pay cash, you can even go in.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yes, those exist. Either as children of already established doctors or as really awesome masters of their work. Guess what, the same exists in IT. And there are equally sought after mechanics and carpenters.
If you're really good at something, you can easily get rich. Mostly because "working" isn't just that dreaded time you have to spend doing shit you hate to do but because you actually and genuinely like it. Because that means that you're going to be really good at it. And people pay people who are really good at what they do good money to do what they're good at.
That works for pretty much anything. Do what you're really good at, you will find someone who is willing to pay you for it. Well, maybe unless your skill is rolling the perfect blunt and smoking it without taking it out of your mouth...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
charge you with.
I knew a person with a high paying job who lived in a car. Until they quit one day in their 30's, bought a house with cash and never went back to work.
If I spent all that time being able to treat your sorry ass, I would want to be rich too. They are the most highly trained people in our society and you want to stiff them. You wonder why some of us resist the idea of socialized medicine.
Residents on strike. Nurses paid like burger flippers. Not enough hospital beds. Wait lists for cat scans. Wait lists for hip surgery. Wait lists for HEART surgery.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It sound like the person didn't retire. They fled the profession for some reason. Likely some nonsense driven by government meddling. I know multiple doctors that want to retire because of Obamacare. Those "good intentions" led to interesting variations of hell in some states. It should be a case study on unintended consequences.
No health person wants to retire at 40, even if they can.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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."
I can walk into a store and buy better dope than even existed in the '60s.
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
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
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."
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.
That's the same problem in Canada. They can't get doctors to move out to the small towns in the provinces. Instead, they prefer to stay in Toronto or Vancouver. Having to pay for a private education means that they need to pay off those debts and the only way to do that is to work in a large city. And the government won't pay for tuition fees because the taxpayer doesn't want to see doctors waltz off to the USA.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Thai highland haze begs to differ.
But how often did you see awesome Thai back in the day? Today almost as good weed is insanely common.
I personally grew 10 pounds of 20%+ last summer, in my CA backyard. I've been growing for 30 years now, the main difference is less stress.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Right, you have no argument so just passively aggressively insult the opposition. You don't even have balls.
Easy solution: Get a free education and "work off" the social debt. Stay for X years or pay us for your education.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't wonder. I know it's because Americans have been brain-washed with decades of pro-corporate and anti-government propaganda into believing bullshit like this:
Waiting lists in public health systems are for non-urgent conditions. Anyone with an urgent condition will be treated immediately (which also has the side-effect of increasing waiting times for non-urgent conditions). And yeah, it ain't perfect, and there are never enough resources, and our government is bowing to the pressure from american corporations who want it privatised so they can loot our sick like they do yours, but i am so fucking glad I live in a country with a public health system than in some barbaric fucking hellhole of privatised health.
Priority is assigned by medical need and available resources, not by how fucking rich someone is, or how much the private hospital and the insurance company can make between them with criminal collusion to artificially inflate prices, like hundreds of dollars each or more for simple pills like paracetamol - "acetaminophen" to yanks - a drug that you can at any chemist in Australia for under $3 AUD for a box of 100 pills, and that's without being subsidised by our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme - which American multinationals have been trying to get killed off for years, fortunately without success so far because even our corporate lick-spittle "conservative" (actually, radical right-wing reactionaries, same as yours but better at hiding it) party knows it would be political suicide.
The weirdest thing about your shitty health system is that many Americans actually believe that it's the best in the world ("of course it is, it's American"). It's not. Far fucking from it. Your system is worse even than that of many third world countries.
I bet you even believe the bullshit about "government death panels". You know who actually has "death panels"? private medical insurance companies trying to welch out of the bet they made.
And something that would be hilariously ironic if it wasn't so scary is that you've been propagandised with this shit for so long that you accept it as part of your identity now. It's the identity politics of the enthusiastically and willingly exploited - "Fuck me over please, I'm American and proud of it. I'll fight to the death to preserve a corporation's right to shaft me any way it wants".
that's a pretty fantasy. tell that to someone who's really good at operating a sewing machine. or repairing a car.
You mean like the guy I went to school with who now makes a (very comfortable) living customizing cars? Legally so, too, which isn't that easy considering our rather insane laws concerning what's "legal" in cars.
He's a tinkerer at heart, he loves cars and he loves working on them. You don't learn that in a school, though. You learn it because you WANT to learn it, and whenever I remember anything about our youth I remember him either working on a car or dreaming up something about one.
This is the kind of guy that can make a comfortable living or even get rich "working with his hands", because to him it's not simply a 9 to 5 job. That's his life. He didn't do a 3 years course learning it, he basically spent his life learning and improving that skill set, simply out of love for it.
This is rare and certainly nothing I could copy. Then again, I have my own area of expertise where I don't simply do a 9 to 5 job. This is how you get good at what you're doing and this is what makes you stand out, enough to make people give you money to do what you're good at for them.
What matters is passion for your work. Yes, it's easier in some areas than in others, I give you that. In the end, though, if you're good at what you're doing, you will not be poor if you manage to find out how to monetize it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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?
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