|
Shifty Nipples posted:It's abhorrent to have so many empty homes when there are so many homeless people. Is there a place that gives out vacant housing numbers? I'd love to know what people are being greedy assholes about their houses.
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
twodot posted:If some segment of parents need subsidized childcare, then that seems fine to me, We should take the french system for that. twodot posted:I don't see why we need to the government to demand businesses pay workers for doing nothing because the workers want to spend that time raising children as opposed to any other fulfilling activity. You don't see. Have you ever done it or had the experience ? All time is not equal. Some very specific periods in human lives matter more than others. Businesses and society should account for that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
I'm probably never going to have kids in my life, but for those who do, it's to my benefit that they raise good children so they don't grow up to be little loving assholes that ruin everyone's day. So if parental leave helps with that, sign me up. It's the same as funding schooling, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Poor person, doesn't own property, feels that he knows better than those who have experience
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:If you believe that the majority of property owners make a profit off of property ownership, please, present that evidence. Do you not understand the difference between rental housing and owner-occupied housing? You keep coming back to this. Saying that rental property is purchased for profit is not the same thing as saying that owner occupied real estate is purchased for profit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:We should take the french system for that. edit3: seiferguy posted:I'm probably never going to have kids in my life, but for those who do, it's to my benefit that they raise good children so they don't grow up to be little loving assholes that ruin everyone's day. So if parental leave helps with that, sign me up. It's the same as funding schooling, etc. twodot fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
therobit posted:Do you not understand the difference between rental housing and owner-occupied housing? You keep coming back to this. Saying that rental property is purchased for profit is not the same thing as saying that owner occupied real estate is purchased for profit. Would you like to present the evidence to the contrary, or will you wait for coyo7e to do so?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:If I was not clear when I said that the vast majority of individuals who own property do not profit from the property that they own, please rest assured that in this statement I am, in fact, implying that there is a difference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
Nobody claimed that owner occupied housing was primarily purchased for profit. What are you trying to get at?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
twodot posted:You cut off my post because you are either an idiot or a jerk. Universal basic income should be used to care for children if guardians think that's the best use of their income. Failing that universal time off should be used by guardians to care for their children if they think that's the best use of their time off. If guardians think they need extra time and money from the state just because they decided to care for children? gently caress them. (edit: To be double clear, this in no way precludes having subsidized childcare for those who need it) (edit2: Nor does it preclude being employed by the state to be a caregiver, though claiming you need to time off from your job to do your job seems tenuous). What is your point? That everyone should have the same amount of time off regardless if they have children or not? If that is indeed your point I think you're way off base. Society and our economy only works because of population growth, having children is important both socially and economically. If people have children they should be given time to care for those children, especially in the first few months after birth when it's the most difficult time for new parents. Parents aren't having a vacation when taking parental leave, it's not time off to rest and have a good time. If you think it's unfair I'm certain there are opportunities to volunteer to take care of another person who can't feed or clean themselves and require constant supervision and care, take all the time you need. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I wonder how much of a problem unoccupied units actually are. Not all areas are the same, but this is a thing. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/08/15/many-downtown-luxury-apartments-sit-empty/88621454/ quote:Apartment building owners are struggling to rent many of the luxury units that have flooded downtowns across the country in recent years even as a relative shortage of multifamily homes in the suburbs has driven up rents. Buildings owned by holding companies that own thousands of units will absolutely leave a bunch empty rather than lower rent. If you lower rent then the dumb plebs might move from one unit to another at the end of their lease! What do they think they are? People?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:We should have what the Scandinavian countries have, paid months (like six) of time for child birth split between both parents requiring the fathers to take a minimum amount (like a month) of it. And a campaign normalizing both parents using all of it. Believe it or not I wrote this reply before seeing the following right after haha: twodot posted:If some segment of parents need subsidized childcare, then that seems fine to me, I don't see why we need to the government to demand businesses pay workers for doing nothing because the workers want to spend that time raising children as opposed to any other fulfilling activity. (If this isn't super clear, I'm mostly advocating "paid leave for everyone" as a back door to UBI). quote:edit: I mean you get somewhat more from social security for being a high earner and that system seems fine to me. Cicero fucked around with this message at 11:04 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 11:00
|
|
|
therobit posted:So either be able to afford to buy, or gently caress you because we don't want anyone to provide you housing? Who would provide rental housing if your goal is to make doing so unprofitable? Hi, let me introduce you to the concept of state owned social housing, where it is not about making a profit but providing a public service. Give it a go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Hi, let me introduce you to the concept of state owned social housing, where it is not about making a profit but providing a public service. Give it a go. At least here in the US it won't go up in flames in 15 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:What is your point? That everyone should have the same amount of time off regardless if they have children or not? If that is indeed your point I think you're way off base. Society and our economy only works because of population growth, having children is important both socially and economically. quote:Parents aren't having a vacation when taking parental leave, it's not time off to rest and have a good time. If you think it's unfair I'm certain there are opportunities to volunteer to take care of another person who can't feed or clean themselves and require constant supervision and care, take all the time you need. Cicero posted:That first year of child raising is basically like having an extra full-time job. Even with my wife being a stay-at-home mom my free time dropped like 75% (and most people don't really have that luxury). Plus parental leave makes dads into better dads and is also about what the child needs, not just the parents. quote:Well presumably it's funded via progressive income taxes so they probably paid more taxes into the system in the first place so that doesn't seem very unfair, and if you make the payouts too low then the higher earners (especially dads) won't take the leave which probably isn't great for the kids. Like it's okay to have some cap the same way you do for unemployment, but if you want everyone to take the leave it probably shouldn't be too low. twodot fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
rgocs posted:Are you trying to tease out the point that 'the vast majority of individuals who own property' actually just own the one they live in and thus make no profit from it, making the people who own multiple properties to rent out for profit not 'the vast majority of people who own property'? Because if that's it, jfc, just say so instead of trying to lay down trap to go "GOTCHA!".
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:That's what I've been saying, I'm sorry that the concept is so upsetting to the three of you. I'm going to keep saying it, by the way. I am sorry you don't understand the difference between owner occupied housing and rental housing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
I own a bicycle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:That's what I've been saying, I'm sorry that the concept is so upsetting to the three of you. I'm going to keep saying it, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
rgocs posted:I agree with you that definition. Nobody is talking about profit in owner-occupied housing. Just you, while cryptically repeating "the vast majority of individuals who own property".
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:Nah, immigration exists. quote:I don't see any evidence we need to subsidize child rearing. Society has previous existed without specifically subsidizing child rearing. quote:I'm proposing we give everyone enough time and money to choose what they want to do. If guardians want to spend their time and money child rearing, that's their choice. quote:Again, if people want to take a government (or private) job caring for a person that needs supervision then that seems fine to me. Choosing to generate humans who need care and then whining you need extra time and resources to care for the human you generated is dumb. quote:Right and in an ideal world, people would use their universal time off to raise their kids. What's hard about this? Do people think that soon to be guardians would foolishly waste their universal time off and be forced to work through their future children's early years? quote:I'm agreeing guardians need time off, I'm just saying to also give that time off to not guardians. You guys are that lovely manager that gives out smoke breaks but not stand outside for five minutes breaks. I'm not sure how you can be pro-UBI and against parental leave. If we had a substantial UBI then presumably parents would get an additional jolt of income when the kid is born since they have an additional human in their family, and how is that resource allocation fundamentally different from paid parental leave?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
I work with lots of families and paid parental leave for a newborn would absolutely help so many of them, especially lower income families. Subsidized daycare is already a hassle to get; most dual income working families don't qualify for DSHS subsidized childcare and the more generous city or county based subsidy programs can have huge waitlist. Most daycares in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties also charge 200-400 more per month for children under the age of 2, especially if they are an home based daycare rather than a corporate chain like Kindercare. If you already have a child in daycare and you have to take unpaid time off for having a new baby or you have to take leave early due to pregnancy complication that adds a ton of stress and insecurity to families on top of the stress of figuring out other bills and rent. Paid parental leave, even if it caps out at $1000 per week, absolutely will ease some of the stress of parenting. I see a lot of moms who go back to work 4 weeks after having babies and I work with people who have come back to work 4-6 weeks after giving birth because WA doesn't have paid parental or family leave for state workers but you can bring infants to work for up to 6 months in some agencies. Regardless of having babies, paid family leave also covers serious illness or injuries. Being able to actually take the time you need to recover or care for a family member and know you'll get some kind of pay will be a huge relief. You can apply for shared leave if you work for the state but it can take up to a month for everything to get approved and depending on circumstances you might not even qualify for it (fun fact, the only way to get shared leave for having a kid is to have a c-section). You'll also be dropped from employer covered medical insurance by most companies and public agencies if you don't have 8 hours of some kind of paid time on your books. Having paid leave will at least mean you won't have to worry about losing your insurance when you need it the most. And in WA the paid family leave act is funded through payroll taxes, not through a general fund. The average amount of payroll taxes that will be taken out is less than $2.00 and the employer also contributes about $2.00, like the unemployement insurance that they already pay into. I've seen a lot people doing exorcist head spinning saying the extra $400 in property taxes for the Seattle metro region will go to pay for breeders to loaf around popping out kids but it's earmarked for paid family leave - the higher property taxes are to fully fund education per the McCleary ruling. Democrats wanted to close tax loopholes and increase business and occupancy taxes instead but couldn't get the Republicans to sign off on it. Tulalip Tulips fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
Reminder that home ownership is a massive vehicle for wealth accumulation. Tax breaks on housing mostly go to white people. What they gain in equity, many people are never have access to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
twodot posted:I didn't anticipate this, but if you want to design a time off system that's funded by payroll taxes and is tracked by the government with minimums and caps and such, I guess I'm not really opposed to it, but I've never seen anyone propose such a thing. IIRC countries that have paid parental leave now fund it via taxes and have caps on how much the payments can be. I don't think I suggested anything unusual.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
quote:If guardians think they need extra time and money from the state just because they decided to care for children? gently caress them. (edit: To be double clear, this in no way precludes having subsidized childcare for those who need it)
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:So to recap I've got you with agrees with me, coyo7e who doesn't agree with me, and therobit who doesn't understand why I would make that distinction. I'm just not clear why you think it is some sick own that 65% or urban housing stock in the US is iwner occupied. We are talking about the other 35% so it doesn't figure. therobit fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Lol, so childless people get a vacation while people with kids spend it on cleaning up poop. That sounds fair and sensible. quote:Society depends on new generations of humans to exist, and unlike farming or doctoring you can't sell raising your own kids. Having kids is mostly irrational from an individual standpoint, which is exactly why birthrates in developed countries have mostly cratered. If you don't want society to slowly disappear then it's sensible to subsidize childrearing, because the benefits accrue more to society than the parents. quote:Let's say they use their universal time off and then change their mind and have kids? "gently caress those kids" is your response I guess? quote:I'm not sure how you can be pro-UBI and against parental leave. If we had a substantial UBI then presumably parents would get an additional jolt of income when the kid is born since they have an additional human in their family, and how is that resource allocation fundamentally different from paid parental leave?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Cicero posted:It's possible to rely on immigration to some extent now, but birthrates are dropping rapidly in developing countries (which itself is good), so that isn't a panacea. There are still way too loving many people in the world as it is. The resource wars when climate change really hits the fan in 30-50 years are going to be really fun for all those kids you people keep having.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yes that would be fair. quote:Ok, I'll be honest. I really just don't give a poo poo about the "we need babies to fuel our ever expanding capitalist system" argument. If our existing societal structure is unsustainable without babies that people don't want, we need to radically alter our societal structure, not make making babies more attractive. quote:Yeah? Let's say some guardians use their universal income on hookers and blow and then have kids? Do we just drop infinity money on any child carers? quote:I mean, realistically, that would probably be necessary politically to actually pass, but I would argue it's a foolish design. The UBI is either 1) enough money to raise kids or 2) not enough money to raise kids. If 1) then clearly no they don't get an extra jolt of income, because there is no need. If 2) why do care givers need the extra jolt of money, given that we've apparently decided to design a UBI that doesn't care if it's enough money to raise kids. I have also previously argued that subsidized child care for the needy is good (if we're in situation 2). Like I said before, when it comes to child benefits, lots of 'progressives' rapidly switch to gently caress you, got mine. Your posting is a sterling example of this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, I'll be honest. I really just don't give a poo poo about the "we need babies to fuel our ever expanding capitalist system" argument. If our existing societal structure is unsustainable without babies that people don't want, we need to radically alter our societal structure, not make making babies more attractive. Uh, what societal system doesn't require babies other than something post scarcity/Star Trek/Culture?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Teabag Dome Scandal posted:Uh, what societal system doesn't require babies other than something post scarcity/Star Trek/Culture?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
therobit posted:I'm just not clear why y think it is some sick own that 65% or urban housing stock in the US is iwner occupied. We are talking about the other 35% so it doesn't figure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
You realize that babies become children and children become adults, yeah? You also realize that you too were once a baby?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
HEY NONG MAN posted:You realize that babies become children and children become adults, yeah? You also realize that you too were once a baby?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
HEY NONG MAN posted:You realize that babies become children and children become adults, yeah? You also realize that you too were once a baby? I think you are mistaken by saying "were once" here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Why do we need to replace the humans we have now? Even the current number of people on Earth is unsustainable given our climate reality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Ahahahaha this is glorious. "Why should you get more money for 3 people than for 2? One of them is a mere child, after all!" Admit it, you just don't give a poo poo about kids. Teabag Dome Scandal posted:Uh, what societal system doesn't require babies other than something post scarcity/Star Trek/Culture?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
HEY NONG MAN posted:You realize that babies become children and children become adults, yeah? You also realize that you too were once a baby? And? None of us had a choice in the matter. It doesn't mean we can't recognize that it might be a mistake at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Regardless people are still going to have kids and by god if paid parental leave means they're not punching their newborn in the face or leaving it to rot in a crib out of spite I'll take it. I'd rather deal with parents who are super into their heroin and squatting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
anthonypants posted:If people can own housing, right now, and not have to worry about profiting from it, let's apply that system to everyone. You seem like you might be hung up on multi-tenant complexes, so here's a scenario: the tenants who reside in the building can own the building collectively. Is that such an alien concept to you? Have you considered that a large portion of people for whom it would be feasible to purchase a home have already done so? Many people who are currently renting would not be able to afford to own, and that isn't just about base price. Maintenence on a huoldingnis significant. If we are talking about them purchasing, some of them will be completely unable to secure financing due to credit history or debt to income ratios. If you are suggesting we just transfer property to them then you can come out and say that, but you are doing a really poor job of staking out a position.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 17:15
|
|