Journal Bill Dawg's Journal: a little is good, more is worse 29
My dad mentioned this a week or two ago; finally remembered to look it up:
The median home price around here is $550K. Sans a nanny state, that would be $440K instead. At today's current 30-year fixed rate, that means a $2450/month payment would instead be $1950. IOW, that's $500/month just in goverment regulations (and just in the area of housing).
Now *some* regulation is good. Just like we need *some* amount of government. But does one really need their housing cost to be $500 higher for all of it. Maybe $50 or $100 of regulation would suffice.
This is also swell, from the same FA:
"In other words, the cost of regulation in the price of a new home is rising more than twice as fast as the average Americanâ(TM)s ability to pay for it."
Forcing American workers to compete with labor in countries of lower costs of living has certainly contributed to stagnating wages, but the cost of government regulation going full steam ahead in spite of this is pretty insensitive to our plight.
Oh please! Just stop (Score:1)
Prices are high because of rampant speculation, hoarding, and usury. The government is merely charging for the services they provide to the real estate industry and the banks, and then those costs are passed on to us.
Gee, a "study" done by Wells Fargo [theguardian.com], and a vague article that says nothing, a simple recitation of industry opinion and propaganda.. Who'da thunk it would ever reflect any bias? And to think, you could actually run with some legitimate complaints [mintpressnews.com] against Obama's DOJ and convince people you are s
Re: (Score:1)
How about we stop bashing each other, and just limit it to actual content like your first sentence and your link.
Re: (Score:1)
You are expressing no "content", only big business anti-government propaganda. What is the purpose, if not trolling? The politicians that you vote for are *just following orders* of the people that give the biggest rewards, and your vote (if democrat or republican) is your consent. If you really want to be taken seriously, you have to talk serious, not just mimic everything Trump says.
Re: (Score:1)
How about allowing "content" to be defined by the writer, then. How about we each post what we think is "content", without the belittling. It's entirely possible to disagree without accusations. I'm tired of the level of strife with you.
Re: (Score:1)
I am not "accusing" you of anything. I am merely asking that you try to make at least a feeble effort to present something other than propaganda and bullshit. It's a very modest request that you are taking far too personally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
narcissistic
I'm sorry, what is today's definition?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Hmm, I guess you're running a different movie in your head.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I would expect nothing less. Gives you a good excuse to blow out whatever the hell it is that you are saying. Who knew that a rectum could type when a phone is inserted? A million polyps typing Shakespeare. I am also intrigued that you follow me around like a lost puppy. Better hope I don't pick you up. It'll be straight off to the pound with ya.
Re: (Score:2)
Your subconscious really doesn't like you. I wonder why?
I am also intrigued that you follow me around like a lost puppy.
ROFL! Only because you've already forgotten that I told you why. My god, the world sure must be daunting to you as you discover it anew every 15 minutes!
Better hope I don't pick you up.
You're far too lazy to ever come correct on any of your threats, so it's always amusing when you're trying to be tough.
Re: (Score:1)
You created your "why" strictly to satisfy your own ego and give you a nice endorphin rush. Doesn't apply to the real world, or anywhere else outside your own skull. You should stick to beer and weed.
Nothing "tough" about catching a lost dog, or even shooting it on the spot... More humane than kicking it.
I'm just the cabin boy, nothing more. Pumping me up really does you no good.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, we both know that's not how you think of yourself, don't we?
Pumping me up really does you no good.
Ahhh, more dispatches from opposite land.
Re: (Score:1)
Hmm, we both know that's not how you think of yourself, don't we?
See? Once again you prove that you are the one living in opposite land (number what now, mr. projectionist?). That is precisely how I see myself, if even that. Your responses only confirm you don't see me at even that level, though I still don't understand why you elevate me. Hence your confusion maybe. No offense taken :-)
You got another batch of speeders today, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
You keep leaning on this particular trope, even when it has no basis in reality. If it helps, I think cabin boy is close, but no cigar. You and I both know your outfit is more...motley.
You got another batch of speeders today, huh?
You're right, you are a lazy fuck. But I'm sure you can turn it around eventually.
Re: (Score:1)
you are a lazy fuck
Re: (Score:2)
Who's elevating who now? Sorry, but there's no mystery here. You're. Just. That. Predictable.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah yes, hindsight is such a wonderful thing. And yours is definitely 20/20. Sharp as a tack. Yet you still misread. Very mysterious
Re: (Score:2)
It is, isn't it? Shame it's got nothing to do with what's going on here.
Yet you still misread.
Tut tut. You're already on record as being solely responsible for that shit as your communications skills are so poor. But of course, you're not big on personal responsibility, so easier to sling shit than admit you're a weak ass troll.
Re: (Score:1)
Shame it's got nothing to do with what's going on here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
:-) If you don't see the evidence, it can only mean you're a vampire.
Re: (Score:2)
Regs (Score:2)
A couple of things: First, the study was done by folks who build houses (not construction workers, the people who pay them). I'd like to see something by a dispassionate party that has nothing to do with the industry. Second, it was "government at all levels" which makes it meaningless. Missouri's regulations don't affect the price of a house in Illinois, and my guess is that most of those regulatory cost increases were at the local level in expensive towns, probably in California.
I'm glad that you realize
Re: (Score:1)
I'd like to see something by a dispassionate party that has nothing to do with the industry.
Agreed.
Second, it was "government at all levels" which makes it meaningless.
I'm hoping that was some outrageous hyperbole on your part. Because "meaningless" means "sans (all) meaning".
And I see no indication or other reason to believe that the data was cherry picked to produce an unrepresentative result. I think projection is involved here, where the hyper-political assume everyone would stop at nothing as well.
On the rest, what you wrote may have been making a case for "more" regulation in your mind, but to me it only reinforces that "some" is needed. I'm waaay against
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever seen a regulation that you didn't like?
Of course I have. And other regulations that were too heavy handed. My question is how much of the price of a house where I want or need to live is from regulation, and are the regulations warranted. The price of Daytona's regulations is meaningless to anyone who doesn't live there.
Re: (Score:1)
You might be assuming that regulations on new home construction are decided per municipality in a vacuum. Such that what goes on in another city, in your same state or even otherwise, has no bearing on what is or will go on in yours.
My question is how much of the price of a house where I want or need to live is from regulation
And it's fine that that's what you're more interested in. What I'm more interested in is larger scale trends.
and are the regulations warranted.
Okay, so you're approaching this from "all I care about is what affects me (right now)". Because the judgment of whether something optional is "warranted" or not is sub
Re: (Score:1)
All in all, the article is propaganda.
Exactly. Vague bitching with no substance.. not a single specific example in the article itself.