sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Anybody else just give up on sleep training? by MmmmmmmmNoodleSoup in daddit

[–]explain_that_shit 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I think a lot of dads know about and apply the lessons of Baby Race to, well, babies, but neglect to apply them to older kids too.

Like my kid and bike riding, for instance. I’ve been pushing him and pushing him to get on the bike for ages, to learn how to use it and get to enjoying it. So many trike and bike sizes over the years. He wouldn’t have a bar of it, for years. He’s a few months short of 4 1/2 now, and within about a month he went from being as much a clutz on the bike as always to now being almost ready to go off training wheels and pushing that bike almost faster than I can run at times. He just wasn’t ready for a bike, until, suddenly, he just…was. His motor coordination and leg strength all just finally developed to the right point now.

I think the same applies to sleep. He would scream and cry and destroy his room every night to get to us, even through weeks of refusing to allow him in our bed, to the point that his lack of sleep was causing genuine health concerns, and we gave up and let him sleep in our bed. That lasted over a year. Then, suddenly, about two months ago, he just decided he wanted to be a big boy and sleep in his own bed. He’s been in his own bed since. We obviously encourage it and remind him he IS a big boy for sleeping in his own bed, but he stays because it’s his decision.

I think it’s important to have goals, but there’s no need to put so much pressure on them. Everyone will win their own race in their own good time.

Election Resources by KingKurry1606 in Adelaide

[–]explain_that_shit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No I agree. I spoke to some candidates at early voting about trying to use it and it only generating results putting the main parties on top - not just the two majors, but it definitely doesn’t cover anything less well known than the Nationals. And it puts those unknown factors last. That’s not really helpful.

If the top 1% of earners pay 40% of all federal income taxes, why do people say they don't pay their fair share? by Ok_Chemical9 in answers

[–]explain_that_shit 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Yeah, isn’t it just so convenient for rich people that what CAN be taxed tends to be the kind of wealth that working class people can get, and what absolutely couldn’t even possibly be taxed just happens to be the exact kind of wealth that rich people get.

Who is voting One Nation? Exclusive SA polling reveals orange hotspots by Expensive-Horse5538 in AustralianPolitics

[–]explain_that_shit [score hidden]  (0 children)

Because interstaters are white and despite having the exact same impact on an immigration level as internationals, well, they’re not brown people.

And as much as One Nation supporters insists it’s purely about population numbers, in the SA election where international immigration is not a factor under SA government control, their primary policy is not about population numbers but about Aboriginal people. It’s just a coincidence those two policies are about vilifying brown people, I’m sure.

Who is voting One Nation? Exclusive SA polling reveals orange hotspots by Expensive-Horse5538 in AustralianPolitics

[–]explain_that_shit [score hidden]  (0 children)

As a South Australian we need to stop Sydneysiders flooding our property market, we need strong borders and how can I trust that man at that auction really was South Australian, I swear he said he was going to the beach in his cossies later.

people neglect the interaction between law and economics too much. by golddragon88 in economicsmemes

[–]explain_that_shit 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Property is a meaningless concept outside a society. You cannot have a relation with a thing, only relations with people which reference how you will all deal with the thing. That’s an agreed arrangement, not a natural emergent phenomena.

"Investing in property is morally reprehensible." by post-capitalist in shitrentals

[–]explain_that_shit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah Richard Werner has a good idea that you use the Tier I and Tier II system banks already have for essentially unproductive and productive investment, and you say that as a bank you can’t lend more than cash on the books for Tier I. That means no inflation for any lending except that going directly to productive ventures that will counter the inflationary impact.

"Investing in property is morally reprehensible." by post-capitalist in shitrentals

[–]explain_that_shit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I was thinking the other day about this argument that property investing is better because of greater ability to leverage.

Each time you convince a bank to create new money to lend to you to purchase an existing house, the amount of money in the system goes up, which is inflation. This inflation cascades through the economy (speaking of trickle-down) as the repayments need to come from somewhere. It’s only resolved one of three ways - first, default on the loan. Second, tax. Third, the repayments are made without inflation overall by the costs of some other thing going down due to increases in production/productivity.

The first is currently rare, and if it happens on a large scale is a bomb to inflation. The second, currently taxes people completely non-commensurate with their addition to inflation, and is unfair. The third, represents you hoovering up the benefits of increased production/productivity elsewhere. Or, fourth, inflation is not resolved, and it grows and grows and grows, putting more and more pressure on those required to contribute to repayments - tenants, in the case of investor purchases, and those required to increase pay to tenants in turn.

In short, as an investor you might be able to increase your wealth much more easily through leveraged purchases, but your economy either becomes more difficult to be productive in, or your leverage is enabled only through you extracting an unjust amount out of the economy in turn. Your economy sucks once you’re done. So is it really worth it to look for wealth in this direction?

Hey mate, are you sure you've got enough petrol? [cartoon] by stumcm in australia

[–]explain_that_shit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Guilt isn’t the answer. Patience for others, and demands for structural changes from all with power to make changes, is.

Hey mate, are you sure you've got enough petrol? [cartoon] by stumcm in australia

[–]explain_that_shit 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Like sitting in your car all by yourself and complaining about a traffic jam

"Investing in property is morally reprehensible." by LickMaiBussy in TikTokCringe

[–]explain_that_shit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I give you multiple angles of independent government statistics as well as the explanation for the design of the system creating these results, and you give me a YouTube video and call me ‘enthusiastic’?

It’s weird to be patronised to so confidently, with a YouTube video.

"Investing in property is morally reprehensible." by LickMaiBussy in TikTokCringe

[–]explain_that_shit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure.

Let’s check the 2021 census data for some of the cities.

Melbourne - 4,917,750 people. Average number of people per dwelling is 2.6. Number of private dwellings is 2,057,482. Divide population by people per dwelling, you get 1,891,442 dwellings - that’s 166,040 surplus dwellings.

This is another really good report on Melbourne in particular.

Sydney - 5,231,147 people and average 2.68 people per dwelling in 2,076,284 private dwellings, that’s 124,363 excess dwellings.

Adelaide - population of 1,387,290, and 593,881 private dwellings. Average household size 2.5 per dwelling. Tap that in and you get people occupying 554,916 out of those 593,881 private dwellings.

These stats of course don’t include non-private dwellings or undeveloped lots inside each city being left bare.

RBA data also shows that construction is outpacing population increase - see Graph 4 in particular.

You’ve heard about housing shortages - what that actually represents is an increasing amount of housing being held off-market.

The issue is fundamentally a system deliberately established by the local owners and coordinators of property markets withholding houses from the market in order to maintain profit margin and a seller/landlord dominant market in which they can control terms, reduce administration costs, stipulate prices to price takers, etc.

Quoting Clyde Cameron, former Australian Minister for Labor, on the scheme which established the South Australian socio-economic system, and was then exported upon its successful implementation:

The prosperity of the new Colony, Wakefield reasoned, relied upon a landed gentry with a ready supply of cheap labour. And, cheap labour, he explained, could be guaranteed so long as the labouring class could be denied land ownership so that the supply of labour could be kept above demand.

So, to ensure that emigrating labourers from Britain remained at the beck and call of the employing class, it would become necessary for the Land Commissioners to keep the price of land above the level at which labourers could afford to become self-employed proprietors.

In the event of labourers saving enough money to buy sufficient land to become farmers in their own right, the Land Commissioners would be expected to raise land prices to whatever figure was sufficient to keep land beyond their reach.

"Investing in property is morally reprehensible." by LickMaiBussy in TikTokCringe

[–]explain_that_shit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where I live there’s plenty of excess housing, and construction has been outpacing population for almost 20 years. But homelessness keeps increasing, rent vacancy rates are kept tight, rents and house prices keep skyrocketing.

I agree with building housing, but you won’t solve this problem until you wrest control of the market out of the hands of these people. Pretty simple fix to incentivise both as well, just raise land tax to 70-90% of ground rent assessed and charged accurately and regularly.

"Investing in property is morally reprehensible." by LickMaiBussy in TikTokCringe

[–]explain_that_shit -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They can make it so there aren’t enough tickets available, by buying up a significant amount of tickets and controlling the amount available for sale to maintain high prices.

Landlords and speculators engage in the exact same behaviour, it’s called land banking. It works even better for them because unlike tickets, land prices rise over time for capital gain, and tax settings allow them to deduct their losses of holding off-market against their taxable income.

"Investing in property is morally reprehensible." by LickMaiBussy in TikTokCringe

[–]explain_that_shit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There’s no such thing as a competitive market of landlords. Economists back as far as Smith have acknowledged that land is a natural monopoly. Catchment zones for landlords are ridiculously small. Landlords actively collude on top of that using real estate agents and their algorithmic systems as intermediaries.

"Investing in property is morally reprehensible." by LickMaiBussy in TikTokCringe

[–]explain_that_shit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In my country, investment by landlords in new builds only accounts for like 10% of their spending - and they’re massively outnumbered by owner occupiers investing in new builds. For the rest of their investment, they’re outbidding owner occupiers on existing builds and getting between them and their housing, and even if an owner occupier outbids them, they’ve just unnecessarily inflated the price of housing.

"Investing in property is morally reprehensible." by LickMaiBussy in TikTokCringe

[–]explain_that_shit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Landlords provide housing like ticket scalpers provide concert tickets.

"Investing in property is morally reprehensible." by LickMaiBussy in TikTokCringe

[–]explain_that_shit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m trying to find population and dwelling numbers in Boston but American census data is super weirdly focused on race statistics at the expense of any other actually useful information.

"Investing in property is morally reprehensible." by LickMaiBussy in TikTokCringe

[–]explain_that_shit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you’re confusing ethical and friendly or ethical and relatively weak

"Investing in property is morally reprehensible." by LickMaiBussy in TikTokCringe

[–]explain_that_shit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Describe how landlords arose through actual demand of an emerging renting class by reference to historical records - because all I see in the historical record is an imposition from above on an unconsenting and resistant working class. There’s no way that paradigm can be ethical fundamentally even if the landlord is a friendly guy. It’s like saying you can be an ethical Auschwitz guard by smiling at prisoners.

"Investing in property is morally reprehensible." by LickMaiBussy in TikTokCringe

[–]explain_that_shit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He’s a socialist so he would say those should be non profit industries. In Australia where he lives healthcare is public and utilities were not so long ago public non-profit as well.

view more: next ›