wjnqx

> we can absolutely make a case for "ripping families apart"

I don't see how that isn't a suggestion of a course of action -- one that that is a blatant misuse of a study (with small effects only measured over a small time period) toward ideological ends, i.e. supporting the seizure of children of disadvantaged parents.

Moreover, I refuse to have an evidence-based discussion about whether certain people deserve human rights. That shifts the Overton window to present such ideas as acceptable, when in a civilized society they should not be.

Thanks! Those were some interesting reads.

I am appalled that such an assertion can be made openly. It is, frankly, simply vile to suggest that children be taken away from struggling parents by society, rather than society being obligated to help those parents raise their children. To do so would be not only criminal, but profoundly immoral.

Would you be able to provide links to modern structures built with the methods you're describing or research about them? Does this conservative design resemble something like Gaudi's Sagrada Familia, or is that the wrong way to think about it?

That's only because the construction isn't as sturdy. Italy routinely experiences earthquakes similar in magnitude to California.

To be fair, stock in Morgan Stanley is not marketed as "decentralized."

So why not just build social housing at a larger scale? It'd put actual downward force on the market by turning publicly-owned housing from a lottery into legitimate competition with privately-owned housing.

I don't think the cost of that is justified in large cities. LA already dedicates more land area to automobile infrastructure than anything else, and the region is still plagued by traffic jams. At the end of the day, a single rail line can bring an amount of people in and out a city equivalent to multiple lanes of traffic. That's a lesson Americans forgot after 1945 for whatever reason, and now we have to re-learn it from the rest of the world now that we've hit the limits of car-oriented development.

I don't agree that they're biased. Take LA as an example: there has been a massive expansion in the highway system there (in terms of new interstate sections and lane additions). There's more land area dedicated to transport than just about anything else. The fact is that cars are inherently inefficient in terms of space — they're huge, there are tons of them, and they're not used something like 95% of the time. Sure, maybe you could build your way out of the problem, but, like, why? What's the point when rail is so much more efficient?

The popularity of detached housing is really only a post-WWII phenomenon created by massive infrastructure investments in highways and tax incentives for homeownership (versus renting, which is basically pouring money down a hole in the US). It's a historical anomaly, and I don't think you can disentangle the desire for detached homes from the policy structures that incentivize it.

That's demonstrably false. Look to cities in northern Europe like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, where bicycle use has caused a massive decrease in automobile traffic.

Can you cite any of those figures?

I'm a UC student on Pell grants. My parents were priced out of owning a home in their metro area.

What is wrong with you? What destroyed your empathy, compassion, and hope?

The technology-based economy extracts value from the rapid information exchange that takes place in cities full of highly-educated people. That doesn't exist in York, PA. Google et al. know that if they moved, their rate of innovation would falter, along with their revenue.

>Most people in CA feel the same way

What? Citation?

>being nativist is in vogue these days

You're not a nativist. If you were, you'd want a place for people like me who were born here. Instead, you're more than willing to kick us out for the sake of your own financial well-being. You're just a selfish beneficiary of the pyramid scheme that is the American housing market.