• 0 Posts
  • 41 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 30th, 2024

help-circle






  • You’re right, if homeowners downsize they’ll lose out with lower prices. People don’t downsize very often.

    But what policies are you talking about? How can the answer be anything other than increasing the supply of housing (or decreasing the demand i.e. the population)? Prices are only as high as they are because people pay them because they don’t have any other options. Rent is high because demand is high relative to supply.

    The only thing I can think of would be higher taxes specifically in places with high house prices in order to fund huge investment in poorer areas to make them more attractive to people and businesses.


  • They might be the biggest group of home owners, but they’re not themselves the issue. The optimal situation would more or less be every family owning a single home.

    If house prices go down equally across the market, single home owners don’t really lose out because people typically sell houses when they want to buy a different house. People who recently took out big mortgages will complain about negative equity and some idiots are happy to see a number go up but by and large single home owners will be fine and won’t even complain a lot - they know from their children or other sources that its too damn expensive to buy a house.

    The real losers would be people who own property as an investment, and developers. And those two groups have powerful lobbies and the majority of politicians are in the first group.

    The single home owner NIMBYs are a problem in cases where prices will be affected but only locally. Then they really stand to lose out. So you basically need to have a massive nationwide house building program, either done by the state or through strong legal incentives to force developers to build a lot more of the right kind of homes and prevent them from sitting on land waiting for the price to go up. Or probably both.






  • Nobody here is arguing that Trump supporters or stinky men who only care about women for sex deserve to have partners.

    It’s just that you and the OP don’t acknowledge that finding a partner is hard for a lot of men who aren’t jerks and have a reasonable amount going for them and the implication is that it’s own fault and they must be a dick.

    If you flip the genders and make a statement like: “if a woman can’t find a decent man it must be their own fault. It’s easy, just go and take up some male dominated hobbies and take a shower.” Its an asshole thing to say, no?

    So how about we try not to be assholes and have some empathy.


  • Pro choice, sympathetic to womens issues, good cook, able to converse about many topics, platonic female friends, hobbies, good hygiene, >6ft tall, healthy weight, reasonably attractive, good degree and then job.

    That is/was me and I’m happily married, but it took 7 years of putting a lot of effort into dating before I met her, and I was not picky about who I dated.

    The idea that men can easily find a partner by meeting a few basic requirements is divisive tribalist nonsense.





  • Thanks, TIL:

    St Stephen’s day is an official public holiday in Alsace-Moselle, Austria, the Balearic Islands, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Catalonia, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Madeira, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Ukraine, Switzerland and Newfoundland. The date is also a public holiday in those countries that celebrate Boxing Day on the day in addition to or instead of Saint Stephen’s Day, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom.