You should be careful saying things like "high housing costs which driven up by overregulation". It sounds like you're trying to frame bad economic news like it's the fault of a more liberal political party in the US.
High housing costs are just an effect of capitalism. It's supply and demand - as simple as that. If they were grass huts in downtown San Fransisco, they'd be just as expensive. "Overregulation" is a fallacy.
Zoning costs money everywhere. That's work that needs to be done by a person. That person gets paid. It's capitalism again.
Prop 13 actually limits property taxes and the assessments that can happen. You're actually hurting your argument with this point.
Regulations don't reduce supply because regulations don't purchase properties. People purchase properties and then that property is off the market.
The Bay Area is proof that limited supply (because there is only so much land in the area) + steady (or increasing) demand (because people need to live close to where they work for some baffling reason) will cause property values to raise steadily over time.
Again: It's supply and demand. Regulations have very little to do with price increases.
To be clear: I'm not anti-capitalist ... I'm just anti "wrong context"
> Zoning costs money everywhere. That's work that needs to be done by a person.
I'm not talking about the salary for a city planner who draws lines on a map. I'm talking about banning building denser housing via zoning.
> The Bay Area is proof that limited supply... will cause property values to raise steadily over time
The Bay Area has limited housing supply for a long time through single-family zoning, minimum lot sizes and other regulatory means.
> Prop 13 actually limits property taxes and the assessments that can happen.
Unaffordable property tax increases are a signal that the land is under-utilized. High property taxes due to land scarcity incentivize building more housing on the same land. Prop 13 takes away that signal. Or at least, it insulates existing and long-term homeowners from the effects of insufficient housing supply in their area. Their taxes don't go up so they have no reason to sell their house to someone who will build condos and apartments on that land.
> You're actually hurting your argument with this point.
I don't think you've taken the time to understand my points.
> Again: It's supply and demand. Regulations have very little to do with price increases.
I live in an unregulated county and I just built a house for $60,000.
I've found a few plots of land in San Francisco where you could put my house on where the land itself is under $200,000. So $260,000. So why doesn't anyone do this? It's $200,000 in profit easy since you could sell it for $460,000+ easy. Capitalists just hate making money? Clearly there is regulation stopping it, otherwise developers would be buying $50k boxables or the cheapest manufactured house they could drop down off a trailer and making an absolute mint on all the slivers of cheaper land you can find for sale in these upper priced cities.
When I was in the planning phase of building my house I quickly identified only a few counties in my state where it was even possible to build a house all myself without regulatory inspections. The only reason why I have a house is because I found a place with no regulatory inspections for owner-builder housing which allowed me to bypass codes, engineering, building plans, and licensing.
People in New York City don't talk as often about how difficult building is because of NIMBYism. Generally it's a combination of red tape that's meant to act as a protection from things like fires and bad construction, which is good, environmental regulations which is so-so (some of them drive up housing costs), because of progressive policies (demanding a certain percentage of units be for lower income people), a scarcity of land, high wages, and a political class tied to unions (the latest tax breaks are tied to 50 dollar min wage for new construction of 99 units or more).
It's very very complicated. And new construction makes rents go up here because it's all luxury - it has to be, or developers won't bother to build.
It's so complicated that I'm sick of reading the West Coasters hot take on housing problems - that it's 100 percent due to single family homes and zoning and other very very California problems.
If you're looking for programs where mistakes were not made, Apollo is not the program to choose. I highly recommend visiting Kennedy Space Center some time where they go in-depth on how close it came to never happening after Apollo I. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1
That being said, I'm a big proponent of "you can't make ICBM's carrying humans 100% safe", but you sure can try your best.
Why don't they refer to the 3rd 'episode' as Vietnam - since the timeline lines up pretty nicely with that downward slope (and it's more than just the 70's as is highlighted in the article)?
If seeing this graph has taught me anything it's that war is hell on many levels - including economically.
This article also doesn't seem to account for the median price of a single family home.
And your retort (and this report) are doom and gloom. Humans are remarkably good at adapting and have adapted through far worse conditions than economic systems. The negative net is easy and very popular today but positivity is just as possible. It’s all about how you read data and there’s a lot of room for interpretation. If you’ve fallen for the doom that’s on you but calling something with so much historical precedence as hope for humanity ‘an easily dismissed hot take’ doesn’t make you look very bright.
>And your retort (and this report) are doom and gloom. Dinosaurs are remarkably good at adapting and have adapted through far worse conditions than _______, hell, they were around 99 million years longer than humans.
Species go extinct all the time, most species go though all kinds of things before then, so there is nearly zero correlation between surviving something bad in the past and surviving something else bad in the future.
Modern humanity is not anti-fragile any longer like we were in the past.
The articles argument is fine, but it takes as an axiom that AI is better right now at much cognitive work. I haven't found that to be true in the tasks I've looked at.
It's certainly cheaper and faster, so there's potential for it to unlock more demand but I'm sceptical that current models will replace a large fraction of knowledge work.
Or that someone asked to renewed it, one of their four bosses didn't sign off the apropriate form, the only person to take that form to whoever does the certs is on a vacation, person issuing certs needs all four of his bosses to sign it off, and one of those bosses has been DOGE-ed and not yet replaced.
expired letsencrypt cert on a raspberrypi at home smells of not paying attention... with governments, there are many, many points of failure.
The whole point of these shorter certificate durations is to force companies to put in automation that doesn't require 14 layers of paperwork. Some companies will be stubborn, and will thus be locked in an eternal cycle of renew->get paperwork started for renew. Most will adapt.
It's the government... they have 30 different services just in that department, made by 30 different companies with 30 different support companies, two of those don't exist anymore, 3 have been bought by cisco, two by google, 2 services are behind some old palo alto web proxy that's centrally managed by some other department, one service is written in cobol, one requires the cert to be on a usb flash drive and another on a memory stick.
It's cheaper to pay someone just to take care of the certs (unless their bosses and procurement and accounting messes up) than to fix all that.
I've seen government stuff, i wouldn't touch it with a 5m pole.
I don't see how any of that is the CA's problem. As far as I'm concerned, the CA's and browser vendors are entirely in the right to go "Here's the new rules. Adapt. Or don't, we don't care."
Well, they didn't, and you have to click through "i understand" (or whatever) to see the contents from servers with expired certs. Usually you need files from them and not vice-versa, sp as far as they're concerned, it's your problem now.
I guess it depends on the country. Where I live they’d be on the hook in somehow safely providing me with the files if they were involved in me fulfilling some kind of legal obligation to them, and I’d be off the hook if they refused.
If you notice, it's mostly the higher priced burgers that seem to be 'askew'