Only 8% of workers 35-44 plan to retire by age 67

[Zorba]

I think the population of people wealthy enough to buy speculative properties who are also willing to live with permanent roommates is smaller than you would think.

Of course the real solution here is once again to remove bans on housing construction. All of these problems will magically disappear in the face of abundant housing supply.

Just like Tokyo. At some point there isn't enough land in desirable locations. There needs to be much more multifamily construction in most cities, especially condos. But housing isn't going to all of a sudden become a commodity. For one, if demand drops at all, new construction will also drop.

But show me the housing construction bans in Oklahoma or DFW, there are apartments and houses going up all over the place, and prices still skyrocketed with basically free mortgages.

It doesn't help that we are filling many cities with single family hotels.

 

[fskimospy]

Just like Tokyo.

Tokyo is a great example of what I'm talking about, yes! Just look at this - while it's true that Tokyo prices have gone up in recent years they remain FAR below what it costs in NYC or San Francisco.

At some point there isn't enough land in desirable locations. There needs to be much more multifamily construction in most cities, especially condos. But housing isn't going to all of a sudden become a commodity. For one, if demand drops at all, new construction will also drop.

While we might run out of land in desirable locations someday the US is so insanely far from that point we don't need to consider it right now. For example if we TRIPLED San Francisco's population density it would still be less dense than Paris.

As far as construction stopping if demand lessens, I don't agree, or at least I don't agree it's the problem you're thinking of. In addition to exclusionary zoning, which of course drives up construction costs, the US has lots of other onerous and useless regulations like setback minimums, parking minimums, etc., all of which serve to drive up prices. If you got rid of those you could have a lot more building even at much lower prices than exist today.

But show me the housing construction bans in Oklahoma or DFW, there are apartments and houses going up all over the place, and prices still skyrocketed with basically free mortgages.

It doesn't help that we are filling many cities with single family hotels.

It's true that new construction wouldn't be able to address those one time massive demand shocks that a lot of non-coastal metros faced in 2021, but it would be very good at solving the long term issue.

 

[Zor Prime]

I actually started READING the labels of what is in processed food. I came across this fun little preservative called TBHQ. TBHQ is a preservative, a derived from petroleum, a form of butane (i.e. lighter fluid). TBHQ is found in almost everything. McDonalds products, nearly all snack crackers, Pop Tarts, cereal, cosmetics and varnish. Yes varnish, that stuff that makes furniture look so shiny. You'd need to google TBHQ for a complete list of foods.

Here's the catch....

TBHQ is approved for use as a preservative and considered safe ""only if"" ingested in small qualities. Small qualities???? If you eat anything McDonalds, anything snack crackers, anything fast food, anything frozen foods.... that all ads up. Small qualities if you consider only one of the many foods, however when TBHQ is found in nearly everything then you are not getting TBHQ in small qualities, you are getting a blast of TBHQ in your daily diet. TBHQ, a petroleum product that causes cancer.
Good luck with avoiding TBHQ.

Wow. I'll have to look that up. I remember I went on a zero refined sugar diet a few times. Not because I read some diet program but because hey refined sugars can't possibly be good for you so I tried to not eat foods that had refined sugars. I however did eat the ever living shit out of things that had natural sugars -- I devoured black grapes to get my fix. I lost weight so fast it was funny.

Problem is, almost everything has sugar added and if it's added it's probably been refined. I only know of one bacon that didn't have sugar added. Crazy stuff. It was a chore just trying to find something I could eat that wasn't off a vine, tree or plant of some sort.

Basically I ate lots of meats and fruits.

But really, too, if someone just avoids soda they can eat like shit and still come out better for it. What I'm getting at is if someone just makes one, just one change it can have dramatic positive effect. Then they can see hey they survived and maybe make a second change, so on.

I'll have to check out that TBHQ thing.

 

[Zorba]

Tokyo is a great example of what I'm talking about, yes! Just look at this - while it's true that Tokyo prices have gone up in recent years they remain FAR below what it costs in NYC or San Francisco.

View attachment 64705




While we might run out of land in desirable locations someday the US is so insanely far from that point we don't need to consider it right now. For example if we TRIPLED San Francisco's population density it would still be less dense than Paris.

As far as construction stopping if demand lessens, I don't agree, or at least I don't agree it's the problem you're thinking of. In addition to exclusionary zoning, which of course drives up construction costs, the US has lots of other onerous and useless regulations like setback minimums, parking minimums, etc., all of which serve to drive up prices. If you got rid of those you could have a lot more building even at much lower prices than exist today.


It's true that new construction wouldn't be able to address those one time massive demand shocks that a lot of non-coastal metros faced in 2021, but it would be very good at solving the long term issue.

Apparently Tokyo was a bad example. The graph does miss the huge run up in the 80s and early 90s, before stagflation and negative population growth took over. Paris though has seen run ups:


Again, I am not against building more, we definitely should. Especially in city cores density needs to go way up. I just disagree that housing will ever become cheap, or massively more affordable. One it costs a lot of money to buy up a block of single family houses in a desirable area, tear them down and build some with 4x the density. No one will do that without a strong profit margin, or government subsidies.

I really have no idea why in a lot of places developers just will not build condos or townhomes either. I'm guessing there is just a lot less risk and more profit in building single family. I know you've gone all libertarian, but zoning laws should be used to mandate density in key areas.

 

[fskimospy]

Apparently Tokyo was a bad example. The graph does miss the huge run up in the 80s and early 90s, before stagflation and negative population growth took over. Paris though has seen run ups:

Yes, because although Paris is denser than almost all US cities now they also suffered from a NIMBY problem where they stopped building houses at acceptable rates, which caused prices to increase. Have to keep building!

Again, I am not against building more, we definitely should. Especially in city cores density needs to go way up. I just disagree that housing will ever become cheap, or massively more affordable. One it costs a lot of money to buy up a block of single family houses in a desirable area, tear them down and build some with 4x the density. No one will do that without a strong profit margin, or government subsidies.

Housing has been cheap (or at least vastly more affordable) within our lifetimes. What about society changed that makes this impossible to ever achieve again?

I really have no idea why in a lot of places developers just will not build condos or townhomes either. I'm guessing there is just a lot less risk and more profit in building single family.

For the most part they don't build condos or townhomes because they are banned. In 75% of the US it is illegal to build anything other than single family homes and that doesn't even get into other restrictive building codes that act to inhibit dense construction.

I mean in NYC developers want to build dense construction all the time and there are constant stories about the government stopping them. In New York Fucking City - it's even worse in places like California.

I know you've gone all libertarian, but zoning laws should be used to mandate density in key areas.

How am I a libertarian? I'm for regulations when I think they are good and against them when I think they are bad. Just because I'm a liberal doesn't mean I have to support all regulations. It's just that these have been ENORMOUSLY harmful to our country and it's all self-inflicted.

 

[vi edit]

At this point I think I just need to be an ostrich and hope for the best. Just bury my head, keep paying down my mortgage, slogging money into retirement accounts and hope there's a country/world left enjoying in 20 years when I'm able to retire.

 

[MtnMan]

Yes, two separate issues. We need universal coverage in this country, with massive crackdowns on profiteering. But we also need to stop spending hundreds of thousands to extend an 85 year olds life for a few miserable months. Sure if the 85 yo need a new knee do it, if they have a 5% chance beating cancer maybe it's time to say goodbye.

I wasn't arguing with you.

 

[Zorba]

Yes, because although Paris is denser than almost all US cities now they also suffered from a NIMBY problem where they stopped building houses at acceptable rates, which caused prices to increase. Have to keep building!


Housing has been cheap (or at least vastly more affordable) within our lifetimes. What about society changed that makes this impossible to ever achieve again?



For the most part they don't build condos or townhomes because they are banned. In 75% of the US it is illegal to build anything other than single family homes and that doesn't even get into other restrictive building codes that act to inhibit dense construction.

I mean in NYC developers want to build dense construction all the time and there are constant stories about the government stopping them. In New York Fucking City - it's even worse in places like California.


How am I a libertarian? I'm for regulations when I think they are good and against them when I think they are bad. Just because I'm a liberal doesn't mean I have to support all regulations. It's just that these have been ENORMOUSLY harmful to our country and it's all self-inflicted.

The 75% number doesn't explain why density is not being built where it is allowed. OKC has been trying to get large multifamily to build near downtown for at least a decade and for the most part has failed to get any developer to do so on any scale. I personally think the lake of good planning hurts density projects, who wants to live somewhere with limited parking with there is no decent public transit and nothing to walk to?

You are libertarian on this issue because you refuse to acknowledge that regulations could be changed to help the situation. You propose the only way forward is to ditch all zoning/Covenant regulations, while failing to acknowledge that would bring its own set of massive problems. Just like libertarians do. Throw in you being against teacher certification/education and you are sounding pretty libertarian.

 

[fskimospy]

The 75% number doesn't explain why density is not being built where it is allowed. OKC has been trying to get large multifamily to build near downtown for at least a decade and for the most part has failed to get any developer to do so on any scale. I personally think the lake of good planning hurts density projects, who wants to live somewhere with limited parking with there is no decent public transit and nothing to walk to?

Well the thing is there's no real need to explain it - if you just remove zoning regulations everywhere the market will build it where it's appropriate. Maybe downtown OKC isn't a desirable residential location, I have no idea. There can be lots of reasons why dense housing isn't built in a specific area, all I'm saying is that government bans shouldn't be one of them.

You are libertarian on this issue because you refuse to acknowledge that regulations could be changed to help the situation. You propose the only way forward is to ditch all zoning/Covenant regulations, while failing to acknowledge that would bring its own set of massive problems. Just like libertarians do.

Right - I propose ditching them because they are bad and serve no useful purpose. If you would like to propose different regulations that serve a good purpose I would be happy to hear them.

Throw in you being against teacher certification/education and you are sounding pretty libertarian.

I'm not against teacher certification and education, I just think the current standards are ineffective at creating better teachers. I proposed replacing those requirements with different requirements that focus on student teaching over classroom instruction. This is because more education doesn't do shit while more teaching experience does. See - one regulation is bad, another regulation is good!

 

[Moonbeam]

Well the thing is there's no real need to explain it - if you just remove zoning regulations everywhere the market will build it where it's appropriate. Maybe downtown OKC isn't a desirable residential location, I have no idea. There can be lots of reasons why dense housing isn't built in a specific area, all I'm saying is that government bans shouldn't be one of them.



Right - I propose ditching them because they are bad and serve no useful purpose. If you would like to propose different regulations that serve a good purpose I would be happy to hear them.


I'm not against teacher certification and education, I just think the current standards are ineffective at creating better teachers. I proposed replacing those requirements with different requirements that focus on student teaching over classroom instruction. This is because more education doesn't do shit while more teaching experience does. See - one regulation is bad, another regulation is good!

Is it simply a matter of bad vs good or people's opinions of what is bad vs what is good. What I observe is that moral value preferences often relate to whose ox got gored. For the homeless anything that keeps them from having a home surely will not look very good, but for people who own in single family neighborhoods, preserving the quality of life people seek by living in them may be a major moral concern. For you removing regulations that restrict density seems like a moral good as demand would naturally fill such places where the demand is strong to the brim, but the people who don't suffer the downsides of population density as their moral objective and who have bought there intentionally for that reason may feel that change to the character of their neighborhoods by desirous additional people may not feel like such a good thing.

For these reasons and others I feel we need to change how we live by designing environments scientifically in accordance to a wide spectrum of human inclinations. I am especially interested in preserving a natural feel to places where children grow up so they can have some opportunity to feel connected to the planet they live on. You might me happy as a clam living inside a orbital space colony full of millions of people whereas others may desire some time alone with blue sky and green things. What I call the good, then, may just be points of view not typical for you. You seek to tweak the system and live with the negative ripple effects. I feel my ideals are more aimed at what our natures may truly desire. You are perhaps more of a logical pragmatist whereas I desire on earth as it is in heaven. I grew up there as a kid.

 

[fskimospy]

Is it simply a matter of bad vs good or people's opinions of what is bad vs what is good. What I observe is that moral value preferences often relate to whose ox got gored. For the homeless anything that keeps them from having a home surely will not look very good, but for people who own in single family neighborhoods, preserving the quality of life people seek by living in them may be a major moral concern. For you removing regulations that restrict density seems like a moral good as demand would naturally fill such places where the demand is strong to the brim, but the people who don't suffer the downsides of population density as their moral objective and who have bought there intentionally for that reason may feel that change to the character of their neighborhoods by desirous additional people may not feel like such a good thing.

For these reasons and others I feel we need to change how we live by designing environments scientifically in accordance to a wide spectrum of human inclinations. I am especially interested in preserving a natural feel to places where children grow up so they can have some opportunity to feel connected to the planet they live on. You might me happy as a clam living inside a orbital space colony full of millions of people whereas others may desire some time alone with blue sky and green things. What I call the good, then, may just be points of view not typical for you. You seek to tweak the system and live with the negative ripple effects. I feel my ideals are more aimed at what our natures may truly desire. You are perhaps more of a logical pragmatist whereas I desire on earth as it is in heaven. I grew up there as a kid.

I'm sure that residents of those neighborhoods don't view more houses as a good thing - after all they lose money every time one is built! If the residents of that town want to control what properties are built they are free to buy those properties themselves and let them lie fallow.

That's the beauty of my position - if people want to live in dense places they can do that. If they want to live in sparsely populated areas they can do that too. Everyone gets what they want so long as what they want is not to dominate and control their neighbors.

 

[Zorba]

Well the thing is there's no real need to explain it - if you just remove zoning regulations everywhere the market will build it where it's appropriate. Maybe downtown OKC isn't a desirable residential location, I have no idea. There can be lots of reasons why dense housing isn't built in a specific area, all I'm saying is that government bans shouldn't be one of them.



Right - I propose ditching them because they are bad and serve no useful purpose. If you would like to propose different regulations that serve a good purpose I would be happy to hear them.


I'm not against teacher certification and education, I just think the current standards are ineffective at creating better teachers. I proposed replacing those requirements with different requirements that focus on student teaching over classroom instruction. This is because more education doesn't do shit while more teaching experience does. See - one regulation is bad, another regulation is good!

Zoning, could and should be used to promote high quality density people will want to live in. It should be used to prevent people from building mansions where a condo complex would make much more sense. Regulations should limit housing as hotels, mass holding of housing, and housing that'll sit empty in the middle of town (billionaire's row).

I know my opinion and view of the world is different because I live in places where there is still a lot of empty land, and lax planning that has killed far more dense developments than NIMBY ever has. While you've lived in places that more density almost always makes sense.

Here they'll surround shopping and highways with single family housing, then put huge apartment complexes on cheap land with two lane roads. Creating more and more sprawl, and density that isn't appealing to anyone that can afford something else.

I fully agree, zoning is abused a lot of places and use covenants need reform, but that didn't mean it serves no useful purpose and never will.

 

[RPD]

I'm always curious when I see these polls or survey, but they don't even ask them if they are saving on their own and if so what % of income are they saving for retirement. Without that what's the point? Anyone under 40 with 2 brain cells to rub together should just see SS as a tax from their income and that's it, save as much as you can as early as you can. Retirement is a marathon and everyone should be contributing during their earning years.

 

[Jaskalas]

Retirement is a marathon and everyone should be contributing during their earning years.

A marathon... or a luxury for the 40% who don't live month to month.
(I believe that's the implication of the CNN $500 savings article?)

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm sure that residents of those neighborhoods don't view more houses as a good thing - after all they lose money every time one is built! If the residents of that town want to control what properties are built they are free to buy those properties themselves and let them lie fallow.

That's the beauty of my position - if people want to live in dense places they can do that. If they want to live in sparsely populated areas they can do that too. Everyone gets what they want so long as what they want is not to dominate and control their neighbors.

When the state government tells local governments they have to increase density they do so because they are pressured by a growing tide of people who can't afford to live where they want to live to push out those people who live there and want to keep their zoning laws. So people who live in more sparsely populated areas now and want to stay there can't if those zoning laws are forced by others to change. So, when you say everybody gets what they want, it is only true when you define what people want conveniently limiting what people want only to density and ignore the fact they already made such a choice in owning where they did. When you promise choice for tomorrow for choices already made, you tell everybody what that tomorrow's choice will be worth the day after it is taken.

And you further lie to yourself when you attribute the motivation to money. I would move tomorrow had I no family reasons to stay where I am. The traffic is a pain in the ass.

 

[RPD]

A marathon... or a luxury for the 40% who don't live month to month.
(I believe that's the implication of the CNN $500 savings article?)

Living month to month your entire life is mostly due to said persons poor choices.

 

[vi edit]

Living month to month your entire life is mostly due to said persons poor choices.

If you are born the wrong color and in the wrong place you may never have the opportunity to thrive like others. I'd say it's not a black and white discussion, but it really is.

I won't discredit that a person can't escape demographic prisons, but the ability to is a very real challenge.

 

[RPD]

If you are born the wrong color and in the wrong place you may never have the opportunity to thrive like others. I'd say it's not a black and white discussion, but it really is.

I won't discredit that a person can't escape demographic prisons, but the ability to is a very real challenge.

So the people that come here with literally nothing and are able to build a family and are of "the wrong color" (wow really?) can do it but people already here can't? Being responsible isn't easy street.

 

[fskimospy]

When the state government tells local governments they have to increase density they do so because they are pressured by a growing tide of people who can't afford to live where they want to live to push out those people who live there and want to keep their zoning laws. So people who live in more sparsely populated areas now and want to stay there can't if those zoning laws are forced by others to change. So, when you say everybody gets what they want, it is only true when you define what people want conveniently limiting what people want only to density and ignore the fact they already made such a choice in owning where they did. When you promise choice for tomorrow for choices already made, you tell everybody what that tomorrow's choice will be worth the day after it is taken.

Whats amusing about your argument is that you feel that if you are not permitted to dominate and control those who live around you that YOU are the one being oppressed. You are not entitled to oppress others and render them homeless.

If you want to live in a sparsely populated area you can. What you can’t do is forcibly make other people live somewhere else to suit your own selfish desires.

And you further lie to yourself when you attribute the motivation to money. I would move tomorrow had I no family reasons to stay where I am. The traffic is a pain in the ass.

I don’t have to look any further than the statements of NIMBYs themselves to know padding their pockets is a primary concern.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Apparently Tokyo was a bad example. The graph does miss the huge run up in the 80s and early 90s, before stagflation and negative population growth took over. Paris though has seen run ups:
View attachment 64706

That's the US in 30-40 years and for the same reason. People being worked to death to survive, driving down the birth rate. Although global warming will probably play a role too.

 

[Jaskalas]

Living month to month your entire life is mostly due to said persons poor choices.

You said some words, but all I heard was "Let them eat cake".
Cause that worked well...

And to continue with that idea, who cares if some people can make it? The point is that not everyone can. We've 100 people to feed and 12 slices of cake. You're going to feed 12, and 88 people are going to make life real bad for those 12. Now you might think that's a great design. Just make sure you're on a remote island, preferably the southern hemisphere, when civilization collapses under that hubris and wanton disregard for others. Cause a full belly and FYGM is a recipe for violence.

 

[RPD]

You said some words, but all I heard was "Let them eat cake".
Cause that worked well...

And to continue with that idea, who cares if some people can make it? The point is that not everyone can. We've 100 people to feed and 12 slices of cake. You're going to feed 12, and 88 people are going to make life real bad for those 12. Now you might think that's a great design. Just make sure you're on a remote island, preferably the southern hemisphere, when civilization collapses under that hubris and wanton disregard for others. Cause a full belly and FYGM is a recipe for violence.

Read the words again carefully. I'm sorry if you are living month to month your ENTIRE life, for most examples, that's on you. But hey you are right; lets just blame the system, that's easier and cleaner.

 

[Moonbeam]

Whats amusing about your argument is that you feel that if you are not permitted to dominate and control those who live around you that YOU are the one being oppressed. You are not entitled to oppress others and render them homeless.

If you want to live in a sparsely populated area you can. What you can’t do is forcibly make other people live somewhere else to suit your own selfish desires.


I don’t have to look any further than the statements of NIMBYs themselves to know padding their pockets is a primary concern.

According to you the people who live around me are exactly the people who do not want you to force them to live around more and more people who are the ones attempting to use force to deny them that. It’s people pushing to change the zoning laws that local people want because they want somebody else but them to move where housing isn’t so dense. Let them set down roots somewhere else and become overnight the new local NIMBYs. And if they want to live like sardines or hey can vote to increase local density. You’ll see that on a cold day in hell.

it is local people who make places desirable to live and the have not vultures that want to sweep in. My idea is to make life good for people wherever they live so everybody doesn’t want to live in just a few places.

To see evidence of one form of motivation done not translate into that is the only or even the primary motivation nor does a claim of seeing it translate into it is actually there, but I do not want to imply it isn’t there in this case. That happens not to be the case for me.

 

[pcgeek11]

The vast majority of America bans most housing other than single family housing which has caused a housing crisis.

That is screwed up.
They are building apartment complexes here like crazy and single family homes.

 

[vi edit]

Multi-family housing is for the poors and loud, drunk college kids. Can't be having that to drive down our property values.