|
Jaxyon posted:One time I had a cucumber that was spoiled and I didn't notice and whatever mold that was on it destroyed my taste buds for about 2 hrs. Sweet pickles are of the devil. Pickles should be sour like baby Jesus intended when He made them.
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
All pickles have been blessed with God's Grace, even the onion, cabbage or lowly green bean
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 02:49
|
|
|
i would walk barefoot over broken glass for my grandma's bread and butter pickles my dad does a really good attempt at them but still not the same
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 03:07
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:mod note: poster is wrong Overruled! *bangs gavel*
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 04:46
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:The interest rate hikes are going reduce buyers' ability to afford housing, I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing that a fundamental change in the market has occurred and anyone expecting prices to drop back to pre-2019 levels or what prices would have been without the pandemic are going to be disappointed. It'll slow the trend, but interest rate hikes alone aren't going to reverse it. Either we collective accept high housing costs, or governments have to take proactive measures to deal with it. On the latter, lol. Just reminded of that article about how China's going to collapse because they're building too many houses and it's making house prices plummet. Landlords will literally let houses and apartments sit empty for decades rather than lower prices or rents.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 05:54
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:On the latter, lol. Just reminded of that article about how China's going to collapse because they're building too many houses and it's making house prices plummet. I don't want to mass derail this since its China centric, but the China "ghost city" issue is way more complex than most of the superficial western reporting on it is. This poo poo started back in the mid-early 2000s and a ton of them are now fully occupied vibrant cities. They've definitely run into issues around construction firms and related industries lying on numbers or large areas stalling and loving a lot of people for various issues, but they were fundamentally created to prepare for growing needs and have been quite successful on that front when you view them on the scale of decades instead of years. Pudong for example was one of the early proclaimed "ghost cities" and now is a major financial hub with a population in the 6M range - but that took almost 20 years of development. It is also a global phenomena in much of not the West as developing countries and populations need places to develop. At least those locations with a cohesive enough government to actually do poo poo. The issue isn't "governments", it is our and other neo-liberalized governments.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 06:26
|
|
|
Indeed. Neoliberalism means that Westerners genuinely don't even know what infrastructure is anymore or that it can be built. They think it must be some perfidious Oriental trick or insane commie wastefulness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 06:28
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Landlords will literally let houses and apartments sit empty for decades rather than lower prices or rents. Vacant housing is disproportionately in dying rust belt towns and rural areas where property values are low. The "proactive measures" to deal with housing costs are building more of it - waving a magic wand to eliminate landlords wouldn't fix it because the metro areas where people want to live still wouldn't have as many places to live as they do people who want to live there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 06:50
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Vacant housing is disproportionately in dying rust belt towns and rural areas where property values are low. The "proactive measures" to deal with housing costs are building more of it - waving a magic wand to eliminate landlords wouldn't fix it because the metro areas where people want to live still wouldn't have as many places to live as they do people who want to live there. San Francisco has 40,000 empty units. https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/S-F-has-40-000-empty-homes-Would-taxing-them-16819901.php\ San Francisco counted 7,800 homeless in their last count. https://sfgov.org/scorecards/safety-net/homeless-population
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 06:54
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:San Francisco has 40,000 empty units. I'm not sure what your point is. If the San Francisco government eminent domained some of those and gave them to homeless people it would fix that problem, but it would not do anything to fix the housing shortage as there would still be many more people who want to live in San Francisco than there are places for them to live. The original post I responded to was about housing costs, not homelessness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 07:29
|
|
|
I got vacant lots on major streets in my neighborhood that some rich person bought a million years ago, waiting for the neighborhood to gentrify enough to develop the space. And that's in Los Angeles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 07:33
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:I'm not sure what your point is. If the San Francisco government eminent domained some of those and gave them to homeless people it would fix that problem, but it would not do anything to fix the housing shortage as there would still be many more people who want to live in San Francisco than there are places for them to live. The original post I responded to was about housing costs, not homelessness. My point is that empty housing is not limited to "dying rust belt towns" as you put it. Homelessness is tied pretty directly to housing costs and the fact that SF has 40,000 empty units shows that landlords are perfectly willing to let units sit empty to keep rents high. They could house every single homeless person in the city and still have more than 30,000 units available for rent. If there were empty unit taxes or other anti-landlord policies it would do a lot for cost of living in that city.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 08:19
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:On a different note, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco released a study attributing up to 60% of the increase in the cost of housing to remote work: Here's the thing: The people who moved because of work from home... what happened to their previous locations? They don't just disappear. Those homes should not have gone up in price because they don't meet the demand for work from home. And yet they have gone up anyway. James Garfield posted:I'm not sure what your point is. If the San Francisco government eminent domained some of those and gave them to homeless people it would fix that problem, but it would not do anything to fix the housing shortage as there would still be many more people who want to live in San Francisco than there are places for them to live. The original post I responded to was about housing costs, not homelessness. And that's why we need a vacancy tax. Limit the window an investor can profit off a property by adding risk to long-term ownership of an empty home.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 08:27
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I got vacant lots on major streets in my neighborhood that some rich person bought a million years ago, waiting for the neighborhood to gentrify enough to develop the space. I have immediate family living in a very affluent town in western Massachusetts and it's the same story - there's one major landlord there sitting on a ton of idle real estate (both commercial and residential) because nobody's willing to pay that person's prices for it. Despite there being a massive shortage of affordable housing, like almost everywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 08:27
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:My point is that empty housing is not limited to "dying rust belt towns" as you put it. Homelessness is tied pretty directly to housing costs and the fact that SF has 40,000 empty units shows that landlords are perfectly willing to let units sit empty to keep rents high. They could house every single homeless person in the city and still have more than 30,000 units available for rent. If there were empty unit taxes or other anti-landlord policies it would do a lot for cost of living in that city. FYI, that 40k number is unoccupied units for a variety of reasons, not just “landlords are […] willing to let units sit empty”: https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-francisco-to-consider-taxing-owners-of-vacant-homes/ As far as specifics of that number, I did find this article: https://socketsite.com/archives/2022/02/there-are-not-40000-vacant-homes-in-san-francisco.html. I’ve never heard this website, but it seems to give the correct idea. For vacancy tax impacts, there doesn’t seem to be much in the terms of studies. But one study of France I did find states: quote:Results suggest that the tax accounted for a 13% decrease in vacancy rates between 1997 and 2001. The impact is especially concentrated in long-term vacancy. Results also suggest that most of the vacant units were turned into primary residences. Kalit fucked around with this message at 09:55 on Sep 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 09:30
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:San Francisco has 40,000 empty units. That’s ~10% of the total housing stock in SF, and using the argument of the above post for definition of vacancy, maybe the real number is really only like 3%. It’s a little unrealistic to expect 100% occupancy. I don’t even think that the omniscient, omnipotent government entity run by philosopher-kings that exists only in the wildest dreams of left-wing ideologues runs at 100% efficiency. There’s a pretty simple alternate explanation for housing problems in SF and other booming US metro areas: there is a lack of supply of housing units. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 12:29 on Sep 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 12:20
|
|
|
The article estimates there are 8000 homes being purposefully held vacant for the purpose of turning a profit as prices increase. That is still more than the number of homeless. That is not a housing shortage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 13:12
|
|
|
I'm not opposed to a vacancy tax, and in an ideal world, to discourage real estate speculation, would be very much for increases on property tax rates. A property tax is one of the best, most progressive types of tax there is--it is a tax on wealth. Property tax increases are wildly unpopular among people who pay attention to local politics though, and are pretty much illegal in California. By picking on the 3% vacancy rate however, you are missing the forest for the trees. It's pretty unreasonable to expect any system to run at 100% efficiency. Maybe even utopians don't expect 100% efficiency. The reason why housing prices skyrocket in booming metros is because housing supply doesn't meet demand. Do you also get mad at newspaper classifieds/eBay/Craigslist postings too?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 13:28
|
|
|
The only acceptable vacancy tax should be one where you default ownership to the state/municipality if you do not sell due to attempted speculatory practices so we can solve a problem that has an obvious solution if not for rampant greed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 13:44
|
|
|
Huge taxes on properties registered to companies or properties that are not the owner's primary residence should do the trick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 13:47
|
|
|
How high would the vacancy tax need to be in a place like SF to overcome tax breaks on business losses?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 13:57
|
|
|
Dubar posted:The article estimates there are 8000 homes being purposefully held vacant for the purpose of turning a profit as prices increase. That is still more than the number of homeless. That is not a housing shortage. A housing shortage isn't measured by the number of homeless people. There is a massive housing shortage in SF and the actual vacancy rate is 3% (and about 2/3 of that vacancy rate are "technical vacancies" where a rental unit is vacant at the beginning of the month for repairs or moving out, but will be occupied by the next month). That means that only about 1% of rentals in SF are actually truly unoccupied for multiple months. Even the article linked above talking about the homeless mentions that: quote:It's also interesting to note that the city's rental vacancy rate (housing available for rent) is only 3%, which reflects the tight rental market. San Francisco's rental vacancy rate is lower than the rate in other major metro areas
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 13:58
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:Huge taxes on properties registered to companies or properties that are not the owner's primary residence should do the trick. I don’t think this alone solves the problem. I understand that you and others have an allergy to supply and demand principles, but more housing units in desireable areas need to be built by private companies and/or the government to really solve the problem. The reason why this isn’t done isn’t usually because of greedy billionaires or whatever—it’s usually due to the preferences of ‘normal’ homeowners/people who participate in local governments. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 14:14
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I don’t think this alone solves the problem. I understand that you and others have an allergy to supply and demand principles, but more housing units in desireable areas need to be built by private companies and/or the government to really solve the problem. Obviously going ham on building everywhere would be ideal. At least in the SF area, it'd likely be easier to pass a bunch of insane taxes than it would be to build more. The NIMBYism is insane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 14:33
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:Obviously going ham on building everywhere would be ideal. At least in the SF area, it'd likely be easier to pass a bunch of insane taxes than it would be to build more. The NIMBYism is insane. Are you sure about that? The only reason why they didn’t upzone the entire city to allow fourplexes was because Mayor Breed vetoed it. The city’s Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission all supported that plan. That seems like something that will be easily feasible to do in the future when they get a different mayor in office. Kalit fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Sep 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 14:40
|
|
|
vacancy rate does not mean that housing units are being held off the market in anticipation of further profits. housing units, especially rentals, are sometimes naturally vacant in between tenants. any housing unit currently being offered for sale or rent is vacant until it is occupied. assuming all vacant housing units are vacant due to speculation is the same as assuming all cars currently parked never get driven because gas is too expensive. separating vacancies due to speculation from vacancies due to currently being unoccupied is simply not something that can be discerned from the vacancy rate data as there is no statistical collection as to why a unit is currently vacant. ultimately, any proposals about how a vacancy tax is going to impact housing is an argument which has one foot in an imaginary number rating how wicked the speaker perceives the capitalist class to be, and this number is going to go up or down depending on how big you want it to be for the convenience of your argument ultimately there's no one weird trick to avoid building more housing
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 14:48
|
|
|
There is absolutely no downside to loving over property speculators. Houses are for living in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 14:51
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:My point is that empty housing is not limited to "dying rust belt towns" as you put it. Homelessness is tied pretty directly to housing costs and the fact that SF has 40,000 empty units shows that landlords are perfectly willing to let units sit empty to keep rents high. They could house every single homeless person in the city and still have more than 30,000 units available for rent. If there were empty unit taxes or other anti-landlord policies it would do a lot for cost of living in that city. Are they empty or are they air bnbs that are listed as empty because there is no actual resident on the lease? Edit: nm the socket article answered the question (32%, roughly) Oracle fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Sep 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 15:20
|
|
|
Speaking of, getting rid of airbnb would go a long way to reducing vacancy
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Speaking of, getting rid of airbnb would go a long way to reducing vacancy In popular to visit cities sure
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 15:25
|
|
|
Oracle posted:In popular to visit cities sure Desirable cities is where a major portion of the demand for housing exists, so you agree with OP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:On the latter, lol. Just reminded of that article about how China's going to collapse because they're building too many houses and it's making house prices plummet. this is badly, badly, badly misunderstanding the current economic issue in china around housing basically there are two issues. first it is the conglomerates building housing that are in real trouble. they are overleveraged and cannot borrow money - but also can't afford to finish the current apartments they're building (and in many cases already sold to buyers who are already paying mortgages). evergrande is the biggest name here but there's plenty of others. this isn't about housing prices (remember: they already sold these) - it's about their ability to borrow money to complete the projects they already have. now, that is impacted in part by the future value of the properties that are on the drawing board or not sold already, but the fundamental problem is the capital structure. they borrowed way too much money, and they designed their capital structure on the ability to continue to borrow money at very low rates - and when the music stopped (because the Chinese government realized this was a dangerous debt bubble and moved to pop it) they are hosed in the same way any overleveraged company gets when it suddenly can't borrow. in short: the issue isn't landlords, or property speculators. it's the companies building massive apartment building complexes that are in trouble. second, there are a lot of chinese regional governments that support themselves via property sales - and a slowdown in property values fucks over those regional governments. this is more a chinese governmental structure issue about having proper funding for those regional governments. this was never going to work long-term and always was going to need to be fixed at some point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
Posted this in the Student Loan Forgiveness FAQ thread, but FYI: The Biden administration is kicking off the student loan forgiveness process. If you have sent the DOE your tax returns for 2020 or 2021 for any reason (income verification, IBR, etc.) or filled out a FAFSA form in 2020 or 2021, then it should be applied automatically in the coming weeks and you don't need to do anything. If not, then the form to verify will be going live on the DOE site in "the coming days." The form will be available from October 2022 to December 2023. Form will be one-page long and does not require any supporting documents. (It is basically just a one-page thing you sign digitally swearing you really are eligible and promising not to intentionally try to defraud the government.) quote:“In October, the US Department of Education will launch a short online application for student debt relief. You won’t need to upload any supporting documents or use your FSA ID to submit your application,” the email said. https://twitter.com/betsy_klein/status/1575498579535310851
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
How do people in this thread feel about land value taxes? From what I've read, they are either the perfect tax system or libertarian nonsense. To me, taxing people speculating on vacant lots sounds pretty good, and it does seem like property taxes would disincentivize people from improving their properties, but I am far from a domain expert in urban tax structures. I actually think that, as part of decommodifying housing, we should make the first $large_amount of people's primary residence tax-free, and then raise taxes on subsequent properties (or land use), and boost state funding to cities where this is going to cause a problem (or, just boost state funding to all cities in general; its wild to me that cities largely have to raise their own revenue). The thinking being that people's houses should not be treated as investments, and moving is hugely disruptive for most people, so we shouldn't tax houses in a way that can force people to move just because their house's value has gone up. (California's half-assed solution to this, prop 13, has caused a ton of problems, so those problems are also informing this solution.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Posted this in the Student Loan Forgiveness FAQ thread, but FYI: otoh, this part stinks: https://twitter.com/mstratford/status/1575529368302292992
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 19:02
|
|
|
Laterite posted:otoh, this part stinks: There’s a paywall here. Am I correct in the impression that means if you were unlucky enough to have had your loans sold by the federal government to a private bank after taking them out through the government that you are no longer eligible? What’s the legal damage these loan servicers have to bring these suits that they’d win? Most importantly, how the gently caress did the administration not think of this before rolling out?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/29/politics/alito-supreme-court-kagan-robertsSamuel Alito posted:‘Questioning our integrity crosses an important line’ Get hosed, Alito.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
Big Slammu posted:There’s a paywall here. Am I correct in the impression that means if you were unlucky enough to have had your loans sold by the federal government to a private bank after taking them out through the government that you are no longer eligible? What’s the legal damage these loan servicers have to bring these suits that they’d win? Most importantly, how the gently caress did the administration not think of this before rolling out? FFEL Loans are a certain type of loan from pre-2010 where the government just backed the loan that was issued by a private lender. Your loan would have been an FFEL from the start and doesn't become one later/get sold. Post-Obamacare, they no longer exist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 19:08
|
|
|
Big Slammu posted:There’s a paywall here. Am I correct in the impression that means if you were unlucky enough to have had your loans sold by the federal government to a private bank after taking them out through the government that you are no longer eligible? What’s the legal damage these loan servicers have to bring these suits that they’d win? Most importantly, how the gently caress did the administration not think of this before rolling out? Here's an NPR article as well, but, yes. In a reversal, the Education Dept. is excluding millions from student loan relief Bait and switching ~4 million prospective voters at the cusp of a midterm election which is already shaping up to be a disaster seems unwise to me, but I'm no big brain Democratic consultant or administration official.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
i don't know if getting rid of landlords is what we need, but hell, i still fully support it on top of whatever else
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 19:17
|
|