|
glowing-fish posted:Yes, there are counterexamples to Washington's solid-blue status. The 2004 governor's race was especially close, and I don't know why. Was Rossi a much better campaigner than Gregoire, or was it because Bush had coattails that year? Washington, despite going consistently democratic when it counts, has always been very much a 48/52 state (and sometimes even closer) so it does not take much to make a race incredibly tight. Rossi was an okay campaigner, the republicans in general were very strong that cycle, and the democrats who were volunteering and super passionate about democratic causes in 2004 on the ground spent their time being passionate about Kerry/Bush rather than pushing Gregoire would be my guesses based on what I saw but I am no pollster.
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 15:06 |
|
|
"We're in real danger of having people care about their jobs, and having to care about our employees with wages like that" says local businessman in an argument he apparently believes persuasive. "You know the feeling of placing an order, needing to repeat it three times, and then hoping against hope the two teenagers making fun of your accent don't spit in your food? Those days are in danger of being over forever" he grimly warns.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Or a bunch of apartments whose rents are at least a standard deviation above the mean? Unless the answer you expect here is "rich people appear out of thin air to move into those apartments" then yes those apartments will still help to bring down rents, because prior to their existence the rich people were living in non-rich person housing and thus driving up those rents. The problem is if there is no non-rich person housing available whatsoever and that is a real threat, but pretending that more apartments are somehow a bad thing is the opposite of a solution.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:If it wasn't already easy enough to absorb, she could just shave off a few hours a week and they'd be making the same money every month before the increase. A business owner who doesn't make money by their employees showing up is an idiot or a saint. If she is a remotely rational business person (which she apparently is given the size of her business) then cutting hours would be foolish, because there aren't any pointless hours being worked. She is making money from her employees working. For as business-focused as American culture is, there is a weird misconception that crops up all over the place that employment is basically a form of charity. It isn't. Employers make money by their employees labor. If you can make more money through more labor, but you can't afford to hire more people, you have an issue with capital, not with salary.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
I'm pretty happy Colorado is getting all the hype and weed tourists because weed tourism certainly hasn't made Amsterdam a more pleasant place to live. Weed should be legal but being an island of legality sucks, and I am thrilled Colorado is taking the bullet for us there.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:So, those of you who followed Seattle's most recent mayoral election may remember Peter Steinbrueck--an also-ran candidate whose platform was basically "Not In My Back Yard"--who dropped out and endorsed Ed Murray not too terribly long into the election. Well, per the Seattle Times, Steinbrueck was just given a just-barely-not-six-figure no-bid consulting contract with the city. The mayor sees no problem with this. Underneath the veneer of progressive slogans and Northwest fake politeness, Northwest politics are dirty as gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Anyone who is paid enough to live in Seattle but chooses instead to commute in is, in my opinion, too dumb to be trusted with any important decisions up to and including matters of life and death.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:Maybe cops don't want their families attacked by associates of the criminals they arrest. Just a thought. Real concerned about all this crime and stuff. Going to move to Kent.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:I would love it if Washington replaced the sales tax with an income tax. I doubt any state is going to change their tax structure significantly in my life though. Straight up replacement might have traction. Past income tax movements have been "income tax in addition to the sales tax" and people see that as a tax on top a tax, even if the specific proposal lowers sales tax proportionally.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:From what I've heard Boeing's shittiness goes beyond the usual MBA myopia and into straight-up spite at times. Business education is shifting into valuing long term growth and fostering employee trust. Boeing is basically a case study in action. And yeah all the Boeing engineers I talk to have me extremely concerned.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
BraveUlysses posted:
From what I hear that may be literally the only good thing about working for Boeing. Get that education cash.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Mrit posted:Nope, they are clogging up South Lake Union and slowly spreading. Some days I just can't wait for Amazon to run out of money... I laugh whenever people say this. When did you move to Seattle?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
Mrit posted:Born in North Seattle, lived here ever since. So, why do you look back fondly on the abandoned warehouses of early nineties south lake union? An entire city changed by money, that seems like the weirdest neighborhood to get nostalgic over. There's way more housing there now, a grocery store, much more park space, lots of jobs in walking distance. It's not a bohemian paradise but it never was, at least not since the fifties.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Cascadia is the weirdest thing to me. Hmm, we make all our money selling poo poo to the rest of America via being part of the American system. Let's leave that, it will all be totally fine. Like, what is the appeal there.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:What are they going to do, move Microsoft to Alabama? The vast majority of tech jobs in the US are not in the pacific northwest. Best Friends fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
When cascadia is real there won't be flags, just skulls and trinkets hanging from spears.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
"Hmmm, time to talk about guns on somethingawful dot com." - a very good idea
Best Friends fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Goddamnit we talked about guns too much that LeJackal was summoned. That is literally any talking about guns and it's amazing it took this long. But yeah if you find yourself ever thinking "I'm going to have a reasonable discussion about guns with these fine gentlemen from the gun forum" it's probably best to reconsider. This thread is on it's way to the gas chamber and it's not like anyone is going to convince anyone of anything on 594.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Magres posted:One actually scientifically grounded (at least seemingly, I don't know enough enviro stuff to really judge, which is part of the reason I'm bringing it up for discussion here) argument I've heard against GMOs is that breeding herbicide resistant, pesticide producing plants (then hosing them down with herbicide that now can't hurt them) is producing more herbicide resistant weeds and pesticide resistant bugs, and also loving over bugs we actually want to stick around, like bees. That seems like an argument for regulation rather than labeling. If a practice is harmful it won't be stopped by consumer choice.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Seattle as a whole gave up on requiring dogs to be service anything for admittance and now you can happily take your normal non-service dog onto the bus or into grocery stores and everyone seems to be okay with it. It's like this huge cultural shift happened overnight and no one even noticed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
On railroad tracks and blackberries - the railroad drives by once in a while and sprays everything on the sides with herbicides. Sometimes you can see clear "lines of death" through the blackberry bushes and shrubs illustrating this, with green bands showing where the sprayer had a gap. If you absolutely have to pick next to railroad tracks, make sure you wash the holy hell out of them. It only sprays a ways though (20 feet or so?) so if you're a decent distance from the tracks, you're probably good.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
I do not understand why a guy jumped in and starting, out of nowhere, arguing a pro-pitbull stance until some people finally bit and responded but here we are and it is at least kind of entertaining in a surreal way. The Northwest Thread is the graveyard of every dumb issue. Next a guy is going to start posting about circumcision.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
The tunnel is a disaster? No one could have predicted!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Mrit posted:It's almost like digging under an area that was literally filled in with sawdust and garbage was a bad idea. This was prescient: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/what-could-possibly-go-wrong/Content?oid=4399657 quote:But Governor Chris Gregoire and most members of the city council—under city council president Richard Conlin's leadership—insist that there is nothing to worry about and that any public discussion about potential cost overruns is unnecessary. So the city council is on the verge of committing Seattle to this project despite the fact that there are no complete designs yet, despite the fact that there are no bids in from contractors, despite the fact that we don't really know how much it will cost, and despite the fact that we haven't seen the state's environmental impact study. Seattle traditionally has a super corrupt city council and mayor's office. I expect this sort of poo poo from them. I am very disappointed the voters went along though. Yes it will look cool to have the waterfront back, but a lot of things will look cool for billions of dollars. Best Friends fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:A loving broadsword!? They're nerds.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
Leading to more people trying to live within SF proper to avoid the traffic, leading to even higher housing prices in SF which has substantial constraints on building enough housing to meet demand, leading to SF being a brutally tough city to live in for the not wealthy. No replacement may be a decent idea (and in any case given the facts on the ground I think it's pretty much the inevitable end-state) but holding SF up as an inherently positive example is not convincing me. Ardennes posted:Wasn't one of the plans to tear down the viaduct but build a larger surface level parkway to handle the traffic? Hell you probably could have added a rail line for the money this project is going to cost. Yes, and unless Bertha starts working and new money appears it's probably the best case scenario. Best Friends fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Dec 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
I'm genuinely interested in positive examples that aren't San Fransisco. SF: - has BART, and we don't. -has gone through the economic transformation Seattle has, but much much more so -is a bad situation I don't think they're ideal comparisons and I don't think it necessarily worked out for SF, because traffic is only part of the equation. What other examples can you provide?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
I'm not concern trolling or whatever the term is, I really am asking for other examples.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Yes I saw the list of cities thank you, I was hoping for more information.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
I actually voted for surface transit and was just asking if anyone had actual data supporting it, and am impressed by how thoroughly goons flip out and perceive conflict when asked for data.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
The Growth Management Act is such a rare act of forward thinking and putting future good above monied interests I really can't believe that it has gone so long being relatively unknown, and surviving. It definitely does hurt a lot of normal people, like most laws, but it on balance has and will continue to do good for the area as a whole. Because gently caress becoming LA.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Boy, imagine if lots of tech people worked in the Seattle area. It really would change everything. I bet it would become a libertarian paradise, just like San Fransisco.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
With cascadia we could finally be free of the scourge of fluoridated water.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
Reason posted:Anyone get stuck in traffic yesterday? I saw protestors chained together on 99 north just after the battery street tunnel and heard there were more at the mercer on/off ramp. I cannot figure out what the open carry movement is even trying to accomplish. A "let's make guns seem normal to society" movement seems like it could be a plausible goal, but then every open carry movement seems to act completely opposite to this. They don't say "look at me, I'm normal." Instead, what the message usually seems to be is "look at me I SAID LOOK AT ME hahaha this is legal WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?" The movement makes more sense to me as a pro-gun control movement than anything else, since open carry dudes seem to want to appear scary and weird, and confront ordinary people who have no opinions on guns and force them to have an opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
With the Viaduct down that will probably become a pretty vibrant area, but the existing bus tunnel is just a few blocks away.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:Here's something that should happen more: penalties for vacancies. Developers shouldn't be building high-end housing that proceeds to sit empty as speculation. They'd be pushed to build apartments targeted at and priced for people who actually need them. Tax penalties for owners of vacant properties sound interesting. Anyone know if anything has been written on their effects? Places like New York, SF and London have a decent fraction of all downtown units sitting vacant most of the year, with them being purchased as 2 week a year pads by the superwealthy. While taxing them won't dissuade most of the superwealthy from not doing that (because they are superwealthy) it might have a little effect at the margins, and would at least give extra revenue to the city.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:
"Alternative medicine" is apparently a luxury good. It does not make a lot of sense, but here we are.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Get in on Kshama's reelection campaign. Socialist Alternative is making that campaign and rent control/housing its top priority, and the more people we have involved, the more likely we'll make progress. The city council as a whole is finally starting to support the idea, but obviously the state legislature is going to be a big barrier. We might be able to get some of the other demands without the legislature through--I don't think they've banned building low-income housing or cracking down on all the lovely practices landlords are doing... yet. If you do paragraph one then every place will be become paragraph two with new people paying greater than paragraph one prices. Prices are jacking up because people want to live here at a rate outpacing new construction. The solution more construction, not less. San Francisco faces the same pressures as us, has rent control, and is much much worse (in combination with codes and zoning that further make new construction challenging). Best Friends fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
I didn't say it stops development, I said it slows it, which is obvious. If you make new construction less profitable there will be less of it. And yes making running a property less profitable will on average lower quality. Why do you think the (relatively) cheap places in Kent you're looking at have lovely management? Magic? Gigantic coincidence? Show me the rent control success stories. Show me where it has lowered average rents. Public housing is great. Low income housing is great. Rent control is a clusterfuck and makes things worse for everyone but the lucky lottery winners and the highest end developers, who have an even more constrained supply to jack prices on their limited offerings for. Best Friends fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 15:06 |
|
|
Gerund posted:"New Construction" is a very silly thing to sell out all forms of regulation for, as nothing about new construction in the abstract actually creates reasonable and affordable construction. Luxury condos and dormitory-style bed boxes are just as likely to be built as multi-generational housing without state regulatory involvement. Neither I nor anyone sane is saying there should be "no forms of regulation" - my problem is specifically with rent control. Which incidentally, as one of many problems, makes the luxury condo problem actually worse. If the threat of turning rent controlled hangs over middle class and lower housing, and supply of housing is even more constricted, those both further incentivize building luxury housing versus middle and working class housing. Uranium Phoenix posted:New York is a good example. In "Rent Regulation in New York: Myths and Facts" (2009), Timothy L. Collins goes through the myths surrounding rent control. He specifically notes on page 3 "There is no convincing evidence that moderate rent regulations depress construction rates." At the same time, it succeeded in depressing rents for 25,000 people, the vast majority of them poor or middle class. Incentives programs that rewarded investments into the units meant the units were well maintained. My only criticism is that the policy could have been broadened and expanded to do more good. The UK is also a superb example of how housing issues can be tackled. Timothy Collins is a lawyer, and you will find lawyers on either side of any given issue assembling the best evidence they can for a policy. In his paper, the best he can say is "well you can't prove rent control made prices worse." Beyond that, by citing New York housing policy as a success story, that in and of itself shows how weak the argument is. If Seattle becomes like New York or San Fransisco as far as housing, that is as extreme as failure gets. You can't show a case where rent control corresponds to lowering average prices because it doesn't exist. In contrast to Collins, we have the consensus of the economics profession. http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_6upyzeUpI73V5k0 Of note, Thaler's response, Thaler being a leading light of behavioral economics, which argues that mainstream economics discounts too much real world data and human biases, exactly the sort of economics criticism generally friendlier to leftist causes. Here is Thaler on the question: Disagree Next questions: does the sun revolve around the earth. Here is Krugman: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-affair.html The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and -- among economists, anyway -- one of the least controversial. In 1992 a poll of the American Economic Association found 93 percent of its members agreeing that ''a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.'' Almost every freshman-level textbook contains a case study on rent control, using its known adverse side effects to illustrate the principles of supply and demand. Sky-high rents on uncontrolled apartments, because desperate renters have nowhere to go -- and the absence of new apartment construction, despite those high rents, because landlords fear that controls will be extended? Predictable. Bitter relations between tenants and landlords, with an arms race between ever-more ingenious strategies to force tenants out -- what yesterday's article oddly described as ''free-market horror stories'' -- and constantly proliferating regulations designed to block those strategies? Predictable. And as for the way rent control sets people against one another -- the executive director of San Francisco's Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board has remarked that ''there doesn't seem to be anyone in this town who can trust anyone else in this town, including their own grandparents'' -- that's predictable, too. None of this says that ending rent control is an easy decision. Still, surely it is worth knowing that the pathologies of San Francisco's housing market are right out of the textbook, that they are exactly what supply-and-demand analysis predicts. But people literally don't want to know. A few months ago, when a San Francisco official proposed a study of the city's housing crisis, there was a firestorm of opposition from tenant-advocacy groups. They argued that even to study the situation was a step on the road to ending rent control -- and they may well have been right, because studying the issue might lead to a recognition of the obvious. So now you know why economists are useless: when they actually do understand something, people don't want to hear about it. Rent control, like nuclear power and GMOs, is a case where the far left is directly contrary to science. It's embarrassing to see. quote:In places where landlords are consistently abusing tenants, ignoring maintenance to squeeze out extra profit, and other illegal or dishonest practices, that's a problem with the industry being poorly regulated or policed. Much like managers and businesses getting away with wage theft, landlords often get away with abusing tenants since in both instances police and agencies almost never go after these criminals. Given that these abuses overwhelmingly happen to the most vulnerable and with the least resources to have any recourse, it's a social justice issue as well. Rent problems are one of the many things that happen when the imbalance of the power of capital and labor is as skewed as it is. Landlords are incentived to ignore those things because it isn't making them money on lower end housing. I agree regulation (or in Seattle's case, enforcement of existing regulation + regulation) is an answer here, but you are ignoring the implications that lower profit incentivizes the shittiest landlords that those landlords can get away with being. This is why rent controlled buildings are so often disasters. I posted in this thread because your own post makes the point so clearly against itself - you found that the cheap apartments had unbearably lovely landlords at the same time you want to make more apartments cheap. While I generally agree with both concepts of "let's make landlords good" and "apartments should be cheaper" you are missing the obvious connection between the two.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 20:05
|
|