embedded machine learning research engineer - georgist - urbanist - environmentalist
Exactly. When the accused has paid off half the jury, you shouldn’t put much stock in the verdict.
The only thing I care about when determining whether something is a genocide is the facts of the case (which are overwhelmingly in favor of describing the Uyghur genocide as a genocide), not the outcome of a highly political vote by countries all with their own motives and interests.
Imagine if someone defended nazis with “they were calmly denying the Holocaust”. I’ve seen far too many tankies denying the Uyghur genocide every chance they get. Like you say, it doesn’t matter the tone; genocide denial is itself a line you don’t cross.
They’ll ban you for acknowledging the existence of the Uyghur genocide, for one
Edit: wording
Enshrinklification of the internet
Oh yeah, I understood this is a pro nuclear meme. I agree with your meme.
Friendly reminder that air pollution from fossil fuels kill ~9 million people per year
It just doesn’t scale up at all.
Exactly. In the context of a small tribe, a family structure, a friend group, or a small commune, communism works. Why? Because there are social methods of enforcement. That is, if you’re a greedy dick, everyone else will know and ostracize you for it. Thus, you have an incentive to play along fairly.
But once you get to a larger society — past Dunbar’s number — you can no longer keep track of everyone and whether they’re trustworthy or not. This allows bad actors to not play fairly with minimal consequence, breaking the system of relationships and trust that had allowed the system to work in the first place.
Again, it’s already working in Minneapolis and several other cities. I’ll even post the table again for your convenience.
Hmmm, market rate is determined by price fixing so the people living there have to make more so they can live there and then the rent is price fixed up, and so on, and so on, and so on…
Look at the chart I showed in my last comment again. Clearly landlords in Minneapolis aren’t raising rents in perpetuity. Gee, could that be because they abolished single-family zoning in 2018, and they’re already seeing a stabilized rental market despite being a large, desirable, high-QoL city? So much for your assertion that it “takes 30 years to see results”.
Raising taxes
My goal isn’t raising taxes. My goal is to replace bad taxes like sales, income, and property taxes with good taxes like land value taxes, carbon taxes (and other taxes on negative externalities), and severance taxes.
all of your points are meaningless to me because you’re not operating in good faith.
My guy, who do you think I am? Do you think all YIMBYs are actually just a secret cabal of developers rubbing our greedy little YIMBY hands together to demolish your historic gas stations and parking lots?
I’m a fresh-out-of-grad-school engineer who rents an apartment in a major city. I’ve seen the power of YIMBYism first hand, as I was able to negotiate down the landlord on rent before signing the lease, because there was a credible threat of me leaving and finding somewhere else cheaper. The reason why? My city, Montreal, is the most affordable major city in North America, with some of the lowest barriers to density, and extensive neighborhoods of “missing middle” housing (e.g., townhouses, plexes, low- and mid-rise apartments). All despite being a very desirable, very high-QoL city. Turns out having options gives you actual negotiating power against your landlord.
If you have all the fear of homelessness and your landlord has no fear of vacancy, then your landlord has all the power over you. If you have plenty of options, and your landlord has a credible fear of vacancy, you will have actual negotiating power. NIMBY policies only serve to empower landlords and weaken tenants.
Unlike you, I want to actually grant tenants (myself included) more negotiating power against their landlords by granting them more choices in housing.
Further, do you legitimately believe the current crony capitalist system has produced enough housing in America and Canada? Or is it possible vested interests have captured local governments to artificially limit supply and thus limit competition, and that NIMBYs like you are the pawns to protect their speculative investments?
Yes, there is price fixing. You know how that works? By artificially restricting competition through regulatory capture, aka restrictive zoning.
All the evidence point to zoning reform and actually legally allowing things like missing middle housing to be effective ways to control rising rents. If you clicked on one of the above links, you’d see this table:
Also recall from the same report:
In all four places studied, the vast majority of new housing has been market rate, meaning rents are based on factors such as demand and prevailing construction and operating costs.
You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
I have found that the people calling for just changing the zoning laws usually have a bulldozer right behind their shoulder waiting to be sent.
Well you didn’t even read the second half of my comment where I also called for taxing land.
PS Trickle down housing doesn’t work. The end.
Ah, yes, the old trick of calling everything you don’t like “trickle down”. Should the solution to the toilet paper shortages of 2020 have been to lock down new supply and wage a moral crusade against toilet paper scalpers? Or just actually get supply back to normal to avoid the whole situation in the first place?
What’s ruining the real estate market is the fact it’s literally illegal to build enough housing on the vast majority of urban land (same situation in Canada, too). Add in insane parking minimum laws, setback requirements, lot size minimums, etc., and what you get is artificial government-mandated ultra low-density sprawl.
It’s the ultimate form of regulatory capture to protect the “investments” of speculators and homeowners. Typically under the guise of “protecting property values” or “protecting neighborhood character”. Just consider: who benefits most from artificially restricting new competition than the owners of existing housing? Restrict new supply so that you can see the value of what you already possess go to the moon… all at the expense of the rest of society, of course.
If you have 9 homes for every 10 households, price will go up until one of those households is priced out of the market. If we built more and made there be 10 homes for every 9 households, landlords – corporate or not – would be stripped of their market power to raise rent.
The evidence backs this up. Any new housing, even “luxury” or market-rate, improves affordability:
New buildings decrease rents in nearby units by about 6% relative to units slightly farther away or near sites developed later, and they increase in-migration from low-income areas. We show that new buildings absorb many high-income households and increase the local housing stock substantially.
And more flexible zoning helps contain rising rents:
But what happens to rents after new homes are built? Studies show that adding new housing supply slows rent growth—both nearby and regionally—by reducing competition among tenants for each available home and thereby lowering displacement pressures. This finding from the four jurisdictions examined supports the argument that updating zoning to allow more housing can improve affordability.
In all four places studied, the vast majority of new housing has been market rate, meaning rents are based on factors such as demand and prevailing construction and operating costs. Most rental homes do not receive government subsidies, though when available, subsidies allow rents to be set lower for households that earn only a certain portion of the area median income. Policymakers have debated whether allowing more market-rate—meaning unsubsidized—housing improves overall affordability in a market. The evidence indicates that adding more housing of any kind helps slow rent growth. And the Pew analysis of these four places is consistent with that finding. (See Table 1.)
In addition, we can tax land:
Land value taxes are generally favored by economists as they do not cause economic inefficiency, and reduce inequality.[2] A land value tax is a progressive tax, in that the tax burden falls on land owners, because land ownership is correlated with wealth and income.[3][4] The land value tax has been referred to as “the perfect tax” and the economic efficiency of a land value tax has been accepted since the eighteenth century.[1][5][6]
It’s a progressive, essentially impossible to evade tax that incentivizes densification and development while disincentivizing real estate speculation. Oh, and it can’t be passed on tenants, both in theory and in practice.
And even a milquetoast LVT – such as in the Australian Capital Territory – can have positive impacts:
It reveals that much of the anticipated future tax obligations appear to have been already capitalised into lower land prices. Additionally, the tax transition may have also deterred speculative buyers from the housing market, adding even further to the recent pattern of low and stable property prices in the Territory. Because of the price effect of the land tax, a typical new home buyer in the Territory will save between $1,000 and $2,200 per year on mortgage repayments.
It’s funny how people always use play it like “oh, it’s just differing opinions” when what they’re actually defending is indefensible malarkey like nazis and tankies. They know if they made a meme saying we should “try to understand” nazis and tankies, they’d be downvoted to oblivion. And so they hide behind a shield of “differing opinions”.
These cretins have a right to post nazi and tankie shit on their own instances – them’s the beauty of the fediverse. But I also have a right to not want hate speech, genocide denial, and Hitler/Stalin/Mao simps polluting my feed. It’s not mere “differing opinions” when one person’s opinion is “Holodomor didn’t happen, and if it did, the Ukrainians deserved it” or “Holocaust didn’t happen, and if it did, the Jews deserved it” or whatever apologia they wanna peddle.
I definitely understand, as I was on reddit for several years as a lurker, then I started to occasionally comment, and then occasionally post. It was really only in the past 2 years that I became a pretty big poster and commenter on reddit. I think I actually post and comment more here on lemmy than even on reddit, if for no other reason than to help produce content and engagement here. Becoming a prolific poster and commenter ain’t a quick or easy transition, but I think even just upvoting niche stuff helps regardless. Like some of the smaller communities I’ve made here and been posting largely into the void, I still notice when I get like 3 upvotes instead of none at all. Every tiny bit of engagement here helps encourage others to keep on doing the same.
Yeah, I get the same thing as you. What I’ve done so far is I made a few communities here and am trying to fairly reliability populate them with content. Some of those communities are niche and I feel like I’m posting into the void sometimes, but occasionally I’ve gotten someone else actually posting some content in them. It does definitely take some commitment to bootstrap a new community, as people just won’t start posting on their own there until there’s a critical mass. So you just gotta take the hit, post into the void a while, slowly increase that subscribe count, until finally others start to join in.
It’s easiest with communities focused around memes or links, but I think it’ll take more effort with more niche hobby or technical communities, e.g., for programming languages or niche hobbies.
You were right; we already got a salty lemmygrad user elsewhere in this thread now
I agree also by rules-based utilitarianism. It’s important not just to consider the immediate, short-term utilitarian outcome, but to consider the utility of a world whereby we regularly make the same type of decision.
In a world where a riot is all it takes to sentence unpopular people to death, you create a perverse incentive for people to riot – or threaten to riot – in order to pervert the proper carriage of justice. Who knows how much net harm would be done in this world ruled by mob justice.
But the alternative is a world where rule of law exists, which I think is a far better world to live in.
Others have covered the details of labor laws in the US, so I won’t touch on that, but your question does make me think about why those kinds of labor protection laws are even seen as a necessity. And I think the answer to that is we (most people, not just Americans) view jobs as equal to livelihood.
But it makes you wonder what the world could be like if we had a universal basic income, where getting fired wasn’t actually the worst thing that could happen to you. It might still suck, but you’d still be able to have a roof over your head and food on your table while you searched for new work. This, critically, would give you more negotiating power when finding new jobs, as you’d likely be less desperate for a job, meaning you could credibly insist upon better pay and better conditions.
But we could take this one step further. In economics, there’s this concept called an externality, which is when you do something that affects someone else as a side effect. When you do something that harms someone else as a side effect (e.g., pollution), that’s called a negative externality. Negative externalities are actually a major problem in completely unregulated economies, because they cause the “invisible hand” of the free market to fail to achieve optimal distribution of goods, i.e., a market failure. The classic example of this is carbon emissions – the true cost to society of carbon emissions (from climate change) is not reflected in the cost of providing carbon-intensive goods, thus we have a tendency to over-produce and over-consume carbon-intensive goods and services. That is, the economy would be better off in the long-run if we emitted less carbon than we currently are, despite the short-term profits of polluting. Anyhoo, this mismatch between sticker price and true cost to society is why carbon tax is almost universally regarded to be the single best climate policy: by accounting for the costs of the negative externality, you can fix the market failure, and the invisible hand can once again work as it’s supposed to.
But where this relates to where I was going is there are also positive externalities, where you have a positive impact on someone else as a side effect of your activities. An example might be doing regenerative agriculture or rewilding a patch of land – the pollinator habitat you provide or the carbon you sequester has positive impacts on other people. And like how negative externalities tend to lead to overconsumption, positive externalities tend to lead to underconsumption. I.e., the economy would be net better off of more people did rewilding and regenerative agriculture, despite the short-term immediate costs they incur. And much like taxing negative externalities (e.g., carbon emissions) is a good way to correct those issues, subsidizing positive externalities is a good way to fix the issues of insufficient good activities.
So imagine if we not only had a UBI, but if the government also would pay you to plant trees or develop/maintain open-source software or any number of other activities that produce positive externalities. If we had these alternative means of maintaining a basic level of livelihood, then maybe we could decouple existing from jobs, and we wouldn’t feel a strong need to coerce businesses into holding onto people, nor would we need to coerce them into paying people enough or giving good enough working conditions – companies would have to pay well and offer good conditions and not fire for unfair reasons, else they’d struggle to fill vacancies.
We all saw how companies begrudgingly had to pay more during the “great resignation”. Or look how the professional class (e.g., doctors, engineers) get good pay and good conditions, precisely because they’re hard to replace. Give workers more options, make them less desperate, and they’ll be empowered to negotiate better pay and better conditions for themselves. Sure, some regulations would still be necessary, but I think there’s a lot of elegance in a bottom-up approach to labor relations.
Plus, banks actually serve an important economic role. When you put money in a savings account, the bank can lend it out to someone else as an investment, allowing enterprising individuals access to startup capital to build productive businesses or even just mortgages to buy homes, while also providing a quite safe means of storing your savings. Essentially, they connect those who have spare capital with those who need capital. And sure, there’s a lot of tomfoolery that goes on in the industry, but the core idea of banking is good.
I have a pasta maker attachment for my stand mixer, and it makes it surprisingly easy to make fresh pasta. So I’ll knead together some semolina, egg, and warm water until I get a nice dough (using the stand mixer, of course), then feed it through the pasta maker attachment to make fettuccine. Boil and make a simple sauce with browned butter, pasta water, a splash of heavy cream, a spoonful of whole grain mustard, a spoonful of garlic paste, then topped with some freshly grated pecorino and a drizzle of olive oil.
Sounds fancy, and it does take a bit more time to make the pasta from scratch, but it’s not hard at all and it’s ludicrously delicious. Plus, 99% of people are impressed by even the idea of fresh pasta.
If I’m going for “easy” as in “fast”, too, I’ll use a package of storebought gnocchi and chop in a zucchini instead.
It also had a second rule set where a land value tax was implemented, and the winning condition was when everyone made a minimum amount of money.
It’s just a stupidly good tax policy, and we should be implementing it in more places.
[email protected]