The Tipping Point

[Lexicus]

So, then the question becomes to what extent the Democrats can satisfy their urban core constituency without alienating the affluent suburbanites. I sayeth unto them: good luck with that. The things I, as a millennial city-dweller, want are diametrically opposed to most of the things the suburbanites want.

 

[rah]

Think old school. Compromise. Believe it or not, it used to happen and some good thing resulted.
Most of those suburbanites are social liberals and fiscal conservatives. (gee, sound familiar) It shouldn't be that hard to make us welcome. Nobody ever agrees 100%. And based on your posts here, I doubt there are many people that agree with you 100%

 

[Lexicus]

Think old school. Compromise. Believe it or not, it used to happen and some good thing resulted.

So here is my question. How does "we need affordable housing now" compromise with "we need to artificially restrict the supply of housing to keep my property value high and rising."

 

[rah]

You're assuming that suburbanites would automatically fight that. I personally wouldn't as long as it was a sound plan. I wouldn't even mind taking a small hit on my property value. Compromise is possible.

 

[stinkubus]

And we can just extrapolate your opinion to the public at large because...?

 

[Lexicus]

You're assuming that suburbanites would automatically fight that. I personally wouldn't as long as it was a sound plan. I wouldn't even mind taking a small hit on my property value. Compromise is possible.

This isn't some kind of hypothetical situation. I suggest that you should look up in the news what is happening in some of the political fights in cities around the country on this issue. It is not an assumption that the constituencies I named find it difficult to compromise.

Also I am sure I could get you to admit there are some situations in which compromise is impossible.

 

[rah]

You can't, but I am one of them and there are more like me out there based on personal observation. But yes not all of them. You don't need to win all of them.
Listening to Lex, there are none of us like that out here, but I disagree.

 

[rah]

This isn't some kind of hypothetical situation. I suggest that you should look up in the news what is happening in some of the political fights in cities around the country on this issue. It is not an assumption that the constituencies I named find it difficult to compromise.

Also I am sure I could get you to admit there are some situations in which compromise is impossible.

You can't generalize about ALL the cities. And yes there are some compromise that are impossible, but they all are if you never try.

 

[Lexicus]

You can't generalize about ALL the cities. And yes there are some compromise that are impossible, but they all are if you never try.

Put your money where your mouth is, then. Show me a city where a solution to the issue has been found that reconciles the interests of the homeowners with those of the tenants. Hell, forget solutions, show me a city where any kind of compromise measure at all has been taken. And then bear in mind that this is only one of the issues dividing the urban core from the suburbs.

 

[rah]

Any major city that has had put up affordable housing in the last decade. Compromise has been required every time.
Should there be more, no doubt, but to ignore all the ones that have been built is silly.
Yes, the arguments have been loud and messy but some have been built.

I live in suburban cook county

https://affordablehousingonline.com/housing-search/Illinois/Cook-County

 

[Hygro]

Think old school. Compromise. Believe it or not, it used to happen and some good thing resulted.
Most of those suburbanites are social liberals and fiscal conservatives. (gee, sound familiar) It shouldn't be that hard to make us welcome. Nobody ever agrees 100%. And based on your posts here, I doubt there are many people that agree with you 100%

Sounds great except fiscal conservatism is a huge problem. It's a largely technical issue that, when understood technically, makes fiscal conservatism a hard position to take. But people are too triggered to discuss it technically and even when not, lack the expertise to know who to listen to.

 

[Lexicus]

ny major city that has had put up affordable housing in the last decade. Compromise has been required every time.

I should have made clear, I am talking about measures that actually go some way to solve the problem. The problem being defined as the existence of homeless people and rent increasing substantially faster than other prices.

 

[rah]

Did you check out the site I posted. 500 low income developments in Cook County. I'm sure each one fought over tooth and nail, but they got done. I'm sure millions upon millions of dollars or the equivalent were probably necessary to form the compromise, but they got done. There's one a few miles from my home. Not everyone fought it. So don't group us all together as unable to compromise. Is that clear enough to where I stand? And obviously if I was the only one, they wouldn't have gotten done. People from different sides have been compromising for a long time. (it seems to be a lost cause) If you are unwilling to accept and maybe even compromise with those ditching the GOP, you are more likely to lose more elections until the demographics become overwhelming. But think of the damage that will occur until then.
Just saying.

 

[Traitorfish]

The idea that we should be seeking a "compromise" between the basic material needs of the poor and the investments of the well-to-do is pretty baffling to me.

At least if somebody declares that the poor can go drown in a ditch, they're working from a system with clearly-defined priorities. This is just weird.

 

[El_Machinae]

Trump announced that he might intervene in the Huawei arrest to cut a better deal with China.

Not sure if he thinks of it as a hostage situation or as if justice actually is for sale.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Trump announced that he might intervene in the Huawei arrest to cut a better deal with China.

Not sure if he thinks of it as a hostage situation or as if justice actually is for sale.

If he is thinking of it as a hostage situation we should mark the day. For the first time in office he'd be right.

 

[Lexicus]

So don't group us all together as unable to compromise.

Rah, I'm not attacking you or people like you, I'm saying the interests are irreconcilable. It's not about moralizing. It's not about blaming anyone.

 

[metalhead]

You're assuming that suburbanites would automatically fight that. I personally wouldn't as long as it was a sound plan. I wouldn't even mind taking a small hit on my property value. Compromise is possible.

But what about a large hit on your property value, and significantly higher taxes on top of it? Would you accept that?

"Compromise" is fine, but the problem is that basic things we urgently need to do in housing, health care, and labor require significant taxation to keep inflation in check. We don't need to balance out all of the spending, but we need to balance out some of it.

These things will cost high income suburbanites like you and I a lot in both the short and long term. They have to, because that is where most of the income and wealth is being concentrated. I personally don't mind if my house depreciates in value and if I get crushed with lots of new taxes (once my kids are out of day care) because I can afford those things and I didn't buy my house to make money off it.

We're beyond the point where things have "compromise" solutions that only mean a little bit more gets skimmed from people like us. I can guarantee you that most people like you and I, especially ones nearing retirement, will not take a significant hit to their wealth and/or income, no matter what it's for, because the interest of most people like you and I lies in making money off our homes and keeping most of our income.

 

[El_Machinae]

If he is thinking of it as a hostage situation we should mark the day. For the first time in office he'd be right.

Absolutely. But remember that the people who approve of Iranian sanctions will have a subset that don't approve of wealth buying Justice

 

[Sommerswerd]

But what about a large hit on your property value, and significantly higher taxes on top of it? Would you accept that?

"Compromise" is fine, but the problem is that basic things we urgently need to do in housing, health care, and labor require significant taxation to keep inflation in check. We don't need to balance out all of the spending, but we need to balance out some of it.

These things will cost high income suburbanites like you and I a lot in both the short and long term. They have to, because that is where most of the income and wealth is being concentrated. I personally don't mind if my house depreciates in value and if I get crushed with lots of new taxes (once my kids are out of day care) because I can afford those things and I didn't buy my house to make money off it.

We're beyond the point where things have "compromise" solutions that only mean a little bit more gets skimmed from people like us. I can guarantee you that most people like you and I, especially ones nearing retirement, will not take a significant hit to their wealth and/or income, no matter what it's for, because the interest of most people like you and I lies in making money off our homes and keeping most of our income.

I think that the tipping point for folks in this bracket is where you start feeling like you have to give up things you already have. Like if you always go on vacation but suddenly can't anymore. Taxes get high enough so that you can't get that car or boat or dream house you always wanted?... I think folks can swallow that because they already have a relatively comfortable life in safe comfortable neighborhoods, and understand that they are way better off than almost everyone else.

The pain starts when the taxes make you have to sell the house, or boat or whatever, that you already have because you can't afford it anymore. That's my hot-take at least.