Thrashy

GenZ is the generation raised by helicopter parents, whose late-Boomer-to-early-GenX parents went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that they never faced any challenges. Of course they'd have some odd ideas about how the world ought to work, after spending their entire childhood and early adulthood with Mom and Dad working strenuously to shield them from personal struggles, emotional distress, and the consequences of their actions. What remains to be seen is how those attitudes shift as the rubber hits the road and their parents lose the ability to protect them from the increasingly dire state of the world. I suspect it'll be an even three-way split between blithe entitlement, despair and withdrawal, and an impulse to step up and do something about it.

Sorry. Not casting aspersions on you, just despairing at the situation.

Working on it, but for the overwhelming majority of people emigrating is a hell of a lot harder than just showing up in another country and saying "my place sucks, can I come in?"

The math leans towards the former, but when the two hypotheses suggested by the data are "we are actively and selectively targeting noncombatants" and "we just don't give half a shit who we're killing," in a sane world you'd be universally branded as "the baddies" in the conflict.

I love it, but I haven't gone back to watch it since 2016 because it felt a bit too much like current events played for laughs.

There was a recent poll in Kansas that had Trump up 4 points, with a 4-point margin of error, in a state that he won by 15 points in 2020. Do I think my home state is actually going to go blue this election? No...but polls like these suggest the rural vote (in particular farmers, who for whatever else you might have to say about them, tend to at least have a political instinct for financial self-preservation that other rural voters seem to lack) not breaking nearly as heavily in his favor as it did last cycle.

Cops don't usually distinguish between net and gross revenue when they put out these kinds of press releases.

On most carriers this is code for "coach, but it's an exit row so we'll charge extra for the legroom."

As an architectural professional, this misses the point. It's as easy as it's ever been to buy a plot of farmland for relative pennies vaguely near a major metro and throw up a cookie-cutter exurban subdivision full of builder-grade single-family homes. The cost has gone up due to inflation, but if anything bureaucratic and administrative expenses have dropped as a percentage of the overall cost. Builders are constantly fighting new code provisions that would increase costs, but on average most new code revisions add something on the order of a couple thousand dollars of cost to the average new home -- basically nothing against the current average sales price. Most of the cost in a new home is materials and (espescially) contractor labor and profit -- if builders want to offer cheaper standard homes, they ultimately will have to reduce their own cut.

What people are actually talking about when this comes up, is building denser housing closer in. Local zoning regulations often explicitly prohibit multi-family housing in large swathes of cities, especially the kinds most desired by families (townhomes and multiplexes, rather than large apartment complexes). It's easier to build less expensive housing closer to where people want to live, if it can be made legal to build new, middle-density homes where more density is in demand, and even to convert large single-family properties into livable duplexes (such as can be found in cities like Boston and Seattle).

There are other initiatives that I'm more ambivalent about -- for example, the push to change the building code to permit single-stair apartment buildings, that @[email protected] mentions below. This would put American building practice more in alignment with European practice, but I am personally of the opinion that the requirement in US codes for multiple means of egress is one of the most significant safety improvements we've made, and single-stair towers, in combination with the related design philosophy for residents to shelter in place during a fire, was one of the largest contributors to tragedies like Grenfell. But the advocates do have a point that egress requirements do dramatically reduce the efficiency of the typical apartment tower floorplate in the US, and there is probably a way to balance out the risk with other fire protection features.

I'm assuming that most of the people making these arguments (at least on Lemmy) are coming from the "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" point of view where they presuppose some sort of command economy scenario, with housing being a basic right provided by the state and work being an optional thing you can do if you want to.

Which is all well and good, but we're not in that society right now, and the suffering of the unhoused isn't something that just goes on hold while we wait for the proletariat to rise up. There are solutions that we can implement now that will make things better, which work better than, I dunno, then the government eminent-domaining every derelict property in East Waynesvilleboro, Pennsyltucky, and shipping homeless people there en masse, away from family members and support systems.

"this is non-non, non-non-non, NON-heinous!"

True as it may be that there are more vacant homes than there are homeless people in America, the expression misses the forest for the trees. In many cases, those homes are vacant for a reason -- they may be located in places like dying rural villages, or declining Rust Belt manufacturing towns where the local economy is severely depressed and there's no work to be had for residents. They may also be severely dilapidated and unsafe to live in. Solving the housing crisis isn't as simple as just assigning existing vacant homes to people who don't have them -- housing needs to be in the right place, and of decent quality, too, or else it's not doing any good.