The complexity of the tax code due to our political system and its pandering to the wealthy is what necessitates deductions. If the system were less burdensome, more reasonable, and simpler, the deductions wouldn't be necessary.
Disney, growing toward a monopoly, but definitely not there yet. Walmart, a reasonable submission, but possibly overreaching due to growing competition from Amazon Oracle, no. Microsoft, This is very reasonable as their interests are so intertwined with their captureware. Not to mention they've provably broken the law in this regard in recent memory with no substantive penalties. Koch Brothers, this one is just wrong. They are in some of the most competitive industries, (Oil & Gas? The money is made at scale, the margins for refined products are pretty tight.)
Indeed... as a married man with a couple of kids. One boy, one girl.
I've had a lifetime of comicbook reading and viewing. I have my tastes, my wife and kids have theirs. None of us are excited about Captain Marvel. To me, she's overpowered and boring (I also dislike superman.) To my wife, the SJW narrative seems wedged into the story (at least some of the trailer bants.)
To my kids? If it's Marvel and Thor, Iron Man, Black Widow, Gamora, Groot or Captain America aren't present... then meh. They also liked the Valkyrie, but my daughter didn't approve of her drinking problem.:D
Nope. Mules can breed. It's just not tried frequently, and probably not all that successful. Interestingly, I once read about a project that used "hand" fertilization that produced a complete chromosome set horse from a mule and horse crossbreed. (I may be misremembering, it may have been a hinny.)
There are bits of hogshit and cockroach in the hot dog. You cannot assert that the cockroach contributes to the flavor. The flavor may actually be better without the hogshit and cockroach that sneaks in there.
Socialism has been a part of where we are, and the social perspective that we use to interpret the outcomes. How those outcomes mix in the good/bad matrix requires objective analysis in a topic where there are very few comparable control groups and where objectivity is tainted by both sides using propaganda, ie this corporate asshat with his corporate gobbledegook, and the esteemed asshat with his gobbledegook book.
Agreed, but as much as it makes us feel good when customers follow us (me as a consultant, you as sales). We have to look at the facts that if our replacement was empowered, trained, and presented with materials to help retain the customer... it would make our job a lot harder.
An example, if I left Delloitte (which I've never worked for) and established my own consultancy, I would be able to beat them on rate, but I would be able to compete at scale, nor would I be able to provide ancillary and coordinated services. If the Delloitte AM doesn't win that business back... Either AM sucks, or the company doesn't provide adequate support to the AM.
Non-competes have nothing to do with protecting actual enforceable IP. There are laws for that. Trademark, Copyright, patents and some methods that I am probably not aware of.
None of those require NCA to be protected. The primary place that I have seen NCAs litigated is with sales people and consultants. The plaintiff is mainly concerned with silly stuff like client lists and relationships.
If the company sucks enough that the customer will follow a consultant and/or the account manager, rather than sticking with the parent company for value adds (such as leveraged knowledge, larger available workforce, economies of scale with regard to cost controls) then the parent company isn't doing their job anyway, and probably deserves to lose the business.
Those who say NCAs are used to attempt capture the employees are absolutely correct, everyone else seems to have swallowed corporate line.
Supporting the tyranny of lies, through whatever means, only makes the tyranny grow.
Supporting Obama's unusual executive orders, (not in volume, but in substance) or supporting Harry Reid's changing of the rules regarding filibuster or confirmation votes, results in more power for the opposition party when they get to power. Supporting a president that pushes for and gets a very unpopular bill using whatever means necessary, gets us Trump.
Sadly, it will probably be even more downhill from here for the next 50 yrs.
This oscillation continues until someone gets enough power that they cannot be unseated by except by extreme events. Hopefully, those extreme events do not include lots of dead people but they often do.
Or... you could look at Graylog that enables the X-pack functionality as an open source tool.
The caveat is that you need to allow the GL servers to talk to ES and restrict everyone else... but you get a helluva a deal in the process, plus some cool ETL features and a UI, without dicking around
Can you be more specific as to why you disagree on the Kavanaugh example?
Fact: Harry Reid was leading the Senate (Joe BIden as VP) when the rule was changed. Fact: The R's would have not had the votes to approve Kavanaugh, therefore they would have had to pick someone who appealed to the D's, who de-facto would have to be more leftist.
I somewhat agree, but I find that part of the empathy culture is a bunch of lazy asses expecting me to use my empathy to explain exactly how they should do their job.
I am paid to think. You are paid to think. If you are not thinking and expecting me to think for you, then you are overpaid and attempting to take over my time and pay for your benefit.
Step off.
Instead, something akin to: 1. "Hey, I don't know what the fuck you were thinking. Please re-read what you just sent me!" This is a perfectly reasonable response. If you'd like further coaching, please come see me later with a coffee or a beer destination in mind, and we'll work through it.
However, the sensitivity training prevents people from actually being responsible for their own workload, they can just go whine to mommy that someone isn't helping them enough, rather than doing the proper research themselves.
I'm sad for linux and Linus, but this too shall pass.
I think that you're right that the purpose of breaking a monopoly might not really work in this situation. There is no physical link to pivot around that creates greater friction for the competitors. All of the market resistance is created by exposure.
I think this better compared to early radio market monopolies, where free speech was demonstrably abrogated by tacit collusion of the radio networks. This resulted in the FCC requiring certain content or content types to be carried. In this case I think that the opposite should be enacted. The monopoly services have shown that they can be politically motivated to abrogate the rights of a sufficient number of people that it affects public discourse. This is evidenced by all of the self-imposed restrictions on political rhetoric currently enforces by Facebook, Apple, Google, et al.
No corporate entity with a monopoly or reasonable potential for a monopoly should be allowed to do so. The users themselves should be empowered to filter their content as they see fit, so that free flow of information and ideas is augmented. Some may complain that this enables 'hate speech', but I reject this premise as 'hate speech' is subjective and therefore a poor benchmark to use to judge whether a person's rights should be suspended. Instead, those of similar sensitivities, or political stripe may advertise 'filter lists' that curate their content for them. If they do not wish to see into the abyss, they need simply to avert their eyes. Those that wish to hone their mind by engaging in ideas that are otherwise alien to them, may do so using a variety of whetstones.
TLDR;
Do not be evil. The temptation to wield power for our own purposes can be tempting, but it will turn on you. Kavanaugh is a recent case in point. If Harry Reid had not altered the confirmation rules so that a SC justice was confirmed with a simple majority, then a more centrist candidate would have been selected, but the R's knew they could get him through because Harry had given them a weapon.
Could be. However, there is often still quite a lot of investment capital lurking around for several generations.
A board of directors is often comprised of people who have significant investment in the company. If the person you are referring to has enough shares, and it is permitted by the org's bylaws, they can elect themselves to the board.
This is accordance with the fact that the degree of risk is apportioned to the degree of responsibility. If women want to see more women on boards, they should forge professional organizations, and then target specific companies, purchase a number of shares that ensure election (a good number of shareholders don't vote anyway) and then take whatever number of seats suit them.
This will give them the opportunity to demonstrate their superior business acumen without the interference and therefore abrogation of responsibility by the law. They can't take credit for winning, if they used the law to do so. All failures will either accrete to them due to perceived incompetence (Affirmative Action effect) or they will be absolved of all wrongdoing (SJW effect).
Either way, this is definitely a mistake... but it will be interesting to watch.
And yet, you do not reply to his refutation of your assertion that people are not trying to use legislation to correct the disparity in genders in nursing (or in garbage collectors).
Ostensibly, the bar is lower for nursing than it is for becoming a Dr. Therefore the disparity in the nursing field affects more people and limits access to more jobs than that of the Drs, which makes it an even greater social injustice.
Working on down the line, I suspect there are far more garbage collectors than nursing staff in the country, and that field is dominated by men. I also think this could use some legislation.
Or we could all decide that the individual can decide, and if they feel discriminated against, they can use the appropriate EEOC complaint process.
Fair statement. Perhaps, for the enlightenment of the original poster you could provide some points that reveal how you believe the woman in the role adds to the storyline.
- Not breaking the lore, +1 - Excellent actor/actress making the show more watchable, +1.
I don't have dog in this fight, I listen to the Dr Who stuff when I have time...
However, I noticed that you constructed a nice straw man there. I wanted to stop by and admire the artistry involved in the simply ignorant and intentional misreading and misrepresentation of an opinion.
Like poo flung on a wall, it is awesome in it's own destructive simplicity.
Rather, you might restate the parent's position back to them to assist in the discourse.
"Did you mean that you feel that women are being shoehorned into a plot where they do not necessarily fit? In fact, it may cause a loss of continuity and flow of the temperament of the show when the protagonist is put in a gender reversed scenario?"
The scenario as presented above is an argument. It is provable that the BBC wants to provide propagandist support whenever possible to POC and women, it is one of their stated goals. Therefore, the argument is, "Is this good for the art?" or "Does reflect a loss of creativity caused by an echo chamber of political rhetoric?"
I believe the parent intends to argue that it does impact the art in a negative fashion and causes a loss of authenticity to the brand.
In many recipes, almond milk is just that. Blanch and slice, add milk overnight, strain and use the almond milk as a base for breads, cakes, porridge, and marinades etc.
This strange beast that is soy milk (which only cursorily resembled milk anyway, who would add milk that curdles instantly to coffee if they had the choice? ewww) is the afterbirth of a deceitful marketing practice meant to dispose of questionable industrial byproducts anyway.
You're wrong. Sympathetically and emotionally involved but pragmatically and tragically wrong.
Money represents a consumable resource, a resource that it takes effort to make more of. Therefore, any use of that money needs a high level of justification to use, because you have taken it by force from another person.
We can do a lot of things that cost a lot less to put pressure on the Mexican government to develop into a true economy, but we avoid that responsibility either out of greed (cheap labor) or sentimental blindness (humanitarian immigration).
If we close the border the bourgeoisie of Mexico will have to face rising pressure from their populace. A populace that will be getting more work done and have more of a reason to develop an internal economy. Currently their most reasonable decision is to cross the border and take advantage of a system conceived by different people under different circumstances.
I do believe that we, as fellow humans and good neighbors should work with Mexico to help them build a self sufficient government. However, we cannot do that by continuing to pore dollars into their economy.
Look at the outcome of economies where we pore dollars rather than knowledge. Africa has a population problem that is accellerating, but their internal economic growth is relatively stunted. Mexico is a shell of a country.
Make border crossing more difficult, make working here impossible without credentials. Force the slavers in Mexico and the US to face the true cost of the systems they have wrought.
We, as people, will continue on. We can give knowledge, training, and trade agreements to our peers in Mexico. They can take advantage of those low cost resources and have an outstanding growth cycle. Then they will have the time and resources to recognize what they want from a government. They can get the things that they want while maintaining their bonds with their extended family.
If the economy grows fast enough, many from the US will go to Mexico to incubate their ideas. (Right now 90% of US->Mexico immigration are boomers trying make their retirement dollars go further.)
He may be.. but he may not. There are neighborhoods where this sort of thing has happened.
There was an area in East Tulsa OK that had a major MS-13 problem. Several stabbings and shooting on a weekly basis. We just barely sold my Dad's house before it became unsellable due to the decline in the neighborhood.
In fact, for a while Tulsa,OK was used as a place to "lay low". I think MS-13 copied the Mob. (see Whitey Bulger)
This also happens in North Tulsa with various black gangs. A several block radius will become dominated by a particular gang. The male children will be run out or recruited. The girls become molls or leave.
It's an interesting process. The problem is that the paper and the news only cover the little blips that they feel will get you to notice. They don't live or work in the neighborhood, talk to the shop owners on a daily basis, know the cops.
If you want to know the real story about a neighborhood, talk to someone who has lived there 10 yrs or more... or find a property manager or the like that has had property there for 10 yrs or so. Even real estate agents are in the neighborhood for such short periods, and have an incentive to lie to you about the history of a neighborhood. The property deals with the market of the neighborhood. Rents have to adjust to accommodate the people who will live there.
If supply is high enough then demand falls and prices follow. The GP pointed out that not enough permits were being issued. Your argument that because there are some, there must be enough is not convincing. The trend in the price is rising, this is a solid metric that can be used to determine that supply is low.
There may be other reasons, but you gave no data to support your position. In fact, your argument bolsters his position. Housing is in such high demand that investors are looking at multiyear projects (construction) and determining that the increase in demand will likely result in a high enough sale price that margin will be preserved even after all of the challenges of urban construction.
Yeah.. A hard won lesson. I had the same happen with my favorite Bronco.
It lead to an engine upgrade... I am very thankful I wasn't financially strapped at the time, they didn't pay enough to replace the standard 351 V8 that was in it at the time.
Jiffy Lube==Check all valves, caps, seals, plugs after service.
Slashdot Mirror
The complexity of the tax code due to our political system and its pandering to the wealthy is what necessitates deductions. If the system were less burdensome, more reasonable, and simpler, the deductions wouldn't be necessary.
Can't mod this higher, so... Thank you very much for the comment.
Ummm... of those:
Disney, growing toward a monopoly, but definitely not there yet.
Walmart, a reasonable submission, but possibly overreaching due to growing competition from Amazon
Oracle, no.
Microsoft, This is very reasonable as their interests are so intertwined with their captureware. Not to mention they've provably broken the law in this regard in recent memory with no substantive penalties.
Koch Brothers, this one is just wrong. They are in some of the most competitive industries, (Oil & Gas? The money is made at scale, the margins for refined products are pretty tight.)
Indeed... as a married man with a couple of kids. One boy, one girl.
I've had a lifetime of comicbook reading and viewing. I have my tastes, my wife and kids have theirs. None of us are excited about Captain Marvel. To me, she's overpowered and boring (I also dislike superman.) To my wife, the SJW narrative seems wedged into the story (at least some of the trailer bants.)
To my kids? If it's Marvel and Thor, Iron Man, Black Widow, Gamora, Groot or Captain America aren't present... then meh. They also liked the Valkyrie, but my daughter didn't approve of her drinking problem. :D
Indeed. Sometimes my fastmail account info pops up, and that vein in my forehead starts throbbing over their crappy behavior.
Nope. Mules can breed. It's just not tried frequently, and probably not all that successful. Interestingly, I once read about a project that used "hand" fertilization that produced a complete chromosome set horse from a mule and horse crossbreed. (I may be misremembering, it may have been a hinny.)
https://articles.extension.org...
Genes are weird.
False.
There are bits of hogshit and cockroach in the hot dog. You cannot assert that the cockroach contributes to the flavor. The flavor may actually be better without the hogshit and cockroach that sneaks in there.
Socialism has been a part of where we are, and the social perspective that we use to interpret the outcomes. How those outcomes mix in the good/bad matrix requires objective analysis in a topic where there are very few comparable control groups and where objectivity is tainted by both sides using propaganda, ie this corporate asshat with his corporate gobbledegook, and the esteemed asshat with his gobbledegook book.
Agreed, but as much as it makes us feel good when customers follow us (me as a consultant, you as sales). We have to look at the facts that if our replacement was empowered, trained, and presented with materials to help retain the customer... it would make our job a lot harder.
An example, if I left Delloitte (which I've never worked for) and established my own consultancy, I would be able to beat them on rate, but I would be able to compete at scale, nor would I be able to provide ancillary and coordinated services. If the Delloitte AM doesn't win that business back... Either AM sucks, or the company doesn't provide adequate support to the AM.
Non-competes have nothing to do with protecting actual enforceable IP. There are laws for that. Trademark, Copyright, patents and some methods that I am probably not aware of.
None of those require NCA to be protected. The primary place that I have seen NCAs litigated is with sales people and consultants. The plaintiff is mainly concerned with silly stuff like client lists and relationships.
If the company sucks enough that the customer will follow a consultant and/or the account manager, rather than sticking with the parent company for value adds (such as leveraged knowledge, larger available workforce, economies of scale with regard to cost controls) then the parent company isn't doing their job anyway, and probably deserves to lose the business.
Those who say NCAs are used to attempt capture the employees are absolutely correct, everyone else seems to have swallowed corporate line.
Sad.
Why not?
Supporting the tyranny of lies, through whatever means, only makes the tyranny grow.
Supporting Obama's unusual executive orders, (not in volume, but in substance) or supporting Harry Reid's changing of the rules regarding filibuster or confirmation votes, results in more power for the opposition party when they get to power. Supporting a president that pushes for and gets a very unpopular bill using whatever means necessary, gets us Trump.
Sadly, it will probably be even more downhill from here for the next 50 yrs.
This oscillation continues until someone gets enough power that they cannot be unseated by except by extreme events. Hopefully, those extreme events do not include lots of dead people but they often do.
Or... you could look at Graylog that enables the X-pack functionality as an open source tool.
The caveat is that you need to allow the GL servers to talk to ES and restrict everyone else... but you get a helluva a deal in the process, plus some cool ETL features and a UI, without dicking around
Can you be more specific as to why you disagree on the Kavanaugh example?
Fact: Harry Reid was leading the Senate (Joe BIden as VP) when the rule was changed.
Fact: The R's would have not had the votes to approve Kavanaugh, therefore they would have had to pick someone who appealed to the D's, who de-facto would have to be more leftist.
What is my logical error?
I somewhat agree, but I find that part of the empathy culture is a bunch of lazy asses expecting me to use my empathy to explain exactly how they should do their job.
I am paid to think. You are paid to think. If you are not thinking and expecting me to think for you, then you are overpaid and attempting to take over my time and pay for your benefit.
Step off.
Instead, something akin to:
1. "Hey, I don't know what the fuck you were thinking. Please re-read what you just sent me!"
This is a perfectly reasonable response. If you'd like further coaching, please come see me later with a coffee or a beer destination in mind, and we'll work through it.
However, the sensitivity training prevents people from actually being responsible for their own workload, they can just go whine to mommy that someone isn't helping them enough, rather than doing the proper research themselves.
I'm sad for linux and Linus, but this too shall pass.
Replying to my own post:
I should definitely proofread more, but switching from coding to wording and back apparently made my brain clutch stick.
Please excuse the clumsy phrasing.
I think that you're right that the purpose of breaking a monopoly might not really work in this situation. There is no physical link to pivot around that creates greater friction for the competitors. All of the market resistance is created by exposure.
I think this better compared to early radio market monopolies, where free speech was demonstrably abrogated by tacit collusion of the radio networks. This resulted in the FCC requiring certain content or content types to be carried. In this case I think that the opposite should be enacted. The monopoly services have shown that they can be politically motivated to abrogate the rights of a sufficient number of people that it affects public discourse. This is evidenced by all of the self-imposed restrictions on political rhetoric currently enforces by Facebook, Apple, Google, et al.
No corporate entity with a monopoly or reasonable potential for a monopoly should be allowed to do so. The users themselves should be empowered to filter their content as they see fit, so that free flow of information and ideas is augmented. Some may complain that this enables 'hate speech', but I reject this premise as 'hate speech' is subjective and therefore a poor benchmark to use to judge whether a person's rights should be suspended. Instead, those of similar sensitivities, or political stripe may advertise 'filter lists' that curate their content for them. If they do not wish to see into the abyss, they need simply to avert their eyes. Those that wish to hone their mind by engaging in ideas that are otherwise alien to them, may do so using a variety of whetstones.
TLDR;
Do not be evil. The temptation to wield power for our own purposes can be tempting, but it will turn on you. Kavanaugh is a recent case in point. If Harry Reid had not altered the confirmation rules so that a SC justice was confirmed with a simple majority, then a more centrist candidate would have been selected, but the R's knew they could get him through because Harry had given them a weapon.
Don't make the same mistake.
Could be. However, there is often still quite a lot of investment capital lurking around for several generations.
A board of directors is often comprised of people who have significant investment in the company. If the person you are referring to has enough shares, and it is permitted by the org's bylaws, they can elect themselves to the board.
This is accordance with the fact that the degree of risk is apportioned to the degree of responsibility. If women want to see more women on boards, they should forge professional organizations, and then target specific companies, purchase a number of shares that ensure election (a good number of shareholders don't vote anyway) and then take whatever number of seats suit them.
This will give them the opportunity to demonstrate their superior business acumen without the interference and therefore abrogation of responsibility by the law. They can't take credit for winning, if they used the law to do so. All failures will either accrete to them due to perceived incompetence (Affirmative Action effect) or they will be absolved of all wrongdoing (SJW effect).
Either way, this is definitely a mistake... but it will be interesting to watch.
Or... We should use the system and choose to identify as the sex desired for the position. At least at the office.
I don't see why I couldn't be a man who identifies a woman who is gender queer and hyper masculine.
And yet, you do not reply to his refutation of your assertion that people are not trying to use legislation to correct the disparity in genders in nursing (or in garbage collectors).
Ostensibly, the bar is lower for nursing than it is for becoming a Dr. Therefore the disparity in the nursing field affects more people and limits access to more jobs than that of the Drs, which makes it an even greater social injustice.
Working on down the line, I suspect there are far more garbage collectors than nursing staff in the country, and that field is dominated by men. I also think this could use some legislation.
Or we could all decide that the individual can decide, and if they feel discriminated against, they can use the appropriate EEOC complaint process.
Fair statement. Perhaps, for the enlightenment of the original poster you could provide some points that reveal how you believe the woman in the role adds to the storyline.
- Not breaking the lore, +1
- Excellent actor/actress making the show more watchable, +1.
I don't have dog in this fight, I listen to the Dr Who stuff when I have time...
However, I noticed that you constructed a nice straw man there. I wanted to stop by and admire the artistry involved in the simply ignorant and intentional misreading and misrepresentation of an opinion.
Like poo flung on a wall, it is awesome in it's own destructive simplicity.
Rather, you might restate the parent's position back to them to assist in the discourse.
"Did you mean that you feel that women are being shoehorned into a plot where they do not necessarily fit? In fact, it may cause a loss of continuity and flow of the temperament of the show when the protagonist is put in a gender reversed scenario?"
The scenario as presented above is an argument. It is provable that the BBC wants to provide propagandist support whenever possible to POC and women, it is one of their stated goals. Therefore, the argument is, "Is this good for the art?" or "Does reflect a loss of creativity caused by an echo chamber of political rhetoric?"
I believe the parent intends to argue that it does impact the art in a negative fashion and causes a loss of authenticity to the brand.
In many recipes, almond milk is just that. Blanch and slice, add milk overnight, strain and use the almond milk as a base for breads, cakes, porridge, and marinades etc.
This strange beast that is soy milk (which only cursorily resembled milk anyway, who would add milk that curdles instantly to coffee if they had the choice? ewww) is the afterbirth of a deceitful marketing practice meant to dispose of questionable industrial byproducts anyway.
Sadly,
You're wrong. Sympathetically and emotionally involved but pragmatically and tragically wrong.
Money represents a consumable resource, a resource that it takes effort to make more of. Therefore, any use of that money needs a high level of justification to use, because you have taken it by force from another person.
We can do a lot of things that cost a lot less to put pressure on the Mexican government to develop into a true economy, but we avoid that responsibility either out of greed (cheap labor) or sentimental blindness (humanitarian immigration).
If we close the border the bourgeoisie of Mexico will have to face rising pressure from their populace. A populace that will be getting more work done and have more of a reason to develop an internal economy. Currently their most reasonable decision is to cross the border and take advantage of a system conceived by different people under different circumstances.
I do believe that we, as fellow humans and good neighbors should work with Mexico to help them build a self sufficient government. However, we cannot do that by continuing to pore dollars into their economy.
Look at the outcome of economies where we pore dollars rather than knowledge. Africa has a population problem that is accellerating, but their internal economic growth is relatively stunted. Mexico is a shell of a country.
Make border crossing more difficult, make working here impossible without credentials. Force the slavers in Mexico and the US to face the true cost of the systems they have wrought.
We, as people, will continue on. We can give knowledge, training, and trade agreements to our peers in Mexico. They can take advantage of those low cost resources and have an outstanding growth cycle. Then they will have the time and resources to recognize what they want from a government. They can get the things that they want while maintaining their bonds with their extended family.
If the economy grows fast enough, many from the US will go to Mexico to incubate their ideas. (Right now 90% of US->Mexico immigration are boomers trying make their retirement dollars go further.)
He may be.. but he may not. There are neighborhoods where this sort of thing has happened.
There was an area in East Tulsa OK that had a major MS-13 problem. Several stabbings and shooting on a weekly basis. We just barely sold my Dad's house before it became unsellable due to the decline in the neighborhood.
In fact, for a while Tulsa,OK was used as a place to "lay low". I think MS-13 copied the Mob. (see Whitey Bulger)
This also happens in North Tulsa with various black gangs. A several block radius will become dominated by a particular gang. The male children will be run out or recruited. The girls become molls or leave.
It's an interesting process. The problem is that the paper and the news only cover the little blips that they feel will get you to notice. They don't live or work in the neighborhood, talk to the shop owners on a daily basis, know the cops.
If you want to know the real story about a neighborhood, talk to someone who has lived there 10 yrs or more... or find a property manager or the like that has had property there for 10 yrs or so. Even real estate agents are in the neighborhood for such short periods, and have an incentive to lie to you about the history of a neighborhood. The property deals with the market of the neighborhood. Rents have to adjust to accommodate the people who will live there.
I think you misunderstand supply and demand.
If supply is high enough then demand falls and prices follow. The GP pointed out that not enough permits were being issued. Your argument that because there are some, there must be enough is not convincing. The trend in the price is rising, this is a solid metric that can be used to determine that supply is low.
There may be other reasons, but you gave no data to support your position. In fact, your argument bolsters his position. Housing is in such high demand that investors are looking at multiyear projects (construction) and determining that the increase in demand will likely result in a high enough sale price that margin will be preserved even after all of the challenges of urban construction.
Hoist on your own petard, sir.
Yeah.. A hard won lesson. I had the same happen with my favorite Bronco.
It lead to an engine upgrade... I am very thankful I wasn't financially strapped at the time, they didn't pay enough to replace the standard 351 V8 that was in it at the time.
Jiffy Lube==Check all valves, caps, seals, plugs after service.