Pacific Northwest Thread Mk. II: Crossing the Duwamish

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Pacific Northwest Thread Mk. II: Crossing the Duwamish

«‹›3 »

What regions belong in the Pacific Northwest?
	Alaska, US
	British Columbia, CA
	Washington, US
	Oregon, US
	Idaho, US
	Montana, US
	Wyoming, US
	California, US (MODS PLEASE BAN ANYONE VOTING FOR THIS OPTION TIA)

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

View Results

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

My diet's allotment of junk food is fairly limited so that if I eat more than like half a donut I get sick. Heck, the other day I ate 10 skittles and got sick. Everyone should aspire to have as weak a stomach as I.

# ¿ Jan 9, 2017 12:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 00:12

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

What's a stemwinder?

# ¿ Mar 15, 2017 22:10

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

I like what I've read on Urban Kchoze: http://urbankchoze.blogspot.de/?m=1

And Strong Towns, which, as the name implies, tends to focus on non-big-cities: https://www.strongtowns.org

For a more mainstream resource you could read CityLab, it's basically a spin-off of the Atlantic: http://www.citylab.com

# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 20:10

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Freakazoid_ posted:

Rent control is increasingly sounding like the only option left.

Rent control just means you're in luck if you got in early, before the boom. Plus it tends to make renters more NIMBY-ish like homeowners, because they're no longer affected by housing supply-demand imbalance. Plus it only helps if you just, like, never have to move, ever. Hope you don't eventually have children or need to move somewhere else for work!

Although I wouldn't mind German-style rent control, coupled with German-style land use policies. But for some reason American rent control always seems way more absolutist than the former, and there's zero chance of the latter because increasing density in SFH areas or allowing a bakery means literally killing America.

quote:

I think someone in the previous thread had a good argument against it, but his solution was "build more", and now that we can see building more isn't helping, might as well give rent control a shot.

if you think any of the progressive high-demand cities have actually tried building more. They allow a tiny bit more density and then go "well wouldja lookit that it didn't help! (while there continued to be a flood of new people in a booming economy)"

Progressives are okay with density, as long as it's density that happened a long time ago. New density is gross.

# ¿ Apr 3, 2017 11:00

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Sure but on the other hand DEATH TO KKKAPITALISM really makes you think

# ¿ Jun 30, 2017 15:44

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

I'm not defending lovely behavior, I'm agreeing that not all small business owners are scum.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2017 23:13

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Rent control is dumb, just let private developers actually make more housing in more than a tiny slice of the city and have the government build non-lovely public housing (mixed income, mixed use).

# ¿ Jul 4, 2017 09:09

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

DevNull posted:

Yes, clearly what we just need is trickle down housing. The free market just needs to be left alone.

1. That's the problem, the market is pretty obviously not free at the moment. Zoning in nearly every American city is a disaster that seems designed to hurt people, especially the poor and working class. You think super low density is something intended to help the working man? It's pretty obviously exclusionary and classist (and probably racist), especially when combined with school district boundaries. And yet we get idiot leftists thinking that putting what amounts to a production quota on a product that everyone needs has no relation to the rising prices, like supply and demand don't exist.

2. Yeah we could probably get lower housing prices through public housing ala Singapore or Vienna too, but that ain't happening right now either. Ideally we'd have both.

Peachfart posted:

If by ?????? you mean 'tear down sfh', then yes.

Exactly. It's not normal for a major city to reserve huge amounts of residential land for detached single-family homes exclusively, so it's not exactly surprising that insisting that supply not be allowed to match demand results in crazy housing prices.

And even if we had full communism now, ~*~the state~*~ would tear it down to provide housing for people too.

Reene posted:

Why is it dumb exactly

Removes people's incentive to support more housing supply as soon as they're under rent control because they're immune to future market changes. That might not be so bad if land use policy in the US was sane by default, but it's not, and loosening zoning regulations even a little is like pulling teeth.

Only helps you if you get in early. So it's pretty nativist and exclusionary. How does it help future poor/working-class/middle-class people who want to move in after an economic boom? It doesn't. It segregates people by timing, which is dumb.

Ties people down with geographic golden handcuffs. Hope you never have to move to go to college, or to be closer to work, or to temporarily to take care of an ailing relative, or to have a bigger home because now you have kids, or one of a million other reasons, because then rent control does jack poo poo for you.

There are probably other reasons, those are the ones I got off the top of my head. Rent control like in Germany would probably be okay though because it's more broad-based and land use in Germany is actually sane.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2017 11:02

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

anthonypants posted:

Why do you believe zoning is a bogeyman? Zoning can be changed very easily for developers. It was only a few years ago that Seattle had to change the laws to allow ~~extra small~~ high-density apartments

While I'm personally okay with micro studios being built, let's face it they're kind of an edge case and not a real solution to making enough housing. What would be a significant part of a solution is upzoning SFH areas to allow for missing middle (duplex, triplex, townhome, etc.) type housing. Wanna guess what happened with the HALA recommendations that Mayor Murray initially supported to do that?

quote:

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said Wednesday he�ll no longer seek to allow more types of housing in the city�s single-family zones, after all.
...
�The Council and I created the HALA process because our city is facing a housing affordability crisis. In the weeks since the HALA recommendations were released, sensationalized reporting by a few media outlets has created a significant distraction and derailed the conversation that we need to have on affordability and equity,� he said in a statement Wednesday.

Some, though not all, of the controversy around the mayor�s proposal for single-family zones focused on him and his 28-member volunteer task force framing the changes in terms of race.

In its report to Murray, the HALA Committee wrote: �Seattle�s zoning has roots in racial and class exclusion and remains among the largest obstacles to realizing the city�s goals for equity and affordability.�

That language and similar remarks by the mayor stirred debate over the relationship between the city�s single-family zones and ongoing racial segregation.

�We also must not be afraid to talk about the painful fact that parts of our city are still impacted by the intersection of income, race and housing,� Murray said in his statement Wednesday.
...
�Fundamentally, this is a conversation about building a Seattle that welcomes people from all walks of life � where working people, low-income families, seniors, young people and the kids of current residents all can live in our city,� the mayor said Wednesday.

But some homeowners raised concerns about the changes encouraging developers to tear down bungalows and thereby alter the character of neighborhoods.

Yup, neighborhood character is more important than people being able to afford their rent. And if it keeps the poors out of my block, hey, bonus!

Like, particularly when you factor in school district boundaries, keeping large minimum lot sizes is pretty obviously exclusionary. It's part of a culture of people keeping away the poors. I really don't see how anyone can consider themselves progressive and still support that.

quote:

Portland frequently waives developers from building parking lots, and as IM DAY DAY IRL mentioned earlier, neither the developers nor the city care if existing roads can deal with more people on them. But we can't do rent control because of zoning laws?

Getting rid of parking requirements is good. Portland pretty obviously does care about being able to support more people on the roads, they continually (albeit somewhat slowly) add more bike infrastructure, and IIRC the data shows that the increase in commuters Portland has seen the last several years has been almost entirely absorbed by the increase in bike mode share.

George posted:

Lack of parking should require developers to invest a meaningful portion of the money they squeeze in mass transit and bike infrastructure. This is a huge no-brainer.

Yeah I can agree with this. Instead of requiring car parking (which itself just encourages more cars on the road that, I agree, there isn't really space for), require things that support walking, biking, and transit. There's lots of random things you can lean on developers to do in that space.

Cicero fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Jul 5, 2017

# ¿ Jul 5, 2017 22:48

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

IM DAY DAY IRL posted:

As an avid cyclist I will openly say that increased funding in bike infrastructure does very little to actually impact traffic congestion and is money better spent elsewhere.

This is an incredibly wrong, wrong statement. Bike infrastructure is INCREDIBLY cheap compared to car or good transit infrastructure, like at least an order of magnitude cheaper. For the cost of a single new rail line you could coat all of Seattle or Portland with protected bike lanes on every arterial, new bike paths, bike parking all over the place, probably bike escalators, etc. and still have money to burn. Supporting biking gives a city extremely good bang for the buck. Now obviously there are downsides to biking as well (more vulnerable to bad weather, not useful for long-distance commutes, not everyone can bike), but it's still a no-brainer because of its upsides and how cheap it is.

I used to work at Google in Mountain View, which has mostly standard American bad bike infrastructure with a few good multi-use trails in the area. Because Google goes all-out with supporting biking themselves with showers and bike parking at work, for those that live within 9 miles of the office, 21% bike to work. Granted, the bay area has great weather for biking and the south bay is largely flat, but that's still with mostly lovely infrastructure!

quote:

Funds for mass transit only work when the city actually wants to invest in a practical, sustainable, and expandable system. Investments like this make more sense when residents are likely to utilize public transit. If they continue to build $750,000 apartments in NoPo it's a pretty safe bet the new owners/tenants are unlikely to be spotted on a public bus or... ***GASP*** THE CRIME TRAIN. Force developers to incorporate logical parking solutions that meet a pre-determined criteria into their designs or refuse permits- funneling money into a blue sky public transit system will never provide enough financial (or political) support to effectively make an impact.

Honestly you just sound really out of touch if you think affluent people living in fancy apartments in major cities are too good for trains. I think you may be confusing those people with Trump voters living in suburbia.

# ¿ Jul 5, 2017 23:07

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Yeah I remember reading something about it on bikeportland a while back, my google searches are failing me. I'm finding other articles indicating that bike commuting is growing much more quickly than the number of commuters for other modes, but not the exact claim I remember seeing.

edit: okay so I haven't been able to find that specific claim, but I did find this: https://bikeportland.org/2016/09/15/what-gas-prices-portland-bike-commuting-stays-strong-new-data-show-191430

So between the two you notice two things:

1. The number of people driving alone or with others is on a steady trend downwards.

2. The driving mode share appears to have been absorbed primarily by biking and working from home. The chart shows bike commuting rates increasing from 2% to 7%, that's 250% growth over 15 years.

edit2: as for my claim that bike infra is cheap, back in 2008 the city estimated the value of its entire bikeway network at $60 million, which is basically loose change by infrastructure standards. The value of the road network is probably what, 100x that?

Cicero fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jul 5, 2017

# ¿ Jul 5, 2017 23:10

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

While googling found another interesting chart (Multnomah County = mostly Portland, population-wise, for those who don't know):

https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/17/even-in-suburban-oregon-drive-alone-trips-are-a-shrinking-share-of-new-commutes-183639

So while there was an increase in car commuters, more newcomers chose biking than driving, apparently (or existing people switched, I guess). Sad to see transit being flat, though this doesn't take into account the Orange line later opening.

Sorry for posting so much, it's just weird to see people who claim to be progressive support things like parking minimums or exclusionary zoning that are very much gently caress the poor-type policies. Like, in the places that are nicer to the poor, where it's easier for them to live in the developed world, do you see the car dominance and huge minimum lot sizes everywhere like in the US? Nah, because those things gently caress over the poor.

Cicero fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Jul 5, 2017

# ¿ Jul 5, 2017 23:33

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Schwack posted:

I think this kind of employer support is necessary, and needs to be more widespread, in order to see an uptick in the number of folks commuter biking. I only work ~6 miles from home, but I don't bike because the route is hilly enough that I'll be gross and sweaty by the time I get to work. If I had a spot to clean up, I'd be 100% on the bike train. Dodging 40 minutes of traffic for a bit of exercise sounds amazing.

That's not to say I'm opposed to growing Portland's bike infrastructure, but there are barriers that more public infrastructure just can't overcome.

It'd be great to see more employer support, some rules around that would be welcome. Maybe something like Washington State's Commute Trip Reduction Law: http://www.kingcounty.gov/transportation/CommuteSolutions/About.aspx

That said, 5% absolute mode share increase over 15 years is already pretty good, and that's with mostly unprotected bike lanes. There's still plenty of low-hanging fruit there, I think.

Re: sweating, why not just get an electric assist bike? They're more expensive than a regular bike, but still I think you can get a decent one for $1000 or thereabouts, and they usually let you vary how much assistance you get, so you can decide how much exercise you want to do on any particular trip. We have an electric assist cargo bike and my wife loves it.

# ¿ Jul 5, 2017 23:59

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

anthonypants posted:

🤔

Not sure why you're confused, an electric assist bike is still tremendously cheaper than a car, both to purchase and operate (heck, it's probably cheaper than a transit pass in the long run), and not everyone has significant hills involved in their commute. And said bikes are still steadily going down in price as electrified cars/bikes/skateboards/unicycles become more widespread.

Like, Schwack said he wanted to get out of traffic, which means he probably already drives a car, and if he does, spending $1000 on a bike is probably not out of his budget if it can become his primary commute method.

Cicero fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Jul 6, 2017

# ¿ Jul 6, 2017 00:04

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Are you asking me to guess or asking others to chime in? Personally, I have, at least if "commute vehicle = primary vehicle" and if bikes count as vehicles. Though I'm not sure of the point of that question.

Cicero fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Jul 6, 2017

# ¿ Jul 6, 2017 00:27

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

call to action posted:

Everywhere I've ever lived, the poor thank god for cheap and available parking because the yuppies bought everything near work

"Thank god the government subsidizes the interest on these massive student loans!"

Cicero fucked around with this message at 10:15 on Jul 6, 2017

# ¿ Jul 6, 2017 09:02

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Doorknob Slobber posted:

why not make it extremely expensive and inconvenient to own more than one residential property at a time, lowering demand and reducing prices.

This sounds like what Vancouver is doing, unless you want to include even places that are being rented out, which would be weird?

# ¿ Jul 6, 2017 15:59

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

call to action posted:

That's cute, but these people didn't go to college and need to drive to work to live, because they can't afford to live near work.

Way to miss the point: just like how government subsidizing interest on loans is better than unsubsidized loans but worse than not having loans, having free parking is better for the poor than not having it when you have to drive, but better still is being able use a cheaper form of transportation, like biking or public transit.

Lots of people in other countries live in a suburb of the city where they work, and yet still have decent transit that they can utilize. That America basically forces you to drive explains why transportation costs are an unusually large part of the household budget for Americans compared to most of our developed peers.

# ¿ Jul 6, 2017 17:04

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Sure, which is why you don't just cut things like mandatory parking minimums by themselves, you have to shift resources into viable alternatives. At the same time, you can't wait for the alternatives to be perfect for everyone.

# ¿ Jul 6, 2017 17:18

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

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.

gently caress equality, first year of parenting is hard as poo poo. The time would also benefit society massively. It should be similar for severe medical leave or things like end of life leave to take care of dying parents.

Agreed but it's funny how many people support other progressive labor policies but then instantly go full FYGM on parental leave because breeders.

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).

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:

edit:
Alternatively, why do high income earners deserve more money on their child care leave than low income earners?

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.

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

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

twodot posted:

Nah, immigration exists.

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.

quote:

I don't see any evidence we need to subsidize child rearing. Society has previous existed without specifically subsidizing child rearing.

Yes, because a) kids were less of a financial burden in ye olden times than now since you could make them work at a young age and expectations for parenting were lower, and b) there was tons of cultural/religious pressure to have kids that is, while not 100% gone, a shadow of what it used to be.

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.

Lol, so childless people get a vacation while people with kids spend it on cleaning up poop. That sounds fair and sensible.

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.

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:

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?

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 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.

"Smoking: totally equivalent choice to parenting"

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

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

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

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

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)

So you're okay paying for subsidized childcare, but not okay paying for them to take care of their kids themselves? So basically child subsidies are okay as long as you aren't using it to personally take care of your kids? What?

# ¿ Jul 7, 2017 16:48

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

twodot posted:

Yes that would be fair.

Jesus.

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.

I'm not talking about expanding, I'm talking about replacement rate.

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?

Well presumably a UBI wouldn't be something that you just give in a single lump sum for a lifetime. If people are dumb enough to blow it every month on hookers and drugs then they're probably not fit to be parents entirely and should have their kids taken away.

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).

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.

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

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Teabag Dome Scandal posted:

Uh, what societal system doesn't require babies other than something post scarcity/Star Trek/Culture?

I mean, if we manage to find a way to stop aging, then we would need very few kids indeed.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2017 16:59

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

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 made myself, Ron.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2017 17:02

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

twodot posted:

I'm the one saying everyone should have enough time and resources to raise kids, and then decide whether they want to spend that time and resources on raising kids. I've never met a parent in real life that acted as though their decision to raise kids was an act of toil that demanded compensation from society rather than a self-fulfilling action worthy of its own accord.

You're also saying that even in a system where each person is allocated an income for merely existing, kids don't count as people. You still haven't explained how that makes any sense (hint: it doesn't).

It's true that current mainstream societal attitudes in the US hold that the state shouldn't be significantly subsidizing childrearing (although there are a few significant exceptions, like public schooling). This may explain why the US birthrate seems to be steadily dropping (and would be dropping way more if we didn't have so much Hispanic immigration). And since we can expect the US to continue becoming less religious over time, I think we can expect the birthrate to continue going down, sans state intervention. I guess if that doesn't bother you at all, then yes, your argument is sound. But I'm guessing that most people do care, and that Americans will gradually come around to the idea that childrearing should be supported more by the state; we already see paid parental leave becoming more and more common for businesses and governments.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2017 17:16

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

DrNutt posted:

I am definitely for parental leave, I just wish people would admit it's typically an emotional and selfish decision, and not act like they're making this noble sacrifice for the species. By all means, if one of your children manages to create some sort of magical solution to climate change and save the human race from itself, I'll be happy to eat my words.

I never suggested that people are intentionally doing it in order to be self-sacrificing. I'm suggesting that's what it amounts to, though. Think about it: it takes a TON of time, energy, and money, with a minimum 18-year commitment, and doesn't really leave you better off, even emotionally, than if you didn't have kids. From a homo economicus standpoint, the parents clearly aren't the beneficiaries in this decision. But who does benefit? The wider society.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2017 17:23

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

DrNutt posted:

The wider society benefits currently, but as I have repeatedly said, even our current population will be unsustainable in fifty years, and we will see millions and even billions die from starvation and conflict over basic resources. Unless you are ultra rich or powerful you are literally dooming your child to this fate. And even then, being rich and powerful will only buy you a head start once society starts collapsing.

So which resource are Malthusians saying we'll run out of this time? Food? Water?

# ¿ Jul 7, 2017 17:40

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Error 404 posted:

Yikes

Oh no, not data!

From another article:

quote:

The 2013 U.S. fertility rate among Hispanics stands at 73 births per thousand women aged 15-44, which is down from 98 in 2006, prior to the economic downturn, and 108 in 1990. The U.S. fertility rate among Black non-Hispanics was 65 in 2013, only an eight-point difference versus the Hispanic rate, the smallest difference in at least 25 years. Prior to the recession, the Black fertility rate was nearly 30 points below the Hispanic rate.

The report also shows that the U.S. White non-Hispanic fertility rate has held relatively stable since 1990, at around 60 births per thousand women of reproductive age. That said, since 2007 the fertility rate among Whites has declined slightly, from 61 in 2007, prior to the recession, to 59 in 2013. The current rate for Whites is only a 14-point difference compared to the Hispanic rate, whereas it was 45 points below in 1990.

https://www.unomaha.edu/news/2015/01/fertility.php

Cicero fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Jul 7, 2017

# ¿ Jul 7, 2017 18:10

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Solkanar512 posted:

Seriously, I don't understand what's so difficult about this.

But what if you have no one important in your life to take care of? Doesn't this law punish those who had the foresight and wisdom to have no old relatives and to make friends with those of vigorous body and mind?

Cicero fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Jul 7, 2017

# ¿ Jul 7, 2017 18:15

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Yeah no, I'm not gonna leave out an important statistical point just because some people are oversensitive.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2017 18:21

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Shifty Nipples posted:

Go forth and multiply is religion not skin color

Well religion/culture, but you don't have to tell me, I grew up Mormon.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2017 18:27

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

therobit posted:

Wait is Cicero complaining about a higher fertility rate among Hispanic immigrants or just pointing out that it is holding a demographic disaster at bay by helping generate more population?
Like, look at Hermiston over the last 15 years and compare to Pendleton over the same period. Hispanic immigration and younger population has clearly had an overwhelmingly positive effect.

I was pointing out that the US birthrate would be even further below replacement if not for recent Hispanic immigration, which is relevant because as successive generations integrate more and become culturally more similar or even indistinguishable from the ethnic groups that have been in the US longer, we can expect the birthrates to fall to match.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2017 18:37

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

twodot posted:

Lot's of thing cost money doesn't mean the government needs to directly subsidize anything that costs money.

Most things are either a) not absolute requirements for the continuation of humanity, or b) not enormous time/money sinks that last for 18 years.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2017 18:40

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

DrNutt posted:

For a greater understanding of your point, do you mind sharing where this data is from? I did some searching myself but I found a lot of SCARY ARTICLES talking about decline of civilization but not a lot of cited research. I also found an article comparing the US to Japan which was incredibly laughable for what should be obvious reasons.

I already linked to one article, here's the one the chart came from: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/05/17/explaining-why-minority-births-now-outnumber-white-births/

And yeah Japan's culture is, uh, something else.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2017 19:01

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

IM DAY DAY IRL posted:

Besides, it seemed like I was debating points against a tech goon basing a lot of ideas off very personal/anecdotal experience.

This is pretty hilarious since you were pretty obviously just shooting off guesswork and hunches, while I have, like, actual data on my side. Like you can easily look at, say, Vancouver BC, and see how investing heavily in bike infra downtown rapidly increased their bike mode share numbers, but I guess it's easier to 'end' an argument while simultaneously taking a snipe at another poster.

# ¿ Jul 11, 2017 12:21

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

The Oldest Man posted:

You put Farrell after Hasegawa? Yikes.

Yeah, Hasegawa seems like the NIMBY/anti-urbanist candidate. IIRC he's compared light rail to dog poop and wants to bring back the (mostly old, white, homeowning) neighborhood councils that try to block any density increases.

# ¿ Jul 21, 2017 12:52

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

the new jazz posted:

so much for the tolerant left

On the other hand both citywide city council races have a woman of color in first place. Pretty sure Oliver's problem is more that people doubt her qualifications or think she's too far left.

edit: \/\/\/\/ goddamnit I'm dumb

Cicero fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Aug 4, 2017

# ¿ Aug 4, 2017 15:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 00:12

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

tk posted:

It's on Saturday too, so they'll probably be protesting a couple security guards and a few people who were too busy posting on forums to get their work done during the week.

Came to the Kirkland office this last Sunday, can confirm it's almost entirely deserted, as you'd expect (there were a few other people with me in the gym).

# ¿ Aug 15, 2017 21:14

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Pacific Northwest Thread Mk. II: Crossing the Duwamish

«‹›3 »