2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

201 to 250 of 7,079 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Better, even. We should rise up and take over. For their own good, like in that episode of Star Trek.

Lol! I think I'm not qualified to be world dictator, even with guys like you at my side KC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
That's a good link, Turin. I agree that the upswell of Trump is not primarily because of racism or xenophobia, but because people no longer have decent jobs because of globalization. That's a common problem everywhere in the developed world and it's arguably the biggest challenge of our time.

Which is starting to (and will continue to more so) address a core issue that is being ignored in political circles; how do we define human worth?

Currently in the USA you are defined by your wealth and your work. What happens when there are simply not enough "real jobs" to support our population?

We give lip service to the idea of human dignity (as in dignity for the sake of being human) but we don't actually grant that condition anything, you have no right to food, shelter, cleanliness, medical care or work in the USA currently. You must earn each of those and if you can't earn the last you probably aren't going to get far on the prior.

And even earning work doesn't grant any of the others; plenty of people work and work hard without making it out of poverty. Some of them are simply stupid, some are unlucky others spend it all on people more important to them than themselves, but at the end of the day work also doesn't actually guarantee anything.

So the real question is:

Are humans worthy of basic dignity and how do we define what humans deserve as a baseline of the human condition?

Are we going to accept that your dollar amount and luck (because honestly that's what we all rely on each day -- all the preparation in the world will not stave off all misfortune) all that should grant you access to the means to live? Is human dignity nothing more than an agreement not to maim each other but still allow each other to fall while turning a blind eye?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I'm not well tuned in to American politics. Do Democrats have any big stances on giving the "coal miners" jobs? I know that in my country the Left tends to more focus on environmental and human rights issues and kind of sidestepping peoples' need for jobs, and that's what opened up the vacuum for the populists.


Samy wrote:
That's a good link, Turin. I agree that the upswell of Trump is not primarily because of racism or xenophobia, but because people no longer have decent jobs because of globalization. That's a common problem everywhere in the developed world and it's arguably the biggest challenge of our time.

But the republican solution is to not tax the people taking their money overseas and making the money there while the democratic solution is to tax them a little and give the people that lost jobs a little money and or work doing infrastructure.

While the GOP solution is to fault them for a lack of work ethic and pay the companies to move overseas.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
democratic solution is to tax them a little and give the people that lost jobs a little money and or work doing infrastructure.

So if I understand you correctly, Democrats' stance for addressing the blue collars is to either give them welfare or some sort of Civilian Conservation Corps pity jobs?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

2) Agree on term limits, but I don't think there actually are any for Congress - even enacted on a state level. What states do you think have them?

Some state legislatures do, I believe. And executive positions often do.

3) There are certainly reasons to stick with one party long term. There are fundamental distinctions between the parties than can easily trump individual candidates. I don't think I've ever voted for a Republican, even back when they were saner, though I've flirted with third parties in the past.
But over a generational time scale? The parties have shifted drastically over that period. I suspect my grandparents voted Republican, at least when they were young - and I probably would have done the same back then. But that was before the Realignment following the Civil Rights movement.

Interesting... went back and fact-checked, and while there were attempts to mandate term limits at the federal level, the Supreme Court nixed it.

In California we have term limits on everything else (just lost half our school board and can't find enough people willing to replace them, and our state reps are a revolving door of woe), and our federal reps move around so much I just figured it was term limits.

Looks like I'm guilty of the fact-check fail as well...

And yes, I have friends from the South, and their relatives routinely (and patiently) explain to us that they HAVE to vote Republican because both their parents and grandparents did it. I can (but won't) name three such families off the top of my head.

A very odd way to vote, in my mind...


Samy wrote:
I'm not well tuned in to American politics. Do Democrats have any big stances on giving the "coal miners" jobs? I know that in my country the Left tends to more focus on environmental and human rights issues and kind of sidestepping peoples' need for jobs, and that's what opened up the vacuum for the populists.

Yes and no, and President Obama has addressed this point in passing at least.

There have been programs to ensure the workers gain other more useful skills. However just because they have these other skills doesn't change the geographical location. So they have new skills but unless they move to where those skills are in demand it is unlikely to serve them well. Other programs have been used to draw other industries that can use those skills into the area, but once the incentives dry up these companies usually move away from the area.

Honestly it's a reoccurring problem for the rural areas, and is not something new. Colorado with its recent natural gas boom realized it for what it was and made some preparations for when the bubble burst again.

At the end of the day the problem is people want to live in these areas for all the reasons that make them economically less viable as a whole; the places are remote, quiet, and have few people.

Also coal has been a losing industry for years (decades?) and has received massive propping up by the government. The writing on the wall is nothing new, and politicians that act worried about saving coal are either not intelligent in an economic sense or are cynically playing the coal miners for dopes.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, essentially, the Democrats have no real hope to offer these people. That explains Trump.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
So, essentially, the Democrats have no real hope to offer these people. That explains Trump.

Essentially the people have no hope because they don't have a solution to their problem (coal is leaving, and treats them badly to boot) and they don't want the solutions offered by others (training and possible relocation by democrats, or suck it up buttercup by the republicans).

However there is more going on here than simply that. Getting an education means moving away, which means education and life removes their children from them. They see the children that remain not have a better quality of life than they have had and they know the others that left typically improve (at least in the short term, urban life has its benefits). This builds resentment and embarrassment into the region, and helps foster an anti-intellectual mindset as well as an "us versus them" attitude, because of wealth/expectancy discrepancies. People have confused wealth and the improvement they see others make with their own sense of self worth, I see it in my hometown all the time (it's a little better there because it isn't as rural and people can live there to "settle back down" after they move out for the majority of their adult life).

The offered help suggests that their previous lifestyle was a poor choice when actually there usually wasn't any real choice to begin with.

All in all it goes back to the USA's confusion of work/wealth/dignity/worth issues as a whole.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I'm kind of hoping that we can use 3D printing to create good housing at a fraction of the current costs, and that with a drastically reduced cost of living, people might be able to do a lot more with what they're able to get from their work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Samy wrote:
That's a good link, Turin. I agree that the upswell of Trump is not primarily because of racism or xenophobia, but because people no longer have decent jobs because of globalization. That's a common problem everywhere in the developed world and it's arguably the biggest challenge of our time.

But the republican solution is to not tax the people taking their money overseas and making the money there while the democratic solution is to tax them a little and give the people that lost jobs a little money and or work doing infrastructure.

While the GOP solution is to fault them for a lack of work ethic and pay the companies to move overseas.

There are plenty of readily available sound bites of Trump threatening businesses that would outsource or relocate if he were anointed God-King. The GOP platform explicitly endorses the current administration's position, which looks like what you called the "democratic solution".

I don't like the GOP and certainly wont vote for Trump, but that's a poor excuse to misrepresent them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:
Personally, I'm kind of hoping that we can use 3D printing to create good housing at a fraction of the current costs, and that with a drastically reduced cost of living, people might be able to do a lot more with what they're able to get from their work.

That seems like the opposite of what 3D printing is for. Genuinely curious...how do yo see that working?


Samy wrote:
So, essentially, the Democrats have no real hope to offer these people. That explains Trump.

Thats the reality of the 21st century America.

There is NO . way. an American can compete in manufacturing with a robot and a Chinese peasant from the point of view of a souless corporation only looking at the bottom line. Why on earth would you make anything in america when the labor in china is barely a 10th what it is in the us, there are effectively no environmental regulations, and if your workers get uppity the government will run them over with a tank for you.

These people are pissed off because they were lied to. They were told that they succeeded because of the indomitable american will and spirit that they were all a part of when in fact their parents succeeded because of global events that were beyond their control. Those global conditions have changed: china is an industrial power, india is catching up in the tech sector. If your job was making something in a factory that job is gone, and the job market has no use for you.

And it's about to get worse. AI is posed to for white collar jobs what robots did for manufacturing. It's already running the stock market.


Knockoff wrote:


There are plenty of readily available sound bites of Trump threatening businesses that would outsource or relocate if he were anointed God-King.

And plenty more cases of him using that exact same outsourcing when it would save him money.

Quote:
I don't like the GOP and certainly wont vote for Trump, but that's a poor excuse to misrepresent them.

I don't need to misrepresent them you need to stop listening to what they say and watch what they do.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Samy wrote:
So, essentially, the Democrats have no real hope to offer these people. That explains Trump.
Thats the reality of the 21st century America. If your job was making something in a factory that job is gone, and the job market has no use for you.

Not just America. The entire Western world. And after Trump there will be someone worse. And after that someone worse still. And it'll keep getting worse and worse, there will be evil figures exploiting peoples' dissatisfaction and disenchantment, until the "good" politicians can actually come up with a solution to the situation.

Quote:
And it's about to get worse. AI is posed to for white collar jobs what robots did for manufacturing. It's already running the stock market.

Truckers are a huge amount of people, and they're being sweated hard right now by Google.

Unless we want a new Hitler supported by a 50% population who has been made obsolete, we need to find a solution, and fast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Knockoff wrote:


There are plenty of readily available sound bites of Trump threatening businesses that would outsource or relocate if he were anointed God-King.

And plenty more cases of him using that exact same outsourcing when it would save him money.

Quote:
I don't like the GOP and certainly wont vote for Trump, but that's a poor excuse to misrepresent them.
I don't need to misrepresent them you need to stop listening to what they say and watch what they do.

The democrats say they're against the TPP, but it's going to happen anyway with the President's blessing. Consider applying the standard equally.

We know Trump makes his crappy knick knacks in other countries. We know Clinton was for NAFTA and the TPP before the campaign kicked off. If observing past behavior is the best way to predict future policy, you should keep your expectations on trade and outsourcing protections to the modest side, no matter who wins.


NobodysHome wrote:
  • Voter Turnout: If you don't vote, you deserve what you get. There are few things in our political system that offend me more than the smug, self-righteous people who declare, "Well, *I* didn't like the candidates the major parties put forward this year, so *I* didn't vote. But our government sucks because..."
    If you didn't vote, you gotta shut up. In our system, voting for a third-party candidate is your way of saying, "I'm here, but I hate the candidates you gave me."
  • I thought very similarly to this for a really long time. Then I went and caucused this year, and I realized something...

    At the local level, if you show up and raise your hand, you can take over the party. You will be put in charge of whatever you want and immediately become a minor player in your state's party and have opportunities to peddle your influence into greater influence.

    Most of the time the party has to fill numerous positions and responsibilities and they'll ask "Who wants to be the (blank)? Anyone? Anyone? You, the gentleman in the back who raised his hand... does anyone object? No one? That guy in the back in the blue shirt, you're now in charge of (blank). Someone write down his name please."

    If you show up, odds are, you'll be in charge of something. People who can't even be bothered to vote, I really have no respect for their complaints now.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

    What's your take on Carlin's view of voting?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Knockoff wrote:


    We know Trump makes his crappy knick knacks in other countries. We know Clinton was for NAFTA and the TPP before the campaign kicked off. If observing past behavior is the best way to predict future policy, you should keep your expectations on trade and outsourcing protections to the modest side, no matter who wins.

    So you've discovered the democrats deepest secret.

    They're republicans.


    Knockoff wrote:
    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    Knockoff wrote:


    There are plenty of readily available sound bites of Drumpf threatening businesses that would outsource or relocate if he were anointed God-King.

    And plenty more cases of him using that exact same outsourcing when it would save him money.

    Quote:
    I don't like the GOP and certainly wont vote for Drumpf, but that's a poor excuse to misrepresent them.
    I don't need to misrepresent them you need to stop listening to what they say and watch what they do.

    The democrats say they're against the TPP, but it's going to happen anyway with the President's blessing. Consider applying the standard equally.

    We know Drumpf makes his crappy knick knacks in other countries. We know Clinton was for NAFTA and the TPP before the campaign kicked off. If observing past behavior is the best way to predict future policy, you should keep your expectations on trade and outsourcing protections to the modest side, no matter who wins.

    While there's a lot about TPP I don't like, it's where we're going. Globalization hurts some people, but so do technological advances. We're not getting rid of the printing press/computer just to preserve the jobs of people who copy books by hand. We need to find better ways to spread the wealth of these advancements, instead of concentrating it in the hands of the few, but we're going to continue to become a more globally connected word and technology is going to keep advancing.

    Countries that are strong trading partners rarely, if ever, go to war. It's so rare that even non-strong trading partners rarely go to war. There used to be an axiom, no two countries who both had a McDonald's had ever gone to war. That changed the past few years with the Russia-Ukraine conflict, but it's the first time it's ever happened.

    We need better free trade agreements, but free trade agreements are crucial to maintaining a stable and peaceful world.

    Free trade stops wars. Then we figure out the rest.


    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    What's your take on Carlin's view of voting?

    I'm guessing you mean George Carlin?

    I get part of it, but it doesn't absolve the abstainers of their responsibility to get involved.

    I have a friend who voted for Bush II twice. He's tried to comment on how bad of a president the guy was and every time I asked him what exactly he thought was so good about the first term that he wanted a second. He hasn't really come up with an answer, even years later.

    My point is largely that the situation is much easier to change than most people think. Get involved in the local elections and your voice will be heard. You will have influence... because NO ONE ELSE IS SPEAKING UP.

    Imagine playing a team sport and a teammate on the bench complains about why you guys keep losing. You tell him "hey, you want to jump in and give it a try?" and they always give a lame excuse of why they can't.

    Senators from big states with populations in the millions routinely tell stories of how they vote because they get a few dozen phone calls and/or letters. How they'll even vote against big money lobbyists if they get just 50-100 phone calls from constituents.

    The lobbyists control most bills though, because no one calls the lawmakers about them.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
    Irontruth wrote:

    We need better free trade agreements, but free trade agreements are crucial to maintaining a stable and peaceful world.

    Free trade stops wars. Then we figure out...

    Free trade, however, has also resulted in all the blue collar jobs going away, when manufacturing is offshored to Bangladesh. And that's going to result in cities burning probably within our lifespans. True, countries won't go to war because they have so much to lose anymore. They'll burn from within because the people have nothing anymore.


    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    I feel like free trade needs to be better-regulated, to force companies outsourcing to ensure that their workers have good working conditions. Better management could cure the woes of both our country and theirs.


    NobodysHome wrote:

    And yes, I have friends from the South, and their relatives routinely (and patiently) explain to us that they HAVE to vote Republican because both their parents and grandparents did it. I can (but won't) name three such families off the top of my head.

    A very odd way to vote, in my mind...

    Which is weird, unless they're young enough that their grandparents were from after the realignment? Voting demographics in the South changed so drastically over Civil Rights I'd be really surprised to see family traditions carry through that. The South was the "Solid South" - reliably Democratic basically from the Civil War to the Civil Rights movement (white vote at least, but blacks could rarely vote.) Since then it switched to whites voting hard Republican and blacks solidly Democratic.

    Before that switch is when you mostly heard stories of Yellow Dog Democrats.

    It is an odd way to vote, on the surface, but it generally reflects larger trends and reasons. And as with the South such traditions can change rapidly when situations change.

    Silver Crusade

    Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
    thejeff wrote:
    NobodysHome wrote:

    And yes, I have friends from the South, and their relatives routinely (and patiently) explain to us that they HAVE to vote Republican because both their parents and grandparents did it. I can (but won't) name three such families off the top of my head.

    A very odd way to vote, in my mind...

    Which is weird, unless they're young enough that their grandparents were from after the realignment? Voting demographics in the South changed so drastically over Civil Rights I'd be really surprised to see family traditions carry through that. The South was the "Solid South" - reliably Democratic basically from the Civil War to the Civil Rights movement (white vote at least, but blacks could rarely vote.) Since then it switched to whites voting hard Republican and blacks solidly Democratic.

    Before that switch is when you mostly heard stories of Yellow Dog Democrats.

    It is an odd way to vote, on the surface, but it generally reflects larger trends and reasons. And as with the South such traditions can change rapidly when situations change.

    With "tradition", unfortunately, and not just with the South but it's very prevalent here, the way things are currently or how they were a year or two ago is how things have always been, and how things should be, because they've always been that way.

    The Republican party is the same and awesome as it was at the time it founded America.

    *eye roll*


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    bugleyman wrote:

    That seems like the opposite of what 3D printing is for. Genuinely curious...how do yo see that working?

    Pretty well, actually.

    There's a couple of different ways of printing homes right now. You can print the whole house on-site (usually after some prep work, of course), or you can print panels and sections that can be easily connected together. This is not hypothetical technology - this is actually being tested and used right now. XD


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Rednal wrote:


    There's a couple of different ways of printing homes right now. You can print the whole house on-site (usually after some prep work, of course), or you can print panels and sections that can be easily connected together. This is not hypothetical technology - this is actually being tested and used right now. XD

    and of course the alpha version...


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Hah.

    ...

    But I'm pretty sure this method costs less than using legos. XD

    Silver Crusade

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    Rednal wrote:


    There's a couple of different ways of printing homes right now. You can print the whole house on-site (usually after some prep work, of course), or you can print panels and sections that can be easily connected together. This is not hypothetical technology - this is actually being tested and used right now. XD
    and of course the alpha version...

    I still swoon over houses made out of shipping containers.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Won't this just put tons and tons of hard-working american construction workers out of work? 3D printer technician seems like the only safe job in the future. Vote technophobe in 2032! :P


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Samy wrote:
    Irontruth wrote:

    We need better free trade agreements, but free trade agreements are crucial to maintaining a stable and peaceful world.

    Free trade stops wars. Then we figure out...

    Free trade, however, has also resulted in all the blue collar jobs going away, when manufacturing is offshored to Bangladesh. And that's going to result in cities burning probably within our lifespans. True, countries won't go to war because they have so much to lose anymore. They'll burn from within because the people have nothing anymore.

    Oh man I know. I remember when the industrial revolution came through. Machines and assembly lines put blacksmiths and horse ranchers out of business and tractors took away all the field hand jobs. It was scary and everything was on fire. Then when calculators turned into computers it was like Mad Max....


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    3-d printing construction inspector, the only safe job. ;)

    Here is an article from 2014 discussing the few million blue collar jobs going unfulfilled. It is a meaty one, worth the read, IMO.

    I'm looking to see if there is a more current version.

    For the 'rust belt' working class, they lack both access to the training to update their skill set and the means to afford the move. Whomever addresses these issues on the campaign trail in a meaningful fashion is likely to rake in a bunch of votes, popular and thus electoral.


    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    It might not put as many of them out of work as you'd think. They still need people to actually prepare the work site, plus there's all the detailed interior work that machines aren't doing yet, including decorations, wiring, and so on. A lot of construction jobs would change, but I don't think they'd completely go away... and with people spending waaaaaaay less on housing, they'd probably be able to afford other things, creating jobs in other sectors.

    Of course, that's just speculation... but the technology isn't. There was another case where a company built ten simple houses in one day, at a cost of ~$5,000 each. Simple homes, yes, but this stuff is real. XD The change is probably coming whether we like it or not.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    That's a good thing, Rednal. Areas where there are massive housing shortages (North Dakota comes to mind) could really use them.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Yup. I don't think my own region is at crisis level yet, but there IS a distinct shortage of affordable housing, especially for people in the lower and middle brackets. A lot of construction companies are really only making big, expensive homes, so even people who want to buy houses are often stuck renting someplace they don't want to stay because there's simply nowhere to go.

    Looping back to the main subject, though, 'cuz that's important! Which candidate, if any, do people think would be most friendly to technology like printing houses? Do you think any of them would see this as a good way to solve problems, or as something to be resisted by legislation and/or executive order?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Orville Redenbacher wrote:


    Oh man I know. I remember when the industrial revolution came through. Machines and assembly lines put blacksmiths and horse ranchers out of business and tractors took away all the field hand jobs. It was scary and everything was on fire. Then when calculators turned into computers it was like Mad Max....

    Some of that did happen though. We're still adjusting to it.


    Rednal wrote:

    Yup. I don't think my own region is at crisis level yet, but there IS a distinct shortage of affordable housing, especially for people in the lower and middle brackets. A lot of construction companies are really only making big, expensive homes, so even people who want to buy houses are often stuck renting someplace they don't want to stay because there's simply nowhere to go.

    Looping back to the main subject, though, 'cuz that's important! Which candidate, if any, do people think would be most friendly to technology like printing houses? Do you think any of them would see this as a good way to solve problems, or as something to be resisted by legislation and/or executive order?

    It's really weird, Red. Clinton gave a speech to coal miners endorsing embracing new, rather than obsolete, technology and every single republican commentary I've heard of it has cast it in a light of her hating, well, just about everything including Mom and apple pie, but mostly working class americans.

    Trump? I'm sure he'll cast it as something to be resisted at first, then say, he loves affordable housing and looking into it, but has no concept of the means at the President's disposal to do either.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I've decided to basically ignore the Republican media this election season. I've tried to remain balanced, I really have, but... the more they repeat Trump's talking points, the more I see them as complicit in spreading lies.

    And I say that as someone who basically assumes most news is biased and agenda-serving to begin with. o_O It's a strange feeling. Maybe this is just the limit of my tolerance for nonsense?

    It's probably something that Green candidates could go full-bore on, though. Those ten houses I mentioned earlier were made using a lot of industrial waste material (safe for humans, but... y'know, construction waste), which they were able to clean up as part of making them. So printed houses can actually help recycle materials, and if candidates emphasized how they could help the environment while drastically reducing the cost of living, people might be willing to listen and at least take that into consideration. A lot of green things still have a stigma of being expensive, and reversing that could help their position a lot. XD


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Rednal wrote:

    Yup. I don't think my own region is at crisis level yet, but there IS a distinct shortage of affordable housing, especially for people in the lower and middle brackets. A lot of construction companies are really only making big, expensive homes, so even people who want to buy houses are often stuck renting someplace they don't want to stay because there's simply nowhere to go.

    Looping back to the main subject, though, 'cuz that's important! Which candidate, if any, do people think would be most friendly to technology like printing houses? Do you think any of them would see this as a good way to solve problems, or as something to be resisted by legislation and/or executive order?

    Presently speaking, neither majority candidate seems to be particularly aware of the technology. The best I'm hearing is infrastructure jobs, which are a small part of a much larger problem. One that some facets could be affordably addressed by 3-D printing technologies applied on that larger scale.

    Whichever candidate rolls out a moderately detailed plan to address the combination of affordable housing, job training and relocation to where those jobs are seems likely to do quite well.

    Were I a state level politically involved person, there would be a massive effort to get this done. Ideally in areas that could quickly be upgraded to accommodate as large an influx of such jobs as possible. Bringing aboard one or several home developers would be one step. Adjusting or locating compatible county/municipal zoning and planning so that the pain is minimal. Utilities infrastructure. Do a lot of stuff in advanced planning so that when the ball is set to roll, it rolls with as few disruptions as possible.

    Starting with the states' counties/townships/etc to see what the existing zoning will accommodate sets the stage for the rest of it. I'd not be surprised to find in many states that at least a dozen counties' existing zoning already exists to allow for such growth. See where they overlap in adjacent counties. Look at the nearby residential and light commercial zones are with an eye towards affordable simple housing can be swiftly built once they are developed accordingly plus the retail space necessary for those communities. Maybe even attempt to specifically target the effort into revitalizing the older areas, or perhaps to draw the residents out of the [insert descriptor of rundown neighborhood area here] so that the old crummy places can be 'plowed under'.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Rednal wrote:

    I've decided to basically ignore the Republican media this election season. I've tried to remain balanced, I really have, but... the more they repeat Trump's talking points, the more I see them as complicit in spreading lies.

    And I say that as someone who basically assumes most news is biased and agenda-serving to begin with. o_O It's a strange feeling. Maybe this is just the limit of my tolerance for nonsense?

    It's probably something that Green candidates could go full-bore on, though. Those ten houses I mentioned earlier were made using a lot of industrial waste material (safe for humans, but... y'know, construction waste), which they were able to clean up as part of making them. So printed houses can actually help recycle materials, and if candidates emphasized how they could help the environment while drastically reducing the cost of living, people might be willing to listen and at least take that into consideration. A lot of green things still have a stigma of being expensive, and reversing that could help their position a lot. XD

    It's not entirely clear to me what effects such technology would have on the housing market. It seems obvious that lower building costs would lower prices, but much about the housing market is very counterintuitive.

    Regardless of the actual costs involved the major limiting factor in most places is land - this has often led to McMansion development - large, expensive (often shoddily built) houses on postage stamp lots, to maximize the profit from the land used. How would this play into that trend?
    How drastic is the cost difference anyway? The $5000 cost you linked is without land and basically for just building the base structure - no plumbing, wiring, etc. I've got no idea how that compares to usual methods or to the final price.
    If this is a complete revolution and drastically drops the cost of housing, what happens to existing stock? Do we have another housing crisis when no one can sell their house because building a new one is drastically cheaper than paying off the existing mortgage? Housing is this weird combination of basic cost of living and investment.
    What happens to the property tax base?

    How do these techniques and materials hold up over the long term? My house was built in the 50s. That's not uncommon and should be a major consideration.

    If, as I suspect, the actual cost savings aren't so dramatic in practice, then it'll be easily adopted as changes in housing construction have been in the past.


    Rednal wrote:

    I've decided to basically ignore the Republican media this election season. I've tried to remain balanced, I really have, but... the more they repeat Trump's talking points, the more I see them as complicit in spreading lies.

    And I say that as someone who basically assumes most news is biased and agenda-serving to begin with. o_O It's a strange feeling. Maybe this is just the limit of my tolerance for nonsense?

    It's probably something that Green candidates could go full-bore on, though. Those ten houses I mentioned earlier were made using a lot of industrial waste material (safe for humans, but... y'know, construction waste), which they were able to clean up as part of making them. So printed houses can actually help recycle materials, and if candidates emphasized how they could help the environment while drastically reducing the cost of living, people might be willing to listen and at least take that into consideration. A lot of green things still have a stigma of being expensive, and reversing that could help their position a lot. XD

    The nice thing about most media outlets' regurgitation of talking points is that it is pretty easy to skip past the nonsense. I don't recommend completely ignoring it just for the chance to glean some worthwhile nuggets that dribble past the drek. Kinda like sifting silt for gold. It doesn't happen often, but then, neither does unbiased reporting. ;)

    I agree that Green candidates need to couple the benefits of doing so - although many housing developers have been onboard with green housing construction - with the cost benefits from the doing.

    If there's only one thing or a very few things that it significantly benefits, it's not much of a selling point in a campaign featuring a swath of disgruntled voters that are fed up with 'the system', out of work/underemployed and unable to sell their homes to be able to move elsewhere to better their lives without having to just up and let the foreclosure poop fall where it may.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    thejeff wrote:

    It's not entirely clear to me what effects such technology would have on the housing market. It seems obvious that lower building costs would lower prices, but much about the housing market is very counterintuitive.

    Regardless of the actual costs involved the major limiting factor in most places is land - this has often led to McMansion development - large, expensive (often shoddily built) houses on postage stamp lots, to maximize the profit from the land used. How would this play into that trend?
    How drastic is the cost difference anyway? The $5000 cost you linked is without land and basically for just building the base structure - no plumbing, wiring, etc. I've got no idea how that compares to usual methods or to the final price.
    If this is a complete revolution and drastically drops the cost of housing, what happens to existing stock? Do we have another housing crisis when no one can sell their house because building a new one is drastically cheaper than paying off the existing mortgage? Housing is this weird combination of basic cost of living and investment.
    What happens to the property tax base?
    How do these techniques and materials hold up over the long term? My house was built in the 50s. That's not uncommon and should be a major consideration.

    If, as I suspect, the actual cost savings aren't so dramatic in practice, then it'll be easily adopted as changes in housing construction have been in the past.

    Generally, the single largest factor in the price of new construction homes is the cost to acquire the land. The cost per square foot to build those homes was $13.60 (rounding up), without the other important stuff: plumbing, electrical, etc.

    Right now typical construction cost for a new home runs $125-$150 per square foot of home. If the technology shaved that down to $100 per square foot of finished home - a fair bit of which could come from the simple savings on labor costs paid over the time required to build - the developers would be all over it.

    Neato article on 3-d printing houses here. It's Washington Post, act accordingly.

    A legitimate consideration is the material used in the construction. Run of the mill concrete is not a great material, at least in part due to settlement as the ground beneath the foundation shifts and lowers. The mere drywall cracks we see now become much more profound concerns with a primarily concrete building.

    Another possibility (perhaps only theoretical) is if the printing technology can cannibalize the on-site house. If so, it would address concerns about what to do with the previous building: eat it and make a new building from the rubble of the old building. Some jobs would be created by the demolition process: ripping out the old plumbing and wiring, perhaps having to dismantle it by rough material type: concrete/stone; wood; fasteners/brackets; ceramic etc.

    Taxes are the easiest adjustment: when values decrease, property tax rates are adjusted accordingly upwards. Uncle County/City/Town et al doesn't like seeing their property tax revenue decrease.


    Samy wrote:
    Irontruth wrote:

    We need better free trade agreements, but free trade agreements are crucial to maintaining a stable and peaceful world.

    Free trade stops wars. Then we figure out...

    Free trade, however, has also resulted in all the blue collar jobs going away, when manufacturing is offshored to Bangladesh. And that's going to result in cities burning probably within our lifespans. True, countries won't go to war because they have so much to lose anymore. They'll burn from within because the people have nothing anymore.

    See the part where I said we need better free trade agreements? Did you read that part, or just skip over it? Cause it's important. Like, really important to my stance. It's so important, that skipping over it or ignoring it makes a response to my stance a little pointless.

    I'd like to stress once more, it's important.


    And if the town is limited in the allowed increase in tax rates, they'll just tell you your house is worth much more than it actually is. They do it already in Essex county, NY, and I'm sure that's not the only one.


    Grey Lensman wrote:
    And if the town is limited in the allowed increase in tax rates, they'll just tell you your house is worth much more than it actually is. They do it already in Essex county, NY, and I'm sure that's not the only one.

    That was endemic during the Great Recession throughout every jurisdiction I know of. It seems that some areas have not gotten away from it, which is sad. "Assessed value" x "tax rate" = $ homeowner gets to pay. As you're seeing, Essex County has determined that property owners are to cough up $X in property taxes in toto and they will one way or another within the letter of the law, rather than the spirit.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Irontruth wrote:
    Samy wrote:
    Irontruth wrote:

    We need better free trade agreements, but free trade agreements are crucial to maintaining a stable and peaceful world.

    Free trade stops wars. Then we figure out...

    Free trade, however, has also resulted in all the blue collar jobs going away, when manufacturing is offshored to Bangladesh. And that's going to result in cities burning probably within our lifespans. True, countries won't go to war because they have so much to lose anymore. They'll burn from within because the people have nothing anymore.

    See the part where I said we need better free trade agreements? Did you read that part, or just skip over it? Cause it's important. Like, really important to my stance. It's so important, that skipping over it or ignoring it makes a response to my stance a little pointless.

    I'd like to stress once more, it's important.

    As a thought on that, doesn't China have a gaggle of trade agreements? China seems perfectly willing if they feel the need to go to war in spite of those agreements.

    Ah, yes, they apparently do: 14 signed with 5 more under negotiation.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
    Irontruth wrote:
    See the part where I said we need better free trade agreements?

    "Better" and "free" are more or less mutually exclusive here. Either you restrict trade so that companies can't offshore, providing domestic jobs -- but then it's not a free trade agreement. Or you have a free trade agreement, which by definition is free, and allows for convenient offshoring and loss of domestic jobs.


    Turin the Mad wrote:
    Grey Lensman wrote:
    And if the town is limited in the allowed increase in tax rates, they'll just tell you your house is worth much more than it actually is. They do it already in Essex county, NY, and I'm sure that's not the only one.
    That was endemic during the Great Recession throughout every jurisdiction I know of. It seems that some areas have not gotten away from it, which is sad. "Assessed value" x "tax rate" = $ homeowner gets to pay. As you're seeing, Essex County has determined that property owners are to cough up $X in property taxes in toto and they will one way or another within the letter of the law, rather than the spirit.

    In New York State counties and towns are also under the gun of the ever popular (in the State Legislature, at least) 'Unfunded Mandate', where the state tells the lower levels of government that they now need to do something expensive, but will be contributing zero dollars to help make it happen.

    It's what happens when the Democrat's 'New Stuff' and the Republican's 'No New Taxes' make the worst kind of compromise..."We didn't raise taxes, we just forced other people to do it!" combined with "We created this new program whose costs will outweigh any benefits it provides! Squeeze a little harder, poor counties! I'm sure there's a little blood left in there!"

    Glad I no longer live there.


    Fortunately, it seems that manufacturing jobs have been returning at least somewhat faster than they are leaving.

    A very interesting piece discussing the upswing in localized manufacturing with attendant benefits to green concerns, costs and thus profitability.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Samy wrote:
    Irontruth wrote:
    See the part where I said we need better free trade agreements?
    "Better" and "free" are more or less mutually exclusive here. Either you restrict trade so that companies can't offshore, providing domestic jobs -- but then it's not a free trade agreement. Or you have a free trade agreement, which by definition is free, and allows for convenient offshoring and loss of domestic jobs.

    If you're going to use that absolutist definition, then there's never been a free trade agreement anywhere in the world, and never will be. Even Oklahoma and Nebraska don't have a free trade agreement; you can't practice medicine in Nebraska with an Oklahoma license.

    Realistic free trade agreements are, almost by definition, of limited scope (that's why US "free trade agreements" don't automatically grant the right to work in the counterparty country, unlike the agreements Norway signed with the EU). A "better" free trade agreement would be a free trade agreement whose scope more closely matches the policy needs of the United States, and specifically (in this context), the policy needs of the part of the United States that includes the blue collar workers who would be displaced by offshoring.

    201 to 250 of 7,079 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards