cawacko
Well-known member
just my magic beans.
For those who love to blame boomers for EVERYTHING wrong in the country....
- Thread starter Stone
- Start date
Much of politics, and especially this board, is tribal. So getting into a generational battle can break down some of those barriers.
This tweet from a month ago went viral of a bunch of (largely rich) Boomers trying to block new housing in their San Francisco neighborhood. Speaking candidly it’s the ultimate fvck you I’ve got mine. And when entire cities and areas have this attitude it absolutely drives up property values and it’s no wonder people get pissed.
And as a side note, because of Prop 13, property taxes can only increase 2% per year regardless of how much your home appreciates.
So many of these people have homes that cost $3-$5m but pay taxes based on an evaluation of $500K or less.
New homes (or new sales) reset the property taxes to market value (I.e. they pay a lot more).
So these Boomers are like fvck everyone else, don’t build new housing and also in the process not help the City get the revenue it needs.
View: https://x.com/laura_waxee/status/2080465433803813311?s=46&t=kOX31MjxS-IJnH5C6XWDGA
That's not the way it works.
New houses have zero impact on existing homes under prop 13. The tax base is set at the selling price. A house built in 1970 which sells today for $800,000 will be taxed at a base of $800,000.
Prop 13 protects homeowners and keeps the pigs in Sacramento from stealing homes through property taxes. But the protection is only for those who remain in their homes. There is no exemption for the actual property.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
I call top bunk
In most cases, ALL of the problem is government. The vast majority of issues that negatively affect people are caused by government.
cawacko
Well-known member
I get to be little spoon
cawacko
Well-known member
You're correct that new housing doesn't change the tax basis of anyone else's home. That wasn't what I was getting at.
New housing absolutely has an effect on pricing in terms of meeting market demand. I made the Prop 13 reference because most of these folks support higher taxes overall but get the benefit of Prop 13.
You're full of shit.
FAR more people can afford to attend a 4 year college or university now than could in 1970. Yes, they rack up debt - which most never repay - but they can go and get their "Indigenous Gay Studies" degree then work at Starbucks.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
I can give you that, little bear.
You don't like being refuted by facts. it's because you don't deal in facts.
graph the percentage of americans with 4 year degree from 1950 to present
Worked for 33s
Percentage of Americans (age 25 and older) with a bachelor’s degree or higher, 1950–present
Data come primarily from the U.S. Census Bureau (Current Population Survey historical time series and related tables). The measure is the share of the population aged 25+ that has completed a bachelor’s degree or higher.
Key data points
| Year | % with Bachelor’s or Higher |
|---|---|
| 1950 | 6.2% |
| 1960 | 7.7% |
| 1970 | 11.0% |
| 1980 | 17.0% |
| 1990 | 21.3% |
| 2000 | 25.6% |
| 2010 | 29.9% |
| 2020 | 36.4% |
| 2024 | 38.3% |
(Sources compile Census Bureau CPS and historical educational attainment tables; slight variations exist across exact survey years or ACS vs. CPS, but the overall trend is consistent. Recent figures are around 38–39%.)Edsmartdata
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
the point is the cost of living. you fucking hemorrhoid junkyi.
ROFL
That has nothing to do with being able to attend college, you drooling Nazi.
You made a stupid claim Guano, you got called on it. You are heavy on Jew hatred, light on facts.
Your graph proves more Americans have college degrees. I would never dispute that.
You claimed college is more affordable. Increased attendance financed by dramatically expanded student borrowing is not evidence of increased affordability.
You graphed the wrong variable.
affordable
adjective
- That you have the financial means for.
People consume that which is affordable. Massively greater consumption proves greater affordability to the average person. That said affordability is an illusion and a fraud is irrelevant. Nearly 50% of Americans enroll in college, because they can afford to thanks to Pel Grants and Student Loans - and because of the mythology that college is the path to success.
Affordability is cost relative to income, not simply how many people attend.
Using the actual cost-to-income comparison:
More people getting degrees proves increased access and attendance. It does not prove increased affordability.
This is how badly Trump-era politics has degraded conservative economic discussion. We are now arguing basic economics.
The argument is essentially: more people consume something, therefore it must be more affordable.
No. Greater consumption does not prove a lower cost burden.
And borrowing money does not make something cheaper. Debt changes when you pay, not how much it costs relative to your income. If tuition rises far faster than wages and students bridge the gap with larger loans, that is evidence of worsening affordability being masked by easier credit.
By this logic, a $70,000 truck is “more affordable” because the dealer will finance it for 84 months.
JFC.
The argument is essentially: more people consume something, therefore it must be more affordable.
No. Greater consumption does not prove a lower cost burden.
And borrowing money does not make something cheaper. Debt changes when you pay, not how much it costs relative to your income. If tuition rises far faster than wages and students bridge the gap with larger loans, that is evidence of worsening affordability being masked by easier credit.
By this logic, a $70,000 truck is “more affordable” because the dealer will finance it for 84 months.
JFC.
I already proved that isn't true.
In 1970 to enroll in a 4 year college or university meant writing a check. In 2026 it means a GSL over 20 years that many or most will never repay. In fact, most of the students have MORE cashflow because the "loans" pay living expenses.
Student loans in default or collections.
How Many Student Loans Actually End in Default? (2026)
2026 student-loan default and delinquency data. Student loan delinquency has surged to 10.6% after the federal payment pause ended — a 7.2 percentage
americandefault.org
And remember during the Biden Puppetcy there was a universal moratorium on repayment of student debt.
This is how badly government guarantees of loans have corrupted the educational system. The Educational Institutional Complex is insulated from the consumer, with students and their parents not even realizing the actual cost and gouging higher education is engaged in - since Uncle Sucker is picking up the tab.
A student loan does not lower tuition. It lets someone pay a high price today with future income.
And “students have more cashflow because loans pay living expenses” is not evidence they are better off. Borrowed money increases cash on hand, but it also creates debt. That is financing, not increased wealth.
The actual affordability question is simple: How large is the cost relative to income?
On that measure, college is less affordable than it was in 1970.
You are using easier access to debt as proof that the underlying product became cheaper. It didn't.