disk_interested
cool website tbh
User ID: 4005
disk_interested
2d ago
Lots of young people today are "this is perfectly healthy."
It's a cope. It's a way for us to ignore the severely blackpilling issues. Some non-trivial percentage of young men and women will realistically 1) never own a house, 2) never have a stable long-term relationship, 3) never have a social circle more than 2-3 people they can trust. So, why not get high (or drink) most days?
These personal problems are, of course, connected to the large-scale social problems that will cause despair in even the most radical optimists. I'm an optimist, but the dating situation is pretty severe for young men and women. It's hard for anyone 30+ with a stable relationship (or a stable past relationship) to understand.
disk_interested
2d ago
I agree. That is essentially what the argument boils down to.
I prefer the ratio framing, because it frees us from the anchoring bias, which is especially confusing given recent inflation. To have a serious discussion on this issue, we all need to keep the relevant variables in our minds, and given that the complexity of the entire economy is in play here, most people are unable to think seriously about this issue, let alone have a discussion about policy.
My progressive liberal friends steelman it as wage to housing ratio is such that everyone outside of the lower class can eventually own
In practice, I’ve heard this described as pretty much everyone outside of poverty can budget for 3-10 years to afford a down payment and total monthly payment for a duplex, condo, detached house, etc. Currently, the issues are: the number of people near the poverty line has increased massively, and wage growth outside the upper middle class seems stagnant. I’m not an economist, so I’m not familiar the recent stats here, but I agree with my friends on affordable housing being about ratios in essence. Regardless, bad policy can easily hide in the term “affordable housing”.
disk_interested
5d ago
This is a prime example of the mental gymnastics one has to preform as a rational person with fundamentalist beliefs. For whatever reason(s), Vaughn has decided that core axioms of Christianity are true (powerful invisible beings who intervene in human affairs, valid prophecies waiting to be fulfilled, etc.), and his theory about the metaphysical implications are basically rational if you consider that he’s not going to question these priors.
All that assumes he has sincere belief. There is some MRI evidence that most people are quite uncertain about metaphysical claims.
I have yet to meet a progressive liberal in the PNW who has a coherent position here.
More options
Context Copy link