Substandard Housing

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I can hardly wait for that invisible hand to start raising real wages. Hasn't happened for over forty years now, but I bet if we just pray to our god of free market capitalism, and sacrifice a few more generations of people, that he/she/it will eventually bring forth the promised bounty.

Wage growth and middle class prosperity didn't happen by accident. It happened through concerted social action and government policy. And the opposite is also true. Wage stagnation, and the massive shift of wealth from the middle class to the ultra-rich also didn't happen by accident. It was clear policy choices which drove this change.

We can make other choices. Indeed, other highly successful countries HAVE made other choices.

So, with a LOT more people in the workforce, what you’re really saying is that the economy works as we would hope it would, with wages remaining reasonably constant.

Like others have pointed out, the middle class has shrunk from more people moving UP the ladder, not down.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It was meant to be a joke, but if you have a ruler handy.

I'm a believer in capitalism too, just not as naively as some. Low unemployment is better than high unemployment.... but crap jobs are not as good as careers. Today's young do not have as good prospects as we did at their age.

Not sure what you expected from globalization. We still have it pretty good, while the world overall is improving. You should be ecstatic.

I’d argue that the US economy is in great shape, in spite of people who have it pretty good complaining about how bad it is for someone else they assume has it pretty bad. With unemployment at record lows, if you want a job you can have one. If you work hard at it, you’ve got a pretty good chance of succeeding. This is the economy we want.

I’m OK with the idea that workers should have a bigger role in management, and I do think CEOs are overpaid, but I’m wary of solutions that often have negative side effects. Like artificially raising minimum wages and triggering greater automation and job losses. Or education subsidies causing tuition increases. Government levers should be used selectively and slowly.

[LauraleeG]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Um...no.

A steriotype is when the majority (or at least a large percentage) fit into the same bucket. It's really only a bad thing if you see that someone doesn't fit in the bucket but you stick them in anyway.

A gazelle on the African Savannah stereotypes that a passing lion wants to eat them...even though he doesn't know if the lion just ate a full zebra...but the ones afraid to stereotype and who go up and ask the lion if they just ate don't last too long.

Ummm...... no
A stereotype is “...a fixed, over generalized belief about a particular group or class of people.” (Cardwell, 1996). For example, a “hells angel” biker dresses in leather.
Fact: ALL lions are hunters
Assumption: that lion will eat me for sure
Survival instinct: that lion may or may not have eaten, so I am staying clear
Stereotype: fat people are jolly, You are Irish? You must drink a lot!

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by LauraleeG

Ummm...... no
A stereotype is “...a fixed, over generalized belief about a particular group or class of people.” (Cardwell, 1996). For example, a “hells angel” biker dresses in leather.

I'm going to go with Websters not some social justice warriors re-definition to suit their purposes.

Websters states the definition as: Something conforming to a fixed or general pattern.

Then again you proved my point. Show me a study that "hells angels" bikers don't typically dress in leather while riding...not an exception but the majority or "general pattern".

Also, I like you lion example:
- Not every lion may be out to eat me but I'm going to stay clear.
- Likewise not every derelict looking boat will wind up on the bottom creating a mess but better to discourage them because a large percentage do.

Again, where stereotyping becomes a problem is when you cling to it even after seeing evidence to the contrary. If you are traveling thru a bad inner city neighborhood, it's smart to assume people of a certain persuasion are likely not looking to do you a good turn...if you then apply that logic to Bill in accounting who you've known for years with no indication he's a bad guy...just because he is of that persuasion, that's a problem.

[LauraleeG]

Cambridge dictionary states:

“a set idea that people have about what someone or something is like, especially an idea that is wrong:
-racial/sexual stereotypes
-He doesn't conform to/fit/fill the national stereotype of a Frenchman.
-The characters in the book are just stereotypes.

But anyway, if you want to be right, have at ‘er. Not going to convince you differently.
Re: face palm emoji... good one! Shows such an open mind!

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by LauraleeG

Shows such an open mind!

Funny how even when an individual matches a stereotype some refuse to accept it because we've been taught stereotypes are evil...So are you suggesting we defend all those derelict boat owners right to anchor anywhere because you might be able to find a stray owner who takes good care of their derelict and will happily and promptly pay for the clean up of the sunk vessel?

That sure seems open minded...if not very bright?

[Island Time O25]

Years ago, in my Econ 101 class a wise old professor taught us this simple fact of public economics - we tax what we want less and we exempt from taxes what we want more of.

So with that axiom in mind why does the gubmint subsidize derelicts by having them pay much lower taxes than their Bristol fashion shaped brethren?

Point 2. In the same vein the city and county real estate property tax schemes pushing an inordinate number of elderly out of their houses of many decades. Why do we allow for this convolution of very simple concept of "fair market value (FMV)"? Which by a classical definition is - a willing seller and a willing buyer meet at an arms length transaction and come up with a mutually acceptable price and in fact close the transaction at that price.

Under this definition someone who is not selling and in fact would never sell their house while they're alive under any circumstances - cannot have such a house valued at "FMV" as by the definition they are not "willing sellers". So at all times such proeprty taxes should be based on the last actual transactional price. Until a new FMV is established under the FMV definition.

Point 3. IMO, zoning in all of it's communistically evil concept is the main culprit for both the lack of true market driven housing pricing levels and so much homelessness we see these days. Had we kept state and local building laws to a simple requirement - if the building engineering department signs off on safety and viability of the structure on a given lot - there should be no impediments to building such structure, including not having all that "it will block my view or sunlight" by the next door NIMBY neighbors, we'd have plenty of reasonably priced and affordable housing for all levels of income and lifestyles.

And those who truly do not want their sunlight blocked by the highrises next door should really be buying 100 acre plots in the country and not have their city condo views subsidized by the property owners next door whose lot prices/values are depressed by the zoning restrictions. Same with the waterfront Nazis who push to upend centuries old maritime navigation laws just to have clear views from their proches. They should be buying where anchoring is difficult or not feasible if they want perpetually unobstructed views.

End of rant.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Funny how even when an individual matches a stereotype some refuse to accept it because we've been taught stereotypes are evil...So are you suggesting we defend all those derelict boat owners right to anchor anywhere because you might be able to find a stray owner who takes good care of their derelict and will happily and promptly pay for the clean up of the sunk vessel?

That sure seems open minded...if not very bright?

Another of my wise professors, of history this time, told us once that "generalizations are generally true, that how they become generalizations". 40 years since I still see it fully confirmed practically everyday.

PC Yes, I remember fondly those un-PC times.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Under this definition someone who is not selling and in fact would never sell their house while they're alive under any circumstances - cannot have such a house valued at "FMV" as by the definition they are not "willing sellers". So at all times such proeprty taxes should be based on the last actual transactional price. Until a new FMV is established under the FMV definition.

Show me one of these theoretical people who is both at risk of losing their home due to high property taxes and wouldn't sell for 10 times the going price of similar homes (ie: wouldn't sell for any price).

People might put a premium on the price for sentimental reasons but until you get into extreme wealth (and even not then 99.9% of the time), there is a price they would willingly accept.

FMV is not just theoretical. You might not agree with the ending value and a good negotiator might be able to shift it a bit...but there is a value where they will sell.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Unless you are underway or actively cruising, living on a boat is just living in substandard housing.

.

I don't know what you guys are talking about topic wise. This is a boating forum and the above is the topic

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Show me one of these theoretical people who is both at risk of losing their home due to high property taxes and wouldn't sell for 10 times the going price of similar homes (ie: wouldn't sell for any price).

People might put a premium on the price for sentimental reasons but until you get into extreme wealth (and even not then 99.9% of the time), there is a price they would willingly accept.

FMV is not just theoretical. You might not agree with the ending value and a good negotiator might be able to shift it a bit...but there is a value where they will sell.

My point is - until it is actually sold the FMV is still theoretical. And we should not be taxed on theoretical values. Whether it's real property or incomes or whatnot.

How would you like to be taxed on FMV of a medical degree income when in fact you decided to basketweave for a living instead of practicing medicine? It is no different than my position on ridiculousness of taxing FMVs of non sold houses.

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Show me one of these theoretical people who is both at risk of losing their home due to high property taxes and wouldn't sell for 10 times the going price of similar homes (ie: wouldn't sell for any price).

People might put a premium on the price for sentimental reasons but until you get into extreme wealth (and even not then 99.9% of the time), there is a price they would willingly accept.

FMV is not just theoretical. You might not agree with the ending value and a good negotiator might be able to shift it a bit...but there is a value where they will sell.

Check Hawaii in the 80’s when Japan was pricing up housing

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

My point is - until it is actually sold the FMV is still theoretical. And we should not be taxed on theoretical values. Whether it's real property or incomes or whatnot.

How would you like to be taxed on FMV of a medical degree income when in fact you decided to basketweave for a living instead of practicing medicine? It is no different than my position on ridiculousness of taxing FMVs of non sold houses.

You can't sell a medical degree to an associate, so FMV in the sense of a willing seller and willing buyer doesn't apply. The degree itself is not what you are selling to make an income. It is the services associated with the degree. If you don't sell those services, there is no associated income. Of course, not too many people who go thru the trouble of getting an MD don't sell those services for the exact same reason...you can make a 1000 times more doing that rather than selling baskets.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

Check Hawaii in the 80’s when Japan was pricing up housing

All that proves is for some the buyers didn't raise the offering price to FMV.

For every non-sale, if they had doubled the price offered, I'm betting 99% would sell.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Unless you are underway or actively cruising, living on a boat is just living in substandard housing.

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

I don't know what you guys are talking about topic wise. This is a boating forum and the above is the topic

Thread drift is a natural part of any conversation.


But getting back to the original -- provocative -- topic -- my own comment would be -- speak for yourself!



I don't do much living aboard without sailing, but if I did for some reason, my boat is certainly not "substandard housing". I don't know about anyone else's boat. My boat is a quite comfortable, cosy, nice place to live, well-ventilated, well-heated, fully insulated so condensation-free, spacious, with all conveniences (except a dishwasher), and always has a sea view. My queen-sized bunk is the best bed (for some reason) I've ever had -- maybe the slight rocking motion -- best sleep I ever get anywhere. I can look out at the sea while lying in the bunk, through hull ports, or up at the sky through the hatch. If the boat had a dishwasher, I might even say it's a perfect place to live.


I have land homes in different countries and spend more than half of my time in them -- I like cities and I like city life. But I'm always happy to be living on the boat. One of the great joys of owning a cruising sailboat is, besides the sailing, getting to live in all kinds of different places, and move whenever you want to. Not only a sea view, but can be a different sea view every week or every day if you like. What could be better?