Samson's Wig

Albuquerque makes sense due to the labs. I'm a bit surprised it balances the rest of the city out that well, but there are a lot of folks with advanced degrees in that town working in defense. Lubbock is more of a surprise to me, but being a college town with some size must help. There's always been some money up there, mostly from ag and oil, but not a heavily educated populace (seemingly). Most Tech grads are in DFW, and I'm not sure where the jobs are in Lubbock for those with a degree. Maybe they've made some improvements on this front in recent years.

I agree with the shifting notions and benefits of home ownership not necessarily making sense, but I was speaking more about the timing aspect. Yes, if someone buys under one of these programs they'll have some equity built up - so long as they live there for a very long time. If after ten years they need to move for work, family, or whatever other reason it's not that discernably different from renting. You're just paying down interest instead of a landlord, but you don't really have any equity either way. The major upshot I see is that you're locking in your monthly payment and avoiding rent increases, but that can work the other direction as well if rental rates go down (unlikely in this town in the foreseeable future I know).

It's an interesting interplay between the economic benefit of being able to easily move towards economic opportunity and access to housing. Economically trapping people in their homes for thirty+ years doesn't make a lot of sense when viewed in isolation, but when weighed against access to housing at all I suppose it makes sense. Americans, in general, seem to refuse to move towards economic opportunity anyway, so as always the rational actor notion is pointless I suppose. I wonder why anyone who isn't earning significant money would move to Austin at all anymore. There are plenty of more affordable and more attractive places to live with wage-earning jobs available. They're certainly not moving here for the schools.

I wonder how long the construction of many Mueller properties will hold up. Those "contemporary looking to mask shoddy workmanship" duplexes and triplexes being rapid-built all over the city center and bought up for short-term rentals are going to be giant eyesores in a decade or so, with no one around with the incentive to maintain or upgrade the shitty construction. The Mueller setup further disincentives maintenance of the property knowing you won't see any, or limited, monetary benefit from investing in upkeep or renovations. I hope they were at least built well at the onset, but I kind of doubt it.

Ask a stupid question and get a simple answer. I don't think anyone took whatever lame bait he was throwing. Slorch merely earnestly answered his question. If he was looking to poke holes in the flat tax comment, a more direct approach would have made more sense. It's one of many ideas that sounds okay in theory but would never work in reality.

That line of thinking may be found in any old Southern Baptist church of your choosing. Good luck and godspeed.

~40% for 2022 I believe, and quite a bit higher the two years before that. I think that must have been a pandemic bump due to lost wages/jobs. Somewhere around 10% don't bother to file at all.

This. Many members of Congress think the tax code is the best way to manipulate behavior. The rest think it's the best way to pay back big donors. Both sides fucking suck, as does anyone who supports this shit.

I'm pretty sure I saw in a brochure somewhere that new transplants to Austin are required to first rent in Mueller. And get a dog. And a paddle board. Isn't that the rule? Maybe I misunderstood.

Holy shit.

lol. Not what I'm saying at all, but the all too common references to unnamed studies are about as compelling as "I heard from my best friend's uncle's barber that . . ." I've already agreed that adding housing should help, simple economics certainly say so. It makes sense that legitimate studies would show this. But this isn't that simple of a problem, and adding housing by allowing developers to build more shitty condos on small lots that will be bought up by investors and used as short-term rentals will do absolutely nothing of benefit to the common person, or housing costs in general. Only a fool or someone with skin in the real estate game would claim otherwise.

Gotta love the hot takes from people with skin in the residential real estate investment game. You need a toe study? I can get you a toe study, believe me. There are ways, Dude. As for the recent murder uptick, I just assumed it was apartment-dwelling water warriors assassinating anyone running their sprinklers.

Meant to quote you with my comment above. I never claimed that we should do nothing, only that this particular plan not only won't solve the problem at all, it only serves to benefit the exact people who don't benefit from more affordable housing. The real solution isn't that complicated, but it means a bunch of assholes with sway taking it in the shorts so it won't happen.

I agree that adding housing will help. I don't agree that this proposal to add three dwellings per lot will have any positive impact whatsoever. People who need affordable housing will not be helped by building more extremely overpriced condos that only wealthy people can afford to live in, and much more commonly will be used by investors to bring more short term party rentals to this city. All this does is line developer pockets and make traffic and quality of life worse for residents. Banning short term rentals would do more to free up the supply of housing in this city than any other option. But we'll pass bullshit that only increases this problem and pat ourselves on the back. It's stupid.

Okay, I'll rephrase. That anyone believes this will do anything at all to alleviate housing costs boggles the mind.

As always, the developers will win and they're the only ones. Building three shitty condos on a lot instead of one shitty house just means there are two more properties on that lot that most people can't afford. That people believe this is the solution to housing costs boggles the mind.

Stories like this may be the canary in the coal mine for modern universities. They definitely need to adjust something, and it's likely their value proposition.

I think people mistake the oft-referenced "rape isn't about sex but power" line to mean that it has nothing to do with sex, which is a very reductive understanding. Of course power is a big part of it, but if you're erect you're aroused. It doesn't matter if it's the power dynamic that revs the engine, what you do with that erection is what matters. There's an element of dominance in many consensual sexual encounters as well. While I'm sure there are exceptions, these stories of frat guys and high school athletes hazing by sexually assaulting other boys are generally nothing more than latent homosexuality finding its only outlet in a culture that still vilifies homosexuality. Leaving aside the experiences of transexuals as I am too ignorant on that front to comment, if you have a dick and fuck a dude, you're gay or bi. Full stop. I think it's largely homophobia and/or denial that drives the other narrative. No straight man in the history of the universe said to himself, "I'm not the least bit sexually aroused by that guy over there, but I'm going to fuck him anyway just to show him who's boss." Like so many other things, these types of assaults are merely the byproduct of a subset of our culture that still shames homosexuals and keeps some young men so deeply closeted they can't even admit who they are to themselves. Sports organizations and fraternities are probably the prime examples of groups creating this dynamic, which is why these stories tend to come from these organizations. Then of course there are certain churches that really drive this bus. It makes sense that this type of existence will eventually lead to socially unacceptable or violent behavior.

Gotta love parents making big life decisions for their kids based on something that is nearly a statistical impossibility. Go sports!

Sounds like the classic excuse of latent homosexuals everywhere. Plenty of ways guys on power trips dominate others without resorting to sex. If your dick is hard, and you're sticking it in a dude, you're gay. NTTAWWT

Was this the Lake Travis broom handle incident? I'll never understand what goes through the minds of some of these boys, but these stories are more common than they should be. I assume it's latent homosexuality finding an outlet, but that's obviously no excuse. Religions that shame and overbearing parents may ultimately be to blame for this crap.

I often wonder if that trend will pan out to show those kids fail at life after that glorious couple of years of varsity sports in high school. I couldn't wait to get the fuck away from high school and I was young for my class. I can't imagine being 19 and still putting up with all the nonsense of high school.