|
BeAuMaN posted:good masks. also remember that an N95 mask isn't an N95 if you have any substantial amount of facial hair under the edges of it. this is why firefighters are always clean-shaven or mustache-only; a mask with a leaky seal at the edge is a mask that isn't doing much
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
to be clear, a mask is always better than no mask, because even with a leaky seal at least some of the air's being filtered. but the effectiveness goes up dramatically if you can get an airtight seal
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2020 17:48
|
|
|
who was the last D/R nominee from CA? Reagan?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:Yeah. However, Reagan came off as an affable midwestern-born grandpa from Orange County back when it was filled with orchards, not as an elitist city slicker. There was also no affordability crisis yet to prompt a mass exodus of Californians that would exacerbate housing crises in other states. Plus California was a purple state in those days and not as big of a target for RWM wrath and scorn like it is now. that was what i figured; that the last nominee came before the first housing crunch and subsequent blueshift.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
part of that too is that the US is too big to be monocultured, despite the best efforts of capitalism. there's other parts of the world too where people will have an identity of origin more specific than a sovereign country. lots of catalonians aren't going to introduce themselves as being "from spain", or benghali as "from india", and someone from belfast is likely going to identify as almost anything other than "from the UK" and even when people do identify as simply "american" they often are referring to their own cultural piece of the US. That's why the term "real americans" gets thrown around, as if not being from the south or a rural area means you literally aren't from the US
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2020 21:39
|
|
|
Zuul the Cat posted:You can always say Anaheim because you can link it with Disneyland and that will give people a rough estimation. Failing that yeah, just say LA and someone will inevitably ask you if you live in Hollywood. what's kinda fun is if you've ever actually lived or had friends/family who lived in hollywood. it blows people's goddamn minds
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Despite California's agricultural sector being enormous, it's also only like 2% of the state's economy. It'd be terrible to lose it to climate change and drought, but it also won't ruin the state's economy if that happens. By which I mean, climate change alone isn't going to degrade the state's economy to the point that it stops being a wealthy state full of expensive to live in cities. It is also not going to run out of water for those cities, because something like 75% of the state's fresh water usage is for agriculture. No matter how many "congress created dust bowl" signs line the rural highways, eventually the voters (which means the cities) will vote themselves the water rights that are currently held by the farmers, if it comes down to severe droughts. agriculture's role in the economy is a lot more complicated than the % of real GDP or jobs. if you include support industries it employs like 10% of the state. and that's highly regional; there's like five or six counties whose entire economies would cascade-fail rustbelt-style if agriculture became inviable, and another fifteen or so that would have major employment crises on their hands, including ones you might not expect like ventura and sacramento. it's also heavily inbound; something like 1/3 of the ~50billion GDP$ it's responsible for are from out of state. it's dwarfed in GDP dollar amount by finance, information, and manufacturing, but that distorts the picture of how connected it is. The money also tends to flow down the socioeconomic spectrum; overwhelming majority of that value is going into the hands of workers, and the majority of the dollar value comes from items that lean upmarket like fruit, veggies, dairy, and meat (as opposed to staples like corn, soybeans, or rice). that means it skews toward moving money away from the social classes that hoard wealth toward the end of the spectrum that has to spend everything they make, which is the opposite of most of the biggest industries in the state like finance and information. not that i dont doubt clueless suburbanites' ability to turn tantrums about their lawns into economic disaster, but there would be a lot of people who know what they're talking about making persuasive arguments against nuking agriculture, and they'd have the ear of the legislature and executive for sure. 10% of jobs is an enormous amount of voters agriculture absolutely will change over the course of the next century, but i doubt it will be because finance people say "we're more of the economy, let us water our lawns"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2020 01:29
|
|
|
Buffer posted:I thought the film industry was here because it was too far away for Edison to be a dick with his patent consortium. yeah, innovation. it's when you think up a way to do the same thing, but illegally
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2020 06:34
|
|
|
i mean socal, phoenix, and vegas collectively have completely diverted the colorado river, and if we dont keep the water supply going up forever, we might run out of investment properties
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2020 21:34
|
|
|
Tarezax posted:What did you say? I couldn't hear you, on account of the exploding refinery i mean, despite what people from texas will tell you, california still has a capitalist economy. 1.8 billion is deffo a lot but trying to shore up capitalism into something that won't negligently blow poo poo up is a fools errand. the best we can realistically hope for is to keep chattel slavery offshore
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2020 01:37
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:actually regulations (and inspections and especially enforcement via huge fines and lawsuits) do make a difference and are not a "fools errand" even if perfection is unachievable i didn't say that regulations do nothing. anything trying to shore up capitalism is a fool's errand, because capital is functionally incapable of valuing anything other than capital. you can steer the cost-benefit and get some good done but you're still working with a system that will kill people for pocket change ten times out of ten
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2020 03:50
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Are they counting "purchased but unoccupied investment properties" as "non available housing stock"? I assume they are, in which case they are considering physically unoccupied properties as occupied. (And this allows them to push for developer handouts bacause of the "negative stock". As long as homes are being purchased as investments and not actual living spaces the problem will persist.) a vacancy tax is the first step; the eventual goal is putting alternatives to landlords in place, like building or neighborhood coops that must rent some % of their units but can't make a profit beyond paying off their own property taxes. and then eliminating landlording by first mandating lease-to-own and then down the road just blanket banning the ownership of residential units you dont live in imagine the cost of buying a house if the only people you had to compete with on price were other people who wanted to live in the unit
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2020 13:23
|
|
|
it's because fifty is a highway that predates freeways; it was built under the highway-becomes-main-street model. most of the towns in nevada it goes through are like that too. cops love to set up speed traps and pull over anyone with out of state plates and i can't imagine many folks in placerville is chomping at the bit to cut a freeway through their town so tourists can have an easier drive through. i certainly wouldn't be
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2020 13:44
|
|
|
Buffer posted:Why vacancy taxes and not liberalizing adverse possession? Or, ideally, both. tiered property taxes based on land use and occupancy, to incentivize resident ownership and disincentivize landlording and especially asset parking no property tax for resident owners, as long as they have at least one resident per bedroom. can be family, roommate tenants, whatever. one warm body sleeping there more than 3/4 of the nights per year and listing it as their residence on dmv paperwork, zero property tax. next tier up is resident owners with excess unrented living space. something non-trivial but not debilitating either; we want to disincentivize empty bedrooms without severely punishing people for not renting to strangers. next tier up is non-resident landlords who own three units or less (including their residence). the units are occupied, the landlords are Ma and Pa Retiree or whatever, who will eventually croak and the property will very likely be sold by their inheritors. these kinds of landlords are generally not causing many problems. non resident landlords who are real actual flesh and blood human beings who own more than four units and manage them themselves: this is where we start to put the hurt on. this isn't you planning for your retirement under capitalism, this is you trying to get out of having a job. this is just you more or less being a parasite. but again, these are owned by a person who must live fairly close, since they can't hire property managers and go full absentee nonresident landlords who are total absentees, using property managers to do everything that even approaches being "work" and just depositing checks of other people's money. gently caress these people. they're contributing nothing. the tax on this kind of behavior needs to be very high. it needs to be very difficult to make any money doing this. and lastly, any landowner who is anything other than a resident, sole proprietor landlord, or housing non-profit (corporate landlords, essentially): the tax on this needs to be so high that it will only work in unusual outlier situations. this should be rare. it should not only be impossible in most situations to make a profit doing this, it should be very difficult to keep the losses from renting these properties to a level that makes it worth parking assets. and so steep that long-term vacant properties are essentially nonexistent. also while we're fantasizing about things that are technically possible but seem practically insurmountable, i want to go on a motorcycle ride with kathleen hanna and dave chappelle
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2020 03:57
|
|
|
"capitalists are parasites who live off other people's work" is not a right-leaning opinion
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2020 16:08
|
|
|
Zachack posted:"this is you trying to get out of a job" is because it glorifies working as valuable regardless of the work. to incentivize it, not force it. when people rent bedrooms rather than let them sit empty they are contributing to a public resource. so why not give them a tax break versus people who have four bedrooms for two people?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2020 01:01
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:lmao "co-opting the right's messaging"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2020 01:02
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Because they'd like to use those bedrooms when they have guests/family over, I'd wager so go hog wild, and pay 1% or whatever property tax strikes the appropriate balance e: or rent to friends/family you don't mind living with, or remodel the extra space to make lockouts/inlaws, or put the house on the market for someone else and find a smaller place you won't be taxed on. anything is better for the housing market than the bedroom just sitting empty 350 days a year, so make it so anything is *marginally* better for the landowner ee: and apparently i must repeatedly emphasize marginally because otherwise i get called soviet hitler or whatever Cactus Ghost fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Jan 20, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2020 01:57
|
|
|
CMYK BLYAT! posted:using taxation as an incentive to convert private ownership of housing stock to some other system seems reasonable, but you need a framework for that system in place first, at least at some level. use of the tax power to disincentivize lovely stuff is a legitimate and effective tactic, but only if there's some not lovely stuff to redirect that effort to already. without that good alternative, you'll likely just create new, differently lovely poo poo. for sure, this would by no means solve the housing crisis, it's just closing some drains on the housing supply. there'd have to be changes in what incentivizes/enables construction too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2020 02:00
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Yeah, I was referring to OMG assigning value to work, wasn’t making any statement about Bernie, etc. Someone wealthy enough they own four properties isn’t likely trying to avoid serving tables at Chili’s and is likely white collar, but letting individuals create housing franchises isn’t healthy. notice how i said one person per bedroom. this means anyone sharing a bedroom, like couples trying to get pregnant, would "fully occupy" a two-bedroom place. i may not understand why suburbanites are so incredibly horny for spare bedrooms, but i understand that they are. bedrooms = residents makes the math simple and gives families room to grow maybe a tax credit for full occupancy would sell better e: also i'm aware that i'm driving a derail so i'm happy to shut up if theres california politics afoot
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2020 02:12
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:Striving for 100% occupancy is totally stupid. I'm sorry if it gets in the way of your communist fantasies. It removes any slack in the system that could be used in case of emergencies. jesus christ i know i'm not much at sales pitches but did you all just see red and go full berzerk at the possibility of someone paying less in taxes for forgoing a luxury you enjoy people who rent rooms instead of leaving them vacant are adding to the housing supply. the point is to subsidize them doing that. that's it. the commissar is not going to come for you in the night because of your third bedroom with all the throw pillows
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
first they came for the bed scarves
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:veritas alone owns 250 apartment buildings in san francisco. spare bedrooms are a pittance. which is why the entire second half of my post is there
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2020 19:42
|
|
|
sincx posted:It's because how tone-deaf and ridiculous that proposal was under cut the rest of his message. The vast majority of people do not want the government to punish them for not wanting strangers in their empty rooms. i mean, for one, if we're going off what the vast majority of people in california want, it's the status quo. we couldn't even repeal the law banning new rent control statutes. and for two, what people currently want is a terrible metric for judging ideas for progress. the vast majority of people didn't want seat belts either, for one fairly extreme example.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2020 05:23
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:A different take on housing crises is that there is plenty of open space and less developed cities away from the city centers... but that's because jobs still require you to commute to the city center, so you're spending hours in the car in exchange for a cheaper house. this is generally a good idea, but i think your estimate of 25% of jobs not being compatible with remote work is wildly off. silence_kit posted:It’s only 6%? Lol Living in SF since the early 2000s is actually what informed the idea that there could be worth in encouraging people to occupy all bedrooms; the only people in SF with spare bedrooms are super rich. like, the dolby family tier rich. and it's been that way since long before the current housing crisis. I think it was at least in part an artifact of the mobility that a dense living environment provided. If someone had an open room, they either moved to a smaller place or got a roommate. spare bedrooms have never really been a thing, because it was just a waste of money when it was easy to just move to a smaller place. and i guess there's some self-selection at work there too, because people who hated that enough would just move somewhere less dense. Cactus Ghost fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Jan 21, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:This is just wildly wrong. that may be indicative of a blind spot i have, because literally everyone i knew either rented or had gotten a mortgage through the city's low-income housing lottery.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
yeah as long as you live and work in the transit accessible part you can legitimately live carless or as a one-car household in LA now. that wasn't possible basically anywhere in la 30 years ago unless you lived within walking distance of work
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2020 05:42
|
|
|
in a lot of cases, those motivations are driven by the economic realities of life under capitalism.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2020 15:03
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:i also heard the real reason was because they were out of control for shoplifting and other security problems. that sounds like blame-the-poor classist bullshit imo. short of frequent straight up looting, shrinkage doesn't seem like something that could kill a grocery store
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
the neverending litany of  is because of the neverending injustices of capitalismthat isn't an excuse for idle cynicism and political inaction, sure, but it's still worth pointing out
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2020 21:47
|
|
|
MarcusSA posted:Which sucks because this hurts the poor/ middle class hardest. ehhh... that could also hit the poor and middle class. you ever seen the prices at the marina safeway?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2020 07:55
|
|
|
i saw a dude grabndash a thing of daipers from the fillmore safeway and the security guard hollered after him to use the side exit next time so he doesn't get the guards in trouble it was some beautiful working class solidarity ngl
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
how feasible would it be to have a municipal pick up / wash / drop off for cotton diapers? commercial customers have those kinds of laundry services pretty affordably and municipal garbage pickup is already a thing. my previous post had me thinking about how disposable diapers are one of the most commonly shoplifted items because of how dumb expensive they are
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2020 22:14
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:i and many others will fight hard, together, to help you that's a nice sentiment, but words are wind. what can individuals do to help?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2020 03:37
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:the good news is that a lot of people and groups don't like the bill, and now they get to punish Weiner by endorsing Jackie Fielder, who puts it much more politely than I would: "Urbanist pro-housing allies need to do a better job of listening to low income people and people of color before legislating or advocating on their behalf." sf state college of ethnic studies, a home for hellraising activists since the longest student strike in US history https://web.archive.org/web/20150223133936/http://www.library.sfsu.edu/about/collections/strike/chronology.html
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2020 04:23
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Maybe if we got rid of money in american politics somehow, like truly radical and comprehensive campaign finance reform, then a decade or two later it might become feasible for our congress to broadly reject the influence of billionaires. Right now, it's impossible. i mean, if we made the lives of billionaires and their congresspeople unlivable, something would happen. if they were harassed in public 24/7 it'd definitely move the needle, but it'd probably just be that they'd clutch their pearls and sic the police on us.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
right, but they do spend some, and their congresspeople spend far more
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2020 01:08
|
|
|
hence why i said billionaires, and their congresspeople wrt the billionaires in this scenario it isn't to change their minds, it's to yell at them until they leave things like restaurants and... yacht operas or whatever the gently caress
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2020 01:13
|
|
|
rupaul is fracking lol
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
you can however go outside for exercise in a group with the people you live with, since you're all sharing space anyway
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2020 01:01
|
|