SF rents have gone up, that didn't decrease demand. Why did SD rents drop, not because people left because it was too expensive, that doesn't make sense.
This suggests that San Diego has been getting more desirable over time (denser, more jobs, more culture, etc). The people who'd been around for some time that could hack the old SD rents couldn't deal with those rising costs and had been spilling over to Temecula, Phoenix, etc.
The majority of the "more housing = cheaper rent" success stories crowed about on the internet correspond with net population exodus. Austin, Minneapolis, now San Diego.
Edit: I think we should build several million more units of housing in the US. I'm salty because all the new housing I've seen is ugly shitboxes owned by national property firms that make everywhere feel like nowhere.
Right. What the reporter calls a "surge in supply" is an increase in "active listings", which doesn't differentiate from listings due to new construction vs listings due to people leaving.
Also, I could not find the "active listings" data in Zumper's report[1]. And then I noticed the chart with the active listing data says it was made by Brenden Tuccinardi/KPBS, so this was done by a reporter, not a Zumper data analyst. It's a bit fishy.
San Diego also has the strange property of being on an international border!
TJ and SD are really two parts of the same metropolis - any investigation has to see how population ebbs and flows across that border, and what the housing prices did on both sides.
I suspect lower demand was more likely (although more supply never hurts).
San Diego has a ton of contractors dependent upon the federal government. I imagine the shenanigans of the current administration caused a bunch of them to pack it in and leave town.
It's much worse. It is difficult to customize a native app, but browser apps are easy to modify with extensions, even easier with coding agents. If I have to use a proprietary app, a web app is least objectionable.
I really wish we would get away from this line of thinking. For state and local governments, yes, your taxes are put into accounts and are then spent according to the budget.
For the federal government, no. Money that is paid in taxes is effectively eliminated. The total number of dollars that exist in circulation is reduced. When the federal government spends money, it is creating all new money. It can’t run out. It’s not your tax money that is being spent.
> The total number of dollars that exist in circulation is reduced.
Not accurate. Dollars are a liabilities on the books of the Federal Reserve. Tax payments to the federal government only cause a liability shift from commercial banks’ reserves at the FED to the TGA, it doesn’t really change the net amount of dollars in circulation.
The most you could argue is that it momentarily reduces the net commercial banks’ liabilities (which economists call M*) until the Treasury distributes those dollars again to the broad economy
This isn’t that that complicated. It’s not about cognitive dissonance or standardized testing.
There are many similar human behaviors. Why do people smoke, drink alcohol, eat junk food, avoid exercise, and make all sorts of other harmful choices? Because the pleasure is immediate, and the consequences are not.
Same reason people get sunburned. If the sun burned people immediately, like a hot pan in the kitchen, everyone would use sunblock. But because it burns slowly, people walk themselves right into it.
If there is a button to avoid the pain of homework, to immediately go have fun instead, and there are no immediate consequences, all but the most disciplined, determined, and diligent students will press it. Knowing and acknowledging the future consequences makes no impact on the behavior.
It’s amazing to use technology to save humans from toil. The question is, who owns the robot? Who benefits from the labor it produces?
The techno utopia we imagine is a world where nobody has to work. All our needs are taken care of and we live a life of leisure. But as long as there is ownership of the automated systems, those owners will hoard all the wealth generated by that automation.
Labor expenditures and taxes are the only times the wealthy have to share their wealth with the rest of us. If they succeed in disintermediating labor, and governments fail to tax them, the oligarchs will live a life of unlimited luxury while the rest of us die in poverty.
These can't be simultaneously true. If all of our needs are taken care of, that is the same thing as unlimited luxury. Someone hoarding wealth is not that important when everyone has everything they want. Society is already being helped by all of the needs they are fulfilling. We don't need to also take their wealth too.
>That utopia can not come if there is private ownership of those automated systems.
Who controls an automated system and whether enough automated systems exists to fulfill everyone's needs are separate things. You could have one person providing for the entire needs of the world by scaling themselves using AI.
> Who controls an automated system and whether enough automated systems exists to fulfill everyone's needs are separate things.
Again, nobody said that they were. You are arguing with yourself.
> You could have one person providing for the entire needs of the world by scaling themselves using AI.
Sure, and if one person owned all the automated system he could blackmail others, choose not to use those automated systems to fulfill the needs of some... it is beyond me that in the world we are currently living in somebody doesn't see it.
> "Today it's gambling advertising, tomorrow it's alcohol, then it's sugary drinks, fast food, critical minerals and who knows what else comes next," chief executive Kai Cantwell said.
We have already learned our lesson. Prohibition doesn’t work. But advertising does work. Banning advertising also works. We should allow people the freedom to participate in vice, but ban all advertising for it. Anything harmful to society should not be advertised. No ads for cars, guns, recreational drugs including alcohol, unhealthy food, fossil fuels, or gambling.
Who knows what comes next Kai? Hopefully everything.
I gotta admit I laughed heartily at the quote. I expected the slippery slope argument, I did not expect it to be made so clumsy :)
btw. what followed is worse: <<He accused the government of blindsiding a sector that supports 30,000 jobs and "provides critical funding to sport, racing and broadcast industries".>>
Gambling business is not a positive force. It's not even zero sum. It's a negative sum game. I hope no one is nodding along to these kind of arguments, they are nonsensical.
“provides critical funding to sport, racing and broadcast industries”
I foresee that the amped-up sports gambling will destroy professional sports as all results will be tainted with the probable interference from the gambling industry and those trying to “game the system” (irony noted).
It’s too late. Professional sports is already ruined by gambling. You don’t always see it in the results but in the weird side bets (how many tackles, home many metres).
It should be more heavily regulated and the advertisements are so blatant and intrusive they ruin any pleasure you might take from watching sport in Australia.
> Courtwright’s The Age of Addiction has the statistics: “Per capita consumption initially fell to 30 percent of pre-Prohibition levels, before gradually increasing to 60 or 70 percent by 1933.” That suggests a 30 percent reduction, at a minimum, in consumption — although that was less than the initial effect, as people figured some ways around the law.
> We should allow people the freedom to participate in vice.
There is literally no individual upside to gambling and don't say "winning". For sites like FanDuel and DraftKings, you get banned or your bet sizes severelyl restricted if you consistently win [2]. Why? Because it discourages the marks if they don't win occasionally.
Suicide rate is highest among gambling addicts than any other form of addiction [3]. Gambling measurably increases credit score drops, debts and bankruptcies [4]. The entire business is predatory.
At least back in the day when you had to go to a casino there was some barrier to gambling. Now? Just pull out your phone.
> For sites like FanDuel and DraftKings, you get banned or your bet sizes severelyl restricted if you consistently win
Can confirm this in Australia too. They give you progressively worse odds if you win. And they give you progressively better odds if you keep losing, to keep you coming back.
You laugh, but thanks to those critical minerals ads during cartoons, my kids are now begging me for praseodymium and scandium. Prices for rare earths are through the roof but my 10 year old just won't accept that she can't refine advanced alloys in this economy.
If she wants to refine advanced alloys then should look into the environmental regulations first, there's a reason nearly all such processing is done in China, or South East Asia.
If there were ads promoting breeding mosquitos or deliberately inducing cancer, we could look at banning them. But there aren’t so this is a pointless take.
The thing with “harmful to society” is that in practice it's so arbitrarily decided what is “harmful” and in practice it comes down more to “arbitrary moralist reactions”.
It really depends on the speed. I went through it in the past few years, and it was too fast. One day I knew everybody in the whole organization, what their responsibilities are, and what they are working on. I turn around and there are more employees than I can ever know.
Exactly. Same as you I am just paying for search. I never used the assistant, and never will. Right now Kagi is good enough at search that it would be annoying to lose. But if I was forced to go back to Google I could survive by using adblock. I really wish Kagi would just put all their engineering efforts on search to make it so good that I couldn’t possibly live without it.
I don’t need a new browser. I don’t need a replacement for Google Maps, since Google Maps is actually good and Kagi will never even catch up to Apple Maps. I don’t need any AI trash.
Just have everybody work on the search engine to make it is faster, more reliable, and free of content farms or slop. That is the only reason I’m paying for Kagi.
A job is a machine that takes money from someone who is very wealthy and gives that money to someone who does not already have enough wealth to live a safe and secure life of idle leisure. The people who have wealth want there to be as few jobs as possible. If they can eliminate a highly compensated job, all the better.
reply