Posted on 07/04/2020 6:21:43 AM PDT by AggregateThreat
And people flee rather than fight back.
Eventually, we are going to run out of places to flee to.
That sounds like something Jefferson would say.
If you look at a map of where RATs have siezed power verses where Republicans are in control, the RATs fester in the densely packed areas. That alone is an argument for suburban spread. Consider this, AOC just won her primary with 70% of the vote. She is insanely stupid and yet 70% of her District wanted her back. Proof positive there is something horribly wrong with packing too many people into too small a space!
Reads like an argument for privatization.
Extortion was the #1 reason. #2 was Excessive regulations. #3 was high taxes.... the top 3 reasons to move to the suburbs. The #1 reason to stay: Plentiful labor supply
Patronage employees and contractors of the City of Chicago, and to a lesser extent Cook County, Sanitary District, and State, would tell the factory owners that they would hate to see the health inspector, saftey inspector, fire dept, the building inspector and on and on ad infinitum .
It only took a couple years and the extortionists came to the suburbs, chasing the factories out of country. Extortion in Mexico is much cheaper than in Illinois and almost non-existent in S Korea or Taiwan.
The flip side of the coin is that labor supply disappeared. City dwellers wanted to leave the city for the same reason as factories, too much extortion, hassles. The factories, the banks, and developers like Centex conspired aka planned an integrated solution. They built beautiful schools in the planned developments like Elk Grove Village. But they did not consider the quality of education inside those schools. Factory labor is visible as as machine operator. But more than anything, factories depend on the Tool & Die maker and the Machinist who make the parts for the machines. That requires skill in math, logic and 3-dimensional thinking. Neither the city nor suburban school systems provided kids who were educated. They had degrees. The schools were designed to produce kids with degrees, not kids who knew math. Thus the factories in the suburbs could not staff where they needed it. The Tool & Die and Machinist jobs went to Asia first, before the unskilled factory labor. But the factory labor soon followed.
The above is a description of some factories, not all. In addition to Trump reducing excessive regulation at the federal level, Red states need to reduce excessive regulation. There is a need for a small amount of regulation. As seen in the regulation of the medical industry during the coronavirus season, regulations get in the way of efficiency and a good civilization.
Then there is education. That is a separate rant.
Exactly - and these RATs are going to tax all of us back to the Stone Age - they’re gunning for you from every angle, this is just another one. It costs a million dollars to repave a mile of road, and it costs a shit ton of money to support public pensions which means that your financial future is toast. The End.
And in many cases, like Flint MI, the residents not only don’t contribute any tax revenue, they don’t even pay for basic services, like water.
I want to scale my life to the flying car. I was promised one by 2000.
More seriously, this looks like the New Urbanism. If the current Chinese Plague didn't kill it, then the past month of Marxist iconoclastic riots did. Rents in San Francisco are dropping from the number of people moving out and I expect the same is happening in New York and other major cities.
The actual costs of infrastructure should be paid by the users. Build a new house and pay the real cost of the sewers, water, roads, sidewalks, electricity and gas. Don't underprice it to promote growth but don't overprice it to force the sheep back into the pen or fleece those who try to escape. After that, let the market decide when everyone has an honest price.
Blog pimps are thieves.
You want us to read you liberal garbage?? You’re on the wrong site, child.
The whole western civilization economy is a Ponzi scheme. Without growth, it will die. The reason is simple. It is based on credit and depends on production and consumption ever increasing, monetizing the debt.
That being said, when my wife and I sat down having an empty nester conversation, we made the choice to live in an inner city. Grocery store, doctor, dining, night life, parks, etc....all within walking or bicycle / bus distance. We have gained about 30 hours a week of together time that a suburban or rural life consumes.
Both were excellent decisions for the right moment and situation.
We moved from Seattle to Rural KY where I bought 12 acres and a new home for less than one year’s wages. Those wages could only get me into a rundown three bedroom rambler on a postage stamp lot in Seattle. And the taxes on that lot would have been around $3,000 a year if I was lucky. Here they are $250 a year.
And now that we can work from home full time, why the heck would I live in an urban or suburban area?
My olf friend from High school bought a new home in the Bonnie Lake area a few years ago. I think the virus response was the last straw for them, added to their $7,000 a year property taxes.
FINALLY, they are putting it on the market and heading out here to get their own piece of heaven.
Oh, and my daughter and her husband moved out here two years ago. They purchased a house on five acres here for $625k that would have cost them millions in Seattle. My other daughter and her husband are visiting them as I type this. He owns his own business and now that the whole company is working remotely, he’s done hiring expensive Seattle residents. He’s looking for employees who will live in the Tennessee, Indiana, Kentucky area. And they are planning on moving as well.
In all seriousness, the face of the nation is finally changing due to a lot of social and tech issues. Working from home has been shown to be a practical solution, and the virus forced us to do it en-mas with tremendous success. Expect the cities and their close suburbs to be drained as more distant suburbs and even small towns to grow with new residents working from home.
Who it will negatively affect are those that were able to live comfortably in small towns on $15 an hour. They may find themselves being displaced as people with city wages move in and drive up all prices.
Dear Toad:
Since you did not read the article let me help you with a proper interpretation:
Conservatives tend to live is suburbs, liberals tend to live in cities. Liberals are going to tax you back to the stone age using sustainability as their marching orders. You really should broaden your reading material so you fully understand what your enemy is doing. I live in the suburbs, and my water bill has tripled over past 15 years. My property taxes have almost doubled, you get the idea.
Any plan devised by liberals is sure to be costly and inefficient.
The author leaves out an important initial step:
0. Taxpayers fund local, state, and federal governments to use on their behalf for "common use" projects.
-PJ
In the age of pandemic and democrat sponsored violence riots who in their right mind would want to live in a big city?
He complains a lot about suburbs but so far hasn’t given any solutions.
But I think that I can guess a few.
Regional revenue sharing (suburbs pay for the failing cities).
High gas tax and mileage taxes.
Congestion pricing.
Massive, Required low income housing in the suburbs.
It never occurs to these idiots that most normal people just want to live in peace in a quiet place where they can raise their families. They are not interested in your Social Engineering.
Charles Moron, Author
People who are congregated in Huge Liberal Cities are easier to control.
The mortgage rate is near 3%. Many homes are in reach. If I buy a place here in southern California I can afford the mortgage but then they tack on a big HOA fee which prices me out.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm a civil engineer by profession, and I come across a lot of the things discussed in this article more frequently and more closely than a typical layperson.
If I were to identify one unmistakable trend in U.S. public policy -- almost always reflecting the individual private attitudes of even the most educated and well-intended voters in this country -- that drives so much of the dysfunction in our governing systems, it is this: Our combination of private initiative and unlimited government spending drives us to overspend on health care and education, and undervalue infrastructure and other hard assets.
The reason for this, as I see it, is a simple three-part proposition:
1. People have a natural tendency to value "health care" above all else because it is an inherently personal benefit, no matter what the cost -- especially if these costs can be shared with others or passed on to them. In simple terms, this means a person who is healthy (or perceives himself to be healthy) has built and maintained the most important "asset" they have -- an asset that also gives them the most flexibility to pursue other areas of interest in life.
2. After health care, education comes next because -- as with health care -- it is an inherently personal benefit. It also (like health care) has the advantage of being completely mobile. In other words, your health and your education go wherever you go.
3. Infrastructure, on the other hand, is a "hard" asset that remains in place long after it is built. This means its value to any individual user diminishes over time, and has a value of $0 when any given individual stops using it. It also means that in our increasingly mobile society, the life cycle of this asset far exceeds the period of time over which any one person actually uses it.
This combination of factors drives all kinds of distortions in the "free market" as it relates to political decisions that are made on behalf of voters. For example, it is the underlying issue that drives the financial disaster that afflicts many of our older suburbs around Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, etc. Time and time again I've come across situations where voters continually approve enormous property tax hikes to support their local school systems, while opposing investments in anything except the most obvious and sorely-needed infrastructure improvements. These voters don't mind spending exorbitant sums of money on education because they think there's an even greater value for their own children ... but they don't want to invest in any infrastructure with a long life cycle because: (A) they are already making plans to move somewhere else; and (B) they know their children aren't coming back to live there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.