That train already exists. An extra couple of hours is what’s holding back your travels? If an extra few hours of travel time is what’s holding back this amazing tourist spend, then I’d argue that the demand isn’t sufficient for it to be built. It’ll also be expensive like HSR is in Europe compared to other modes of travel. If a foreign tourist can pay $100 or $50 but the cheaper option takes longer, they’ll take the cheaper option because they’re on vacation, they’re not in a hurry.

Right. HSR isn’t cheap. I took it in Europe and there were way cheaper ways of getting around. For one, it makes sense cost wise, but once you start adding people, the prices are out of control.

Totally. People don’t seem to understand that France is the size of Texas with several more major cities they can connect.

SF to LA already has a train and 90% of it goes through rural areas. Many people are saying “if it was fast, I’d go,” but that means they don’t have reason enough to go LA to SF unless it’s convenient, which means HSR won’t have a ton of ridership.

We already have many ways to get anywhere in the state. Amtrak exists, also many commuter trains. Planes, ferries, subways, busses. People still prefer to drive because it’s cheaper if you’re a family and more convenient.

Right, your living my exact same life almost. If I get a worse paying job and move to SF, I’d qualify for a below market rate condo or section 8 and be fine. I’ve honestly considered it but the BMR stuff in SF is a dumpster fire. I was living in LA, and as you say, paying tax and high rent so my neighbors could live cheaply.

A big draw of SF are the amenities. If you didn’t have rent control, section 8, and BMR, low income people would leave. That would mean fewer restaurants, fewer bars, clubs, cultural events, etc making it less attractive and more people would leave. Eventually, the city would find its balance between people, wages and business. The way we do it now, we create these imbalances where the rich get cheap labor, the poor get stuck and everyone else gets fucked. If we just let the free market work, we wouldn’t be in such a mess.

It is a problem because there is no middle class housing. It means that aspiring to be middle class no longer becomes possible. These laws and similar start with the assumption that the poor will always be poor and that no change is ever possible in someone’s life, that there’s only rich and poor.

When you install policies like this, you pull rungs from the ladder. If you’re goal is to alleviate poverty, the best way of doing so is by making people’s labor more valuable. By keeping a mass of people in place, you devalue their individual labor because there’s always someone who will take the lowball wage offer. If housing were let to be dictated by the market, the poor would face a choice: upskill to make their labor more valuable or move to an area where their labor/cost of living calculation is in their favor. Over their lives, this ends up bettering them and reduces poverty. By removing incentives to do so, you keep people poor.

I’ve seen this a lot. I lived in LA and my neighbors all had some form of rent subsidy. None of the kids had an education and worked low wage jobs. Some who moved away ended up owning homes in other cities and gained wealth through appreciation hence reducing the wealth gap. Their kids all went to college because there were not enough low skill jobs where they went. In the end, the people “pushed” out had better lives and were less precarious financially than those who stayed.

We shouldn’t care about places: all this talk about displacement, erasure and gentrification. We should care about people. A feel good solution that appears to be nice to the poor ends up hurting them long term. We should incentivize people to move to locations where they are able to make financial and educational investments in themselves since self sufficieny is the best way to guard against the dangers of poverty. Many people on Reddit want government action in all aspects of life. My answer to that is we had 2 years with Trump, Republican Congress and conservative Supreme Court. The only thing preventing them from destroying safety nets was Trumps incompetence. Some day there will be a Trump who isn’t incompetent and that person will end safety nets. The people dependent on government at that time will face a harsh reality since they won’t have experience in self sufficiency.

I lived in LA. So low income means you qualify for a housing subsidy like section 8. Rent control means your rent is capped your initial rent plus a 2-9% increase every year depending on inflation.

Yes, a wealthy person can get a rent controlled apartment and live there to benefit from the limit on rent increases. The issue is that landlords don’t maintain the property so you’re getting a 70 year old apartment that feels like a 70 year old apartment. My neighbors would do their own repairs when legally the landlord has to do them because he wouldn’t. It prevents natural turnover in apartments so the next person coming in pays a lot more. I was paying $1000/month more than my neighbors for the same crappy place. I was basically subsidizing them. I’m some cases, they made 3-4x what I made. There was no reason for them to continue in those apartments, but they were able to benefit from it since the next place would have cost double.

Overall it sounds good but the 20% lower income requirement is a poison pill. The non-low income units will all be “luxury” priced to make up for the low rents/sales for the low-income units. When renters/buyers are paying a premium, they don’t want low income neighbors - plenty of complaints about this all over the state. Builders won’t build as a result. It won’t do much for regular people.

I’m generally not a fan of low income housing except for the seriously disabled. Keeping low wage earners’ cost of living artificially low just ends up as a subsidy for the wealthy - government pays most of their rent so employers don’t have to pay it as wages. trying to move up in income means you lose money because you lose the housing subsidy. It’s a feel good policy that provides a lot of carrots and sticks to keep people poor. This is how people who are able to move up the socioeconomic ladder don’t. This prevents low income housing from opening up for people with mental health issues and other disabilities that prevent work.

Man I needed this. Thanks and be well

Right but business administration students generally end up in corporations.

Most don’t start businesses, most apply at a company then the company slots them according to their needs

It’s just an example. You can substitute doctor for anything. At least you’re taking a stance. The other person is just wandering around with less of a stance in life.

In college, some people wanted to become doctors. They set out on a path and said that’s what they wanted. Others went to business school and just hoped to get hired somewhere. Whoever hired them told them what they were going to be. The latter sucks, just ask any corporate worker.

Why would I want a haunted bunk house in a cold climate?

My attitude is that if people want to live their lives in a virtual world controlled by mark Zuckerberg, then fine, it’s their life. I won’t do it

It’s the engagement metrics because what’s more engaging than being immersed in a virtual world. Can you smell that sweet ad moolah? I sure can’t.

But the point of the device for FB is to avoid issues like apple and their cookie privacy thing. If they lose this battle to apple, they’re fucked.

What are you talking about? Haven’t you seen the Tim Cook bloody machete photo from Venezuela a few years back? He’s wearing an apple t shirt in it.

Can be the case. Some people no matter what just expect that they can treat others shittily. You can’t teach those people anything. That’s where the quote above comes in.

Most of the competition that they’re talking about is a result of US companies operating in their countries.

So why did these cells evolve this way? How did cells like this start out?

Job opportunities increased faster than population can increase. This makes worker bargaining power higher. Business wins, labor wins. In the law that they passed, business loses and for a short time labor wins, but ultimately labor loses because fewer businesses will open or hire as much. You see this in many European countries. People keep businesses in the family and employ few people. It’s hard to get a job in many European countries as a result.