This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
People actually do say that about cars...
The countries you mention did well after 10 years of reconstruction and tons of American money and support and governance. Britons were still on rations into 1954, they lost their empire, so did most of the European Powers. You know what was driving a lot of that post war boom?! American exports in all things.
Don't forget these rules of acquisition.
War is good for business
Peace is good for business
Prefab has mostly been a bust for housing because you still need to transport and assemble the thing on site and do all the trade work involved. Mass production simply doesn't work for the kind of housing that people want. Every home is basically a custom job hand assembled by 20 different kinds of trades and independent contractors all trying to semi-coordinate, even the planned burbs built by companies like Lenar. Every house lot and location has its own quirks, every warped wall stud needs to be held straight enough to nail gun into place. It is hugly labor and capital intensive.
Regulation is never about "keeping home prices high" Property values won't go down if you build more, the demand is essentially unlimited. This is a common refrain you hear on reddit that people are being selfish and "protecting their property values", what people are really "protecting" is their current vision of the city/town and they just don't want more people, or certain types of people, or cars. Most of them don't think stopping growth is protecting their investment, and it also doesn't. The more dense a place is usually the more expensive it is. Manhattan vs North Dakota.
If there were really such radical ways to make lots of housing and sell it cheaply, someone would be doing it and making billions. You're welcome to be the first. It isn't a conspiracy.
Until we have a much cheaper way to make quality housing we are always going to be in a "housing crisis". That being said, 75% of the people in my state own their own homes, I think the "housing crisis" is overblown. Shit is just expensive now, there are too many people, and they all want to live in the same places. If people want cheaper homes encourage your kids to become carpenters/plumbers/electricians willing to work for low wages. Getting a door replaced is like 3k these days. Everyone wants a freestanding home next to mountains, the ocean, lakes and a major metro with good weather, they can't all live there.
Again. It costs more to build new than to buy a used house. So it isn't using houses as an investment that is driving up costs, they do go down in value compared to a new build. the price you see is literally the cost to make the product. Land appreciates if population goes up and if everyone wants to live in the same place, that has nothing to do with building costs, except that developers may build higher end models of homes on expensive land since the home will be out of reach for people looking for starter homes because of the cost of acquiring the building lot.
If you can do it cheaper. You'll be a billionaire in a few years.
More options
Context Copy link