chiefofgxbxl

They don't think they can handle more work with fewer workers. It's just a profit squeeze, and someone else pays the price.

> renters get the same one vote per person as everybody else

It's not just directly voting for a city councilor, planning board member, etc. that counts. Showing up to public meetings to show support or disagreement with something can do much to pressure those elected officials. But renters are going to have a much more difficult time showing solidarity for pro-development action, not only because of the difference in socioeconomic status (e.g. living paycheck to paycheck vs. a homeowner who has a stable, white-collar job).

1. Homeowners can shoot down a proposed development by demonstrating a strong response against threats on just their street or block. As long as homeowners defend their turf locally, and it can be counted on them to do so across town, they win. Renters, on the other hand, have an asymmetrically difficult battle: pro-development individuals need to show up to all the proposed-development meetings, not just one for a particular street or block, if they want to expand housing.

2. Homeowners are probably much more strongly driven to show up because the focus is on what they lose. Character of neighborhood, traffic, safety, noise, etc. and the threat against the status quo seems more likely to trigger that visceral defense mechanism. Renters probably focus on what they gain: affordable housing, access to new communities, etc. My intuition is that the perception of losing something is a greater call to action than the possibility of gaining something.

3. Homeowners are well-defined and known individuals. They already exist, and their turf is already developed. Renters, on the other hand, are an abstract group of people who may or may not even move in, should something be built. I currently rent an apartment - but will I show up to a neighboring town's planning board meeting to voice my support for some proposed apartment complex that's still in the early stages, could flop at any point, and even if it succeeds I may not even move there? The renters of a future complex may not even know who they are yet, if they aren't adamant on moving in there should a place be built.

4. There's strong stigma against renters, to the point of being demeaning and tribal. A local council near me voiced their opposition to building more affordable developments, and the chairman said he was concerned about "derelicts" (exact word) moving in to the neighborhood and said if they built more affordable units, you'd see a rise in street drug vendors, threatening the local children. How can renters and low-income earners combat such ridiculous accusations when local leaders cast them as criminals, just because they can't afford to buy a median $400,000 house?

Your comment ignores so much of the asymmetric power dynamic between owners and renters.

> For example, at the grocery store, a theoretical eight-pack of bottled water costs $3.00. A theoretical 32-pack of bottled water costs $5.00. But no older person can lift a 32-pack of water. So to get 32 bottles of water, an older person has to pay 140% more just because they made the mistake of not dying young.

The grocery store I go to (large regional brand) has for the last few years been asking people at checkout if they need help carrying their groceries to their car. Some packaging is ridiculous (remember people having to go to the hospital and get stitches over clam-shell packages?), but I can't imagine an elderly person wouldn't get help carrying a heavy item if they asked for help - people want to be good Samaritans.

I see similar arguments with vehicle prices, where vehicles are more expensive, but they are higher build quality, have more features (heated seats, blind-spot warning, etc.), so it's not technically correct to use the term "inflation" since the product is different.

But it still feels wrong to say that this isn't a concern and to dismiss it with that argument, since people still need entry-level options, even if we tout the new bells and whistles we've added to the houses or vehicles over the past few decades.

Saying "housing prices are ridiculous" followed by, "but you get more features!" is no consolation to the family looking to get their foot in the door of the housing market.

The analogy to pacifiers may be overly condescending (equating adults to children), but in general I have adopted the view that smartphone usage in public is essentially second-hand smoke, and that hopefully within the next 1-2 decades the public will finally begin to recognize this as widespread addiction and begin setting some limits.

I got into computers when I was in early elementary school, and that began my track toward exploration and software development. There's no doubt that my mom's worries of me being addicted to the computer were absolutely true - entire summers were spent on the computer.

What's different about computer addiction and smartphone addiction is that computer usage is more limited in where you can do it. My computer-addicted young self would not have been able to whip out a desktop computer at a restaurant, barbershop, or waiting in line to pick up an order. But with smartphones essentially being "pocket computers", people can use them anywhere - even driving.

I do believe in personal choice, so I don't want to be heavy handed, but I imagine our society will need to grapple with this problem. I see couples on dates with each other in restaurants, both on their phones nearly the entire time scrolling through endless feeds. I watch sports events where any small break in play people need to pull out their phones. There is no presence anymore, and public space (along with suburbanization) has rapidly eroded over the past 10-15 years since smartphones were invented. Now commercials for phones/5G normalize the idea that you should be able to download/stream a movie on your phone walking down a sidewalk.

There's a balance that needs to be struck here, and it's going to be difficult to reach because we're still relatively in the infancy of these fancy electronic gadgets. Particularly in the US where individualism and personal choice is so deeply part of our culture, it will be difficult to restore the public space so that we can come to expect if you go out in public, people are actually... present and there. But somehow we eventually came to the same conclusion with banning smoking in restaurants et. al.

Also worth adding that wealth doesn't need to mean owning more material possessions. Wealth can take the form of knowledge, opportunities, increased quality of life, etc. Think educational wealth, mental wealth, spiritual wealth, etc.

Less can also be more. How wealthy is an elderly person who requires multiple prescription drugs, nurse/home-care, etc.? Sure they might have acquired money during their life to pay for these things, but that also means they are dependent (read: not free) on a lot of things too. Dependency is a sort of anti-wealth.

Besides the high-tech hype, there's also the economic absurdity behind all these proposals. The average American household already spends 1/6th of its income on (car) transportation. These VTOLs are cars on steroids, with even more modes of failure and imaginably more regulation. I assume they would do a ride-sharing / taxi business model, but even then... the average person won't be able to afford a ride in one of these because the average American can't even keep up with ordinary car payments.

It's depressingly comical to see these futuristic pitches when the reality is there won't be any customers left because the middle class will be completely gone in near time. People need to have money in order to spend it.