Rents are moving up with some aggressive land lords who are capitalizing on the current situation. Some are smart enough to not raise rents on good tenants.
Rent does not go up until you find someone to actually pay it. There are those who will always pay high rent, and those who shop around. The whole things ebbs and flows and ultimately settles on what the market will bear. I can bicycle commute to anywhere on the eastside as well as downtown. The number of for rent signs in my neighborhood has tripled in the last year. That does not count the offerings on Craigslist, which also shows a stabilization or even reduction since last year.
I have no doubt that rents will eventually hit a sustained increased value as they again, someday, match the cost of renting, but I suspect that day is at least two, and probably four, years off. That is when it will be time to "start" looking to buy. But even then you will not need to be in a hurry.
And if the economy gets hit hard, and attendance at the U actually drops, or at least the financial integrity of the students drops, you will see some otherwise stable areas actually see a reduction in rent. Ultimately, landlords only charge what the market will bear. If we are in a period of deflation, the renters simply will not be there. Landlords are not gods.
I would like to see anyplace, outside of a section 8, that would be affordable in the HUD definition of no more than one-third gross pay, to someone making the minimum wage in Seattle. That would be about $430 a month (no utilities included). You would have to double the min. wage here to even think about a studio apt.
Fine with me. I make a lot more than minimum wage, but I'd expect a raise eventually. Some people would have to put their Gulfstream jet order on hold; so sad for them.
Right now the minimum wage is designed more for teenage workers living with their parents. I'd like to see a different, lower minimum wage for those under 18.
Rent stabilization was working in LA when I lived there for the most part, and it's working now. Of course your opinion is going to vary depending upon which side of the fence you are on.
You mean that just a small portion of the qualified people who want rent stabilization get it, and the rest pay for it, right? Just like a lottery.
Minimum wage should be abolished. It is none of the governments business.
Yeah, sweatshops are great. Gov't has no business preventing people from being exploited. Let's abolish the FDA too; we don't need no stinkin' ingredients list--let the buyer beware!
Minimum wage should be abolished. It is none of the governments business.
Yeah, sweatshops are great. Gov't has no business preventing people from being exploited. Let's abolish the FDA too; we don't need no stinkin' ingredients list--let the buyer beware!
In a perfect world, fine. But the system has been so terribly corrupted that we have a revolving door between industry, lobbying groups, and the goverment agencies that are supposed to be regulating said industry that it is a complete joke. Google 'Donald Rumsfeld' + 'Nutrasweet' if you don't believe me.
And regarding exploitation, another joke--many higher-ups in DC are paying people (who may or may not legally have the right to reside in the U.S.) under the table to do their landscaping, clean their houses, and take care of their children. Exploitation is just fine with the gov't so long as it benefits them or their puppetmasters.
In a perfect world, fine. But the system has been so terribly corrupted that we have a revolving door between industry, lobbying groups, and the goverment agencies that are supposed to be regulating said industry that it is a complete joke.
So let's make it a more perfect world, and not throw the babies out with the bath water. My dad's whole career was in the federal gov't. He thought all of Congress & the prez should get a huge pay increase, like to a $million+ today, with the stipulation that there be no legal way for them to make money any other way, including for several years after leaving office. A great idea I think.
Minimum wage should be abolished. It is none of the governments business.
Yeah, sweatshops are great. Gov't has no business preventing people from being exploited.
You are right. In a culture and legal environment protected by our constitution, the government has no business protecting people from being exploited, unless they are being exploited against their will. That is where the governments core purpose takes over.
My dad once asked me, "Do you know why people work for $5 an hour? It is because it is what they think they are worth." If this were India or China, I would feel and believe differently.
Let's abolish the FDA too; we don't need no stinkin' ingredients list--let the buyer beware!
I will be happy to argue that separately, if you wish.
Some people would have to put their Gulfstream jet order on hold; so sad for them.
Heh, heh. My brother-in-law just upgraded to the latest Cesna Citation. http://www.jobwerx.com/images/txt_94865 ... xls_hr.jpg This may surprise some, but actual human beings with actual JOBS build those airplanes. Keep the "rich" from buying them and see what happens to the job situation at the plant. One would also be further educated to investigate the actual fallout from the ill-fated luxury tax in the jobs of those that build yachts.
It's funny. If you stop rich people from spending money on things, the people that build those things become adversely affected. The "rich" are not really impacted. The market for used stuff just gets hot for a time.
My dad once asked me, "Do you know why people work for $5 an hour? It is because it is what they think they are worth." If this were India or China, I would feel and believe differently.
Or because $5 an hour--or $1 a day--is all that's available, because some people have a stranglehold on the rest (which has happened in the US too, as well depicted in Grapes of Wrath, and can surely happen again if the voters are not vigilant).
This may surprise some, but actual human beings with actual JOBS build those airplanes. Keep the "rich" from buying them and see what happens to the job situation at the plant.
The article about the $750 million house that just sold in France also mentioned a party where the participants cackled while burning gobs of $1000 Euro notes. That's to be expected when the rich get too rich. When the mega-yacht company goes out of business, something that's hopefully better for society at large will take its place.
A president once told us that he wouldn't sacrifice even one job for the spotted owl; nevertheless, loggers didn't starve to death when another wiser president all but ended their industry to save that owl.
My dad once asked me, "Do you know why people work for $5 an hour? It is because it is what they think they are worth." If this were India or China, I would feel and believe differently.
Or because $5 an hour--or $1 a day--is all that's available, because some people have a stranglehold on the rest (which has happened in the US too, as well depicted in Grapes of Wrath, and can surely happen again if the voters are not vigilant).
But money is relative. In a world of people that make $.25 a day, the guy that makes $1 a day is rich. In this country, there are laws that protect people from being forced to receive low wages. And what my dad said stands. It is not lost on me that Vietnamese fresh off the boat would work hard and build up a life for themselves in neighborhoods where the locals, for generation on end live off welfare. Those people "earned" welfare because that is what they thought they were worth, while the Vietnamese fresh off the boat saw this as the land of opportunity and siezed the day. Funny, my brother-in-laws (the one with the jet) favorite saying is Carpe diem. Go figure
This may surprise some, but actual human beings with actual JOBS build those airplanes. Keep the "rich" from buying them and see what happens to the job situation at the plant.
The article about the $750 million house that just sold in France also mentioned a party where the participants cackled while burning gobs of $1000 Euro notes. That's to be expected when the rich get too rich. When the mega-yacht company goes out of business, something that's hopefully better for society at large will take its place.
A president once told us that he wouldn't sacrifice even one job for the spotted owl; nevertheless, loggers didn't starve to death when another wiser president all but ended their industry to save that owl.
I go with the former president on that one. You seem to think the fallout over that fiasco is over. It would be interesting to see your livelihood destroyed by a wrongheaded government edict, and suddenly you found the lions share of the inhabitants of your town out of work. And the one down the road, and the one after that. And according to your logic the great depression was ok because over time everything got better than ever.
My personal opinion about the spotted owl is not fully defined. I am still experimenting with sauces.
But money is relative. In a world of people that make $.25 a day, the guy that makes $1 a day is rich. In this country, there are laws that protect people from being forced to receive low wages. And what my dad said stands.
No, this is really all wrong. People are "worth" (I can't believe we've even got a thread attempting to valuate people in this way) what supply/demand pressures dictate. And if a $1 a day is more than anyone else in your country makes, you still aren't wealthy if it doesn't at least cover your basic needs.
Being rich has never in history been about having more than the next guy, it's been about having far more than you need. That's why local native american customs of potlatch would give away so much. You had to be abundantly wealthy to not need so much that you could give it away. This keeping up with the Jones' business is new for the majority of the population, it was only in the "high society" that such a behavior really existed before WWII.
Regarding the exporting of jobs, look at the economic picture. If I am told I can keep my job with a wage slash to $8, or lose my job (they want to export it) I will wisely look around and say, "No, I can get a much higher wage elsewhere." When they go to China, the laws of supply and demand will determine what wage the job is filled for. If there are 10 trained employees for each job in my sector, they will be filled cheaply as the wages are bid down. It has absolutely nothing to do with what any of those people think they are work!
Robroy:
I won't get into a protracted ideological debate (but I sense more of an RAL-type hatefest will ensue), about the intent and meaning of the Constitution here. I will leave it to the Supreme Court, Consititutional Scholars, and what existed primarily before 2000, or even before that in some cases, to be a more reliable guide than landed gentry and common-wisdom ideologies.
However, it is apparent in your claim that: "...The number of for rent signs in my neighborhood has tripled in the last year. That does not count the offerings on Craigslist, which also shows a stabilization or even reduction since last year..." that you have not actually actively been IN the rental market for awhile, and that your current income is high enough to not really pay attention other than superficially. Rents have hardly stabilized and apartment rents have certainly not gone down. No doubt if you had to look for a new place to rent today, you would not be so confident of your superficial assumptions.
One thing is for sure: The present country is nothing like the country your father grew up in. This is not your dad's real estate, and it's not your dad's rental market in Seattle.
One thing is for sure: The present country is nothing like the country your father grew up in. This is not your dad's real estate, and it's not your dad's rental market in Seattle.
But money is relative. In a world of people that make $.25 a day, the guy that makes $1 a day is rich. In this country, there are laws that protect people from being forced to receive low wages. And what my dad said stands.
No, this is really all wrong. People are "worth" (I can't believe we've even got a thread attempting to valuate people in this way) what supply/demand pressures dictate. And if a $1 a day is more than anyone else in your country makes, you still aren't wealthy if it doesn't at least cover your basic needs.
Being rich has never in history been about having more than the next guy, it's been about having far more than you need. That's why local native american customs of potlatch would give away so much. You had to be abundantly wealthy to not need so much that you could give it away. This keeping up with the Jones' business is new for the majority of the population, it was only in the "high society" that such a behavior really existed before WWII.
Regarding the exporting of jobs, look at the economic picture. If I am told I can keep my job with a wage slash to $8, or lose my job (they want to export it) I will wisely look around and say, "No, I can get a much higher wage elsewhere." When they go to China, the laws of supply and demand will determine what wage the job is filled for. If there are 10 trained employees for each job in my sector, they will be filled cheaply as the wages are bid down. It has absolutely nothing to do with what any of those people think they are work!
We clearly disagree on a core value level which, to be vetted properly, would take more time than I am willing to spend on this topic on this thread. I'll even hold back a zinger I desperately want to share and I will give you the last word on the body of the argument...
Robroy:
I won't get into a protracted ideological debate (but I sense more of an RAL-type hatefest will ensue), about the intent and meaning of the Constitution here. I will leave it to the Supreme Court, Consititutional Scholars, and what existed primarily before 2000, or even before that in some cases, to be a more reliable guide than landed gentry and common-wisdom ideologies.
However, it is apparent in your claim that: "...The number of for rent signs in my neighborhood has tripled in the last year. That does not count the offerings on Craigslist, which also shows a stabilization or even reduction since last year..." that you have not actually actively been IN the rental market for awhile, and that your current income is high enough to not really pay attention other than superficially. Rents have hardly stabilized and apartment rents have certainly not gone down. No doubt if you had to look for a new place to rent today, you would not be so confident of your superficial assumptions.
One thing is for sure: The present country is nothing like the country your father grew up in. This is not your dad's real estate, and it's not your dad's rental market in Seattle.
I've been renting since 1998. I've moved five times. I was looking for a place just two months ago because I thought the landlord was going to sell our house out from under us. He wasn't.
Yeah, apartment rents are going up. House rents are going down. When we rented our five bedroom house with a 1/3 acre professionally landscaped yard, two car garage and central air conditioning, all for $1,600 a month, we could have gotten a cramped two bedroom apartment next to Coulon park for $2,800. We're not that stupid, but many are. They are mostly 20-somethings who just got their first $50k job and blow it all on rent and a BMW payment.
Meanwhile, one bedroom is my wifes office, another is my recording/practice studio and a third is where our grand daughter and her friend from the midwest are spending the week. The fourth is a weight/exercise room.
IOW, people are paying the high rent because they want the particular perks and don't fully realize just how much it is costing them or how much less they could pay if they would just shop around.
But like me, they will learn. I used to be one of them. It reminds me of that old saying, "I like you. You remind me of myself when I was young and stupid."
That is not aimed at you. I just like the phrase. And as I get older I truly understand the wisdom in that statement. Which reminds me of another phrase: "With age comes wisdom, but sometimes age comes alone." Believe me, when you hang around a bunch of old musicians, you grasp the full wieght of the truth in the latter part of that statement. I'm sometimes playing with 50 somethings that are STILL in classic rock bands to "get drunk and meet chicks".
I also should mention that when I say Seattle, I mean the greater king county area. I have lived here since 1966 and worked downtown most of my adult life. I would never actually live IN the Seattle city limits. It is just way to liberal and taxed for my tastes.
My friend, back around 1986, had a nice home a block north of Greenlake when He had his first son (he started much later than me). He moved to Leschi a year or three later and one day told me, "I never understood why you guys with kids didn't want to live in Seattle 'till I had my own."
One thing is for sure: The present country is nothing like the country your father grew up in. This is not your dad's real estate, and it's not your dad's rental market in Seattle.
Of course they do. I offer up Mitt Romney and John Kerry as public examples. Or do you mean that the nature of people doesn't change? Of course it does, albeit more slowly. Consider the behaviors and activities which were considered normal and accepted at some point but are not today.
We've decided discrimination based on sex, race, religion, age, etc is wrong.
We've decided slavery is definitely wrong.
We've decided it is wrong to have a state-run religion.
We've decided animal cruelty is wrong.
We've decided human cruelty/torture is wrong.
We've decided genocide is wrong (check your old testament if you don't believe people once were OK with this one).
Of course they do. I offer up Mitt Romney and John Kerry as public examples. Or do you mean that the nature of people doesn't change? Of course it does, albeit more slowly. Consider the behaviors and activities which were considered normal and accepted at some point but are not today.
We've decided discrimination based on sex, race, religion, age, etc is wrong.
We've decided slavery is definitely wrong.
We've decided it is wrong to have a state-run religion.
We've decided animal cruelty is wrong.
We've decided human cruelty/torture is wrong.
We've decided genocide is wrong (check your old testament if you don't believe people once were OK with this one).
So, yeah people have changed.
Nope. Only culture or, "the times" have changed. The people's minds are still wired the same as they always were. Put them in the old environment and they will think the same way. To use one example, when was human cruelty/torture ever considered right? When is it considered right today?
Ever heard the phrase, "there, but for circumstance, go I."
Nope. Only culture or, "the times" have changed. The people's minds are still wired the same as they always were. Put them in the old environment and they will think the same way. To use one example, when was human cruelty/torture ever considered right? When is it considered right today?
Ever heard the phrase, "there, but for circumstance, go I."
Yegads! When you say "people" don't change, that can either mean people as a group (AKA society, AKA culture) or it can be used to generalize to all individuals (IE nobody can change).
What you seem to mean is human nature, which also changes (depending on what you define as human) at an incredibly slow rate due to evolution. We've got another thread for that however, so let's assume that the portion of human nature determined by genetics is fixed. There is still a far ranging and unfinished debate of nurture-vs-nature even if nature is constant. In such a complex interplay, it is impossible and simplistic to throw out culture. That's like ignoring drag/friction when calculating how long it will take a leaf falling out of a tree to hit the ground.
Regarding cruelty and torture? You're kidding right? Here's a quick run-down off the top of my head. In 1949, the The Geneva Conventions defined generally accepted rules of war. One hundred years earlier, some people were considered possessions (slaves and children) and it was fine to beat these people if they "deserved it". For much of human history, the plunder of war included taking the women; if this isn't cruel (killing her family and then forcibly taking her as a "wife") I don't know what is. Most ancient laws included humane treatment like chopping off the hand of a petty thief. Even executions used to be public affairs. "Come, watch some guy get hung or crucified!"
People are changing, and most of it is for the better.
Nope. Only culture or, "the times" have changed. The people's minds are still wired the same as they always were. Put them in the old environment and they will think the same way. To use one example, when was human cruelty/torture ever considered right? When is it considered right today?
There are large segments of the American population, including more than a few occupants of the White House, who still view torture of "enemy combatants" as completely acceptable (i.e. "right").
Systematic rape is still widely used by armies and militants as "psychological warfare". And as RCC pointed out, the spoils of war has frequently included taking the women/girls, shortly after killing their families.
We can sit here and say it's wrong, but it's been going on for centuries, including by our own forces at various times.
Nope. Only culture or, "the times" have changed. The people's minds are still wired the same as they always were. Put them in the old environment and they will think the same way. To use one example, when was human cruelty/torture ever considered right? When is it considered right today?
Ever heard the phrase, "there, but for circumstance, go I."
Yegads! When you say "people" don't change, that can either mean people as a group (AKA society, AKA culture) or it can be used to generalize to all individuals (IE nobody can change).
What you seem to mean is human nature, which also changes (depending on what you define as human) at an incredibly slow rate due to evolution. We've got another thread for that however, so let's assume that the portion of human nature determined by genetics is fixed. There is still a far ranging and unfinished debate of nurture-vs-nature even if nature is constant. In such a complex interplay, it is impossible and simplistic to throw out culture. That's like ignoring drag/friction when calculating how long it will take a leaf falling out of a tree to hit the ground.
Regarding cruelty and torture? You're kidding right? Here's a quick run-down off the top of my head. In 1949, the The Geneva Conventions defined generally accepted rules of war. One hundred years earlier, some people were considered possessions (slaves and children) and it was fine to beat these people if they "deserved it". For much of human history, the plunder of war included taking the women; if this isn't cruel (killing her family and then forcibly taking her as a "wife") I don't know what is. Most ancient laws included humane treatment like chopping off the hand of a petty thief. Even executions used to be public affairs. "Come, watch some guy get hung or crucified!"
People are changing, and most of it is for the better.
I meant people, as a species. Most of the sensibilities on your list have always been common sense, but not practiced as much as they are now simply becuase of the impracticality or the unwillingness to surround them by laws. For example, has it ever really been in vogue to torture animals for the sake of torturing them? Only in sick cultures. But you notice I used the word "cultures". All of the things on your list go in and out of style to one degree or another, depending on your geographic location and specific time period. Take any infant from any race today and place him in a home during any of the time periods and geograhic locals you mentioned, and the resulting adult would take on the sensibilities of that time/place.
IOW, times change, people don't.
It is also why "grace" is the foundational tenet of Christianity.
BUT, to be clear, of course individuals change. Hence the phrase "I like you. You remind me of myself when I was young and stupid." It implies both the speaker and target of the phrase either have or will change.
We can sit here and say it's wrong, but it's been going on for centuries, including by our own forces at various times.
Precicely. And it is because "times change but people don't."
People in "whitebread" US have no clue how bad things can get, and what kind of atrocities that can lead to, not to mention what we would consider an atrocious mindset. Take away our infrastructione and watch how fast our culture degenerates to the very atrocities mentioned earlier - and many not mentioned.
I meant people, as a species. Most of the sensibilities on your list have always been common sense, but not practiced as much as they are now simply becuase of the impracticality or the unwillingness to surround them by laws.
That's your assertion, but my assertion is that these sensibilities could not have been common sense or they would have been common during the whole of human history.
Much has fundamentally changed. One key change is the transition of humanity from tribal societies to a global society. Four millennia ago, what worked (to pass on your genes) was systematic genocide. Write in a holy book that another people group was on your land and that your god wants you to have it. Then go slaughter them and take their possessions. Much of the most ancient and brutal codes fell out of that world. It's one reason why the penalty for damaging livestock was so high and the value on human life so low (by modern standards) in Leviticus for example.
In an increasingly global society, where cooperation rather than warfare provides the greatest opportunities, values have changed drastically. Much of this has happened in only the last few hundred years. It is the result of societal changes, technological changes, and potentially changes to allele frequency (evolution responding to a world where "only the strong survive" is no longer true).
But money is relative. In a world of people that make $.25 a day, the guy that makes $1 a day is rich. In this country, there are laws that protect people from being forced to receive low wages. And what my dad said stands.
OK, I see your point. Yes, when a fair minimum wage law is in effect, I would agree with your dad.
There's a large group of people propagandizing to lessen the effectiveness of the minimum wage law. It's important that voters understand how bad things can get without it.
It is not lost on me that Vietnamese fresh off the boat would work hard and build up a life for themselves in neighborhoods where the locals, for generation on end live off welfare. Those people "earned" welfare because that is what they thought they were worth, while the Vietnamese fresh off the boat saw this as the land of opportunity and siezed the day. Funny, my brother-in-laws (the one with the jet) favorite saying is Carpe diem. Go figure
I've spent some time with welfare folk, enough to see how damaging it is to them. You're right about what they think. Also, amazingly, I saw that many had no idea where the money comes from. Endless subsidies are not a good thing! Thankfully the system was limited in the late 90s, so that it's only temporary now. Women can no longer get a free ride through life by having umpteen children.
BTW, I wanna go for a ride on your brother-in-law's jet!
I go with the former president on that one. You seem to think the fallout over that fiasco is over. It would be interesting to see your livelihood destroyed by a wrongheaded government edict, and suddenly you found the lions share of the inhabitants of your town out of work. And the one down the road, and the one after that.
I am confident that I would never wish the extinction of a species over my livelihood. I'm sure I would kill myself first.
And according to your logic the great depression was ok because over time everything got better than ever.
You're right; I do think that. Although I would prefer that we had an efficient system for preventing depressions even as people are sometimes forced to change livelihoods, and I'm convinced such a system is possible.
I haven't seen an ex-logger with a distended belly yet. It's not good for our country, let alone the environment, to make careers sacrosanct. Our public education system is generalized for good reason. All workers should be prepared to switch careers if need be.
Thanks for the article. I don't see how it's much different than a lottery. When I was reading it, I thought, ok, this is just standard rent control, which logic tells us cannot last. Then sure enough I see the statement "The rent stabilization ordinance covers apartments occupied on or before July 1, 1979." So the only beneficiaries of the system were the lucky ones who got in before the public realized that the system could not last. Everyone else now works harder to pay a portion of their rent, just like how lottery ticket buyers pay for the winners. What am I missing?
Yeah, apartment rents are going up. House rents are going down. When we rented our five bedroom house with a 1/3 acre professionally landscaped yard, two car garage and central air conditioning, all for $1,600 a month, we could have gotten a cramped two bedroom apartment next to Coulon park for $2,800. We're not that stupid, but many are. They are mostly 20-somethings who just got their first $50k job and blow it all on rent and a BMW payment.
IOW, people are paying the high rent because they want the particular perks and don't fully realize just how much it is costing them or how much less they could pay if they would just shop around.
As strange as it sounds, I think this may well be true. I started renting again this spring after owning a house for a decade+. As I'm looking around places on the Eastside I'm thinking, why are 2 bedroom apartments almost the same price as 4 bedroom houses? I told a 20-something guy at work about the house I rented and asked him why he doesn't get a roommate and split a house. Turns out he just didn't know those deals existed.
Take any infant from any race today and place him in a home during any of the time periods and geograhic locals you mentioned, and the resulting adult would take on the sensibilities of that time/place.
I doubt this. Throughout recorded history there are individuals who could be labeled "environmentalists", or "warmongers", or whatever. So someone who is an environmentalist today would probably be one if dropped into another time/place.
All of the things on your list go in and out of style to one degree or another, depending on your geographic location and specific time period.
I don't think slavery, say, is going to come back, unless society is rebooted after a collapse. The clear trend seems to be that bad things go away & stay away, as the good people improve society, including finding ways to prevent the bad people from having their way (e.g. the Constitution).
Take away our infrastructione and watch how fast our culture degenerates to the very atrocities mentioned earlier - and many not mentioned.
I agree. That's why it's so important that we build a society that can last indefinitely. That's why those who vote for increasing public debt & never paying anything back piss me off.
In an increasingly global society, where cooperation rather than warfare provides the greatest opportunities, values have changed drastically. Much of this has happened in only the last few hundred years. It is the result of societal changes, technological changes, and potentially changes to allele frequency (evolution responding to a world where "only the strong survive" is no longer true).
A close relative of mine is a big believer in survival-of-the-fittest. I'm like, hey, we have this thing called society now, we should all be working to improve it. I finally had to end contact when his kid started beating up on mine.
A close relative of mine is a big believer in survival-of-the-fittest. I'm like, hey, we have this thing called society now, we should all be working to improve it. I finally had to end contact when his kid started beating up on mine.
I meant people, as a species. Most of the sensibilities on your list have always been common sense, but not practiced as much as they are now simply becuase of the impracticality or the unwillingness to surround them by laws.
That's your assertion, but my assertion is that these sensibilities could not have been common sense or they would have been common during the whole of human history.
Much has fundamentally changed. One key change is the transition of humanity from tribal societies to a global society. Four millennia ago, what worked (to pass on your genes) was systematic genocide. Write in a holy book that another people group was on your land and that your god wants you to have it. Then go slaughter them and take their possessions. Much of the most ancient and brutal codes fell out of that world. It's one reason why the penalty for damaging livestock was so high and the value on human life so low (by modern standards) in Leviticus for example.
In an increasingly global society, where cooperation rather than warfare provides the greatest opportunities, values have changed drastically. Much of this has happened in only the last few hundred years. It is the result of societal changes, technological changes, and potentially changes to allele frequency (evolution responding to a world where "only the strong survive" is no longer true).
As I read your reasoning, I realize we disagreee on a core value level. We've hijacked the thread and I will give you the last word.
Very interesting discussion and would be fun to discuss over coffee some time... 8)
Take any infant from any race today and place him in a home during any of the time periods and geograhic locals you mentioned, and the resulting adult would take on the sensibilities of that time/place.
I doubt this. Throughout recorded history there are individuals who could be labeled "environmentalists", or "warmongers", or whatever. So someone who is an environmentalist today would probably be one if dropped into another time/place.
All of the things on your list go in and out of style to one degree or another, depending on your geographic location and specific time period.
I don't think slavery, say, is going to come back, unless society is rebooted after a collapse. The clear trend seems to be that bad things go away & stay away, as the good people improve society, including finding ways to prevent the bad people from having their way (e.g. the Constitution).
Take away our infrastructione and watch how fast our culture degenerates to the very atrocities mentioned earlier - and many not mentioned.
I agree. That's why it's so important that we build a society that can last indefinitely. That's why those who vote for increasing public debt & never paying anything back piss me off.
Wow, looks like my core values differ from both you AND RCG. Maybe the THREE of us should have coffee.
Again, we're sort of hijacking the thread. As with RCG, I'll let you have the last word on this one. The discussion IS getting more interesting though!
Comments
I have no doubt that rents will eventually hit a sustained increased value as they again, someday, match the cost of renting, but I suspect that day is at least two, and probably four, years off. That is when it will be time to "start" looking to buy. But even then you will not need to be in a hurry.
And if the economy gets hit hard, and attendance at the U actually drops, or at least the financial integrity of the students drops, you will see some otherwise stable areas actually see a reduction in rent. Ultimately, landlords only charge what the market will bear. If we are in a period of deflation, the renters simply will not be there. Landlords are not gods.
Right now the minimum wage is designed more for teenage workers living with their parents. I'd like to see a different, lower minimum wage for those under 18.
You mean that just a small portion of the qualified people who want rent stabilization get it, and the rest pay for it, right? Just like a lottery.
And regarding exploitation, another joke--many higher-ups in DC are paying people (who may or may not legally have the right to reside in the U.S.) under the table to do their landscaping, clean their houses, and take care of their children. Exploitation is just fine with the gov't so long as it benefits them or their puppetmasters.
Sorry, getting OT there . . .
My dad once asked me, "Do you know why people work for $5 an hour? It is because it is what they think they are worth." If this were India or China, I would feel and believe differently. I will be happy to argue that separately, if you wish.
It's funny. If you stop rich people from spending money on things, the people that build those things become adversely affected. The "rich" are not really impacted. The market for used stuff just gets hot for a time.
The article about the $750 million house that just sold in France also mentioned a party where the participants cackled while burning gobs of $1000 Euro notes. That's to be expected when the rich get too rich. When the mega-yacht company goes out of business, something that's hopefully better for society at large will take its place.
A president once told us that he wouldn't sacrifice even one job for the spotted owl; nevertheless, loggers didn't starve to death when another wiser president all but ended their industry to save that owl.
My personal opinion about the spotted owl is not fully defined. I am still experimenting with sauces.
No, this is really all wrong. People are "worth" (I can't believe we've even got a thread attempting to valuate people in this way) what supply/demand pressures dictate. And if a $1 a day is more than anyone else in your country makes, you still aren't wealthy if it doesn't at least cover your basic needs.
Being rich has never in history been about having more than the next guy, it's been about having far more than you need. That's why local native american customs of potlatch would give away so much. You had to be abundantly wealthy to not need so much that you could give it away. This keeping up with the Jones' business is new for the majority of the population, it was only in the "high society" that such a behavior really existed before WWII.
Regarding the exporting of jobs, look at the economic picture. If I am told I can keep my job with a wage slash to $8, or lose my job (they want to export it) I will wisely look around and say, "No, I can get a much higher wage elsewhere." When they go to China, the laws of supply and demand will determine what wage the job is filled for. If there are 10 trained employees for each job in my sector, they will be filled cheaply as the wages are bid down. It has absolutely nothing to do with what any of those people think they are work!
I won't get into a protracted ideological debate (but I sense more of an RAL-type hatefest will ensue), about the intent and meaning of the Constitution here. I will leave it to the Supreme Court, Consititutional Scholars, and what existed primarily before 2000, or even before that in some cases, to be a more reliable guide than landed gentry and common-wisdom ideologies.
However, it is apparent in your claim that: "...The number of for rent signs in my neighborhood has tripled in the last year. That does not count the offerings on Craigslist, which also shows a stabilization or even reduction since last year..." that you have not actually actively been IN the rental market for awhile, and that your current income is high enough to not really pay attention other than superficially. Rents have hardly stabilized and apartment rents have certainly not gone down. No doubt if you had to look for a new place to rent today, you would not be so confident of your superficial assumptions.
One thing is for sure: The present country is nothing like the country your father grew up in. This is not your dad's real estate, and it's not your dad's rental market in Seattle.
Markor:
The LA rent stabilization ordinance is NOT like a lottery. This is a pretty good overview: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/14 ... e-tenant14
Impossible. Things never change. Ever!
Yeah, apartment rents are going up. House rents are going down. When we rented our five bedroom house with a 1/3 acre professionally landscaped yard, two car garage and central air conditioning, all for $1,600 a month, we could have gotten a cramped two bedroom apartment next to Coulon park for $2,800. We're not that stupid, but many are. They are mostly 20-somethings who just got their first $50k job and blow it all on rent and a BMW payment.
Meanwhile, one bedroom is my wifes office, another is my recording/practice studio and a third is where our grand daughter and her friend from the midwest are spending the week. The fourth is a weight/exercise room.
IOW, people are paying the high rent because they want the particular perks and don't fully realize just how much it is costing them or how much less they could pay if they would just shop around.
But like me, they will learn. I used to be one of them. It reminds me of that old saying, "I like you. You remind me of myself when I was young and stupid."
That is not aimed at you. I just like the phrase. And as I get older I truly understand the wisdom in that statement. Which reminds me of another phrase: "With age comes wisdom, but sometimes age comes alone." Believe me, when you hang around a bunch of old musicians, you grasp the full wieght of the truth in the latter part of that statement. I'm sometimes playing with 50 somethings that are STILL in classic rock bands to "get drunk and meet chicks".
I also should mention that when I say Seattle, I mean the greater king county area. I have lived here since 1966 and worked downtown most of my adult life. I would never actually live IN the Seattle city limits. It is just way to liberal and taxed for my tastes.
My friend, back around 1986, had a nice home a block north of Greenlake when He had his first son (he started much later than me). He moved to Leschi a year or three later and one day told me, "I never understood why you guys with kids didn't want to live in Seattle 'till I had my own."
Of course they do. I offer up Mitt Romney and John Kerry as public examples. Or do you mean that the nature of people doesn't change? Of course it does, albeit more slowly. Consider the behaviors and activities which were considered normal and accepted at some point but are not today.
We've decided discrimination based on sex, race, religion, age, etc is wrong.
We've decided slavery is definitely wrong.
We've decided it is wrong to have a state-run religion.
We've decided animal cruelty is wrong.
We've decided human cruelty/torture is wrong.
We've decided genocide is wrong (check your old testament if you don't believe people once were OK with this one).
So, yeah people have changed.
Ever heard the phrase, "there, but for circumstance, go I."
Yegads! When you say "people" don't change, that can either mean people as a group (AKA society, AKA culture) or it can be used to generalize to all individuals (IE nobody can change).
What you seem to mean is human nature, which also changes (depending on what you define as human) at an incredibly slow rate due to evolution. We've got another thread for that however, so let's assume that the portion of human nature determined by genetics is fixed. There is still a far ranging and unfinished debate of nurture-vs-nature even if nature is constant. In such a complex interplay, it is impossible and simplistic to throw out culture. That's like ignoring drag/friction when calculating how long it will take a leaf falling out of a tree to hit the ground.
Regarding cruelty and torture? You're kidding right? Here's a quick run-down off the top of my head. In 1949, the The Geneva Conventions defined generally accepted rules of war. One hundred years earlier, some people were considered possessions (slaves and children) and it was fine to beat these people if they "deserved it". For much of human history, the plunder of war included taking the women; if this isn't cruel (killing her family and then forcibly taking her as a "wife") I don't know what is. Most ancient laws included humane treatment like chopping off the hand of a petty thief. Even executions used to be public affairs. "Come, watch some guy get hung or crucified!"
People are changing, and most of it is for the better.
There are large segments of the American population, including more than a few occupants of the White House, who still view torture of "enemy combatants" as completely acceptable (i.e. "right").
Systematic rape is still widely used by armies and militants as "psychological warfare". And as RCC pointed out, the spoils of war has frequently included taking the women/girls, shortly after killing their families.
We can sit here and say it's wrong, but it's been going on for centuries, including by our own forces at various times.
IOW, times change, people don't.
It is also why "grace" is the foundational tenet of Christianity.
BUT, to be clear, of course individuals change. Hence the phrase "I like you. You remind me of myself when I was young and stupid." It implies both the speaker and target of the phrase either have or will change.
People in "whitebread" US have no clue how bad things can get, and what kind of atrocities that can lead to, not to mention what we would consider an atrocious mindset. Take away our infrastructione and watch how fast our culture degenerates to the very atrocities mentioned earlier - and many not mentioned.
That's your assertion, but my assertion is that these sensibilities could not have been common sense or they would have been common during the whole of human history.
Much has fundamentally changed. One key change is the transition of humanity from tribal societies to a global society. Four millennia ago, what worked (to pass on your genes) was systematic genocide. Write in a holy book that another people group was on your land and that your god wants you to have it. Then go slaughter them and take their possessions. Much of the most ancient and brutal codes fell out of that world. It's one reason why the penalty for damaging livestock was so high and the value on human life so low (by modern standards) in Leviticus for example.
In an increasingly global society, where cooperation rather than warfare provides the greatest opportunities, values have changed drastically. Much of this has happened in only the last few hundred years. It is the result of societal changes, technological changes, and potentially changes to allele frequency (evolution responding to a world where "only the strong survive" is no longer true).
There's a large group of people propagandizing to lessen the effectiveness of the minimum wage law. It's important that voters understand how bad things can get without it.
I've spent some time with welfare folk, enough to see how damaging it is to them. You're right about what they think. Also, amazingly, I saw that many had no idea where the money comes from. Endless subsidies are not a good thing! Thankfully the system was limited in the late 90s, so that it's only temporary now. Women can no longer get a free ride through life by having umpteen children.
BTW, I wanna go for a ride on your brother-in-law's jet!
I am confident that I would never wish the extinction of a species over my livelihood. I'm sure I would kill myself first.
You're right; I do think that. Although I would prefer that we had an efficient system for preventing depressions even as people are sometimes forced to change livelihoods, and I'm convinced such a system is possible.
I haven't seen an ex-logger with a distended belly yet. It's not good for our country, let alone the environment, to make careers sacrosanct. Our public education system is generalized for good reason. All workers should be prepared to switch careers if need be.
I don't think slavery, say, is going to come back, unless society is rebooted after a collapse. The clear trend seems to be that bad things go away & stay away, as the good people improve society, including finding ways to prevent the bad people from having their way (e.g. the Constitution).
I agree. That's why it's so important that we build a society that can last indefinitely. That's why those who vote for increasing public debt & never paying anything back piss me off.
Hah!
Very interesting discussion and would be fun to discuss over coffee some time... 8)
Again, we're sort of hijacking the thread. As with RCG, I'll let you have the last word on this one. The discussion IS getting more interesting though!