Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
Participant[quote=EconProf]This is a very significant ruling that will have huge positive ramifications for public schools in California. At last, teachers can be evaluated and bounced if they are demonstrably awful. Being stuck with a bad teacher for a whole school year can do real damage to the students, who are usually the ones in poor and minority neighborhoods. The unions, and the tenure they support, is meant to protect the adults, not the children.[/quote]
I’m willing to make a bet with you, EconProf, that this will do very little, if anything, to improve the situation for students. The Privatization Movement is 100% behind this, and their ONLY goal is to improve profits for educational corporations…profits that will come from the reduced compensation for teachers.
There is NO EVIDENCE, whatsoever, that teachers’ unions negatively affect student outcomes.
Your taxes will not go down.
Student outcomes might improve slightly at first, but then will likely go back down, possibly below current levels, a few years after this has taken effect.
This change, if enacted, will result in fewer and fewer quality people who will be willing to spend 6+ years in college and take on this VERY challenging job…all to have their career hanging by a thread, dependent entirely upon the whims of administrators, politicians, and parents. This is not the kind of job where objective measures are used to determine whether or not one has done a good job (nor should it be, as the many problems with testing are brought to light); the evaluation of teachers is highly subjective and based on the emotions of parents, administrators, and politicians; which is why unions were necessary in the first place.
Participant[quote=UCGal]FWIW – I’ve never had any issue riding the bus to/from downtown. Most folks are reading books or newspapers, listening to headphones… I don’t ride the bus often – but a few times a year.
Joec – when was the last time you rode the bus? It’s not as scary as you might think.
I’m strongly considering having my kids ride the public bus home from middle school (near the zoo) to UC, this year. I rode the bus (by myself, at age 12) at their age from UC to balboa park to take ballet classes – it’s a good life skill. And this was when Horton Plaza was a place the wack-a-doodles went on rants – pre mall.
My biggest gripe with the bus is that it doesn’t run often enough or close enough to the places I want to go.[/quote]
I don’t think the issue is when you’re traveling on the bus, but when you’re waiting at the bus stations. I’ve had some pretty horrible experiences while waiting for buses (that were often late) or walking to/from the bus stop. And waiting in the pouring rain when the bus stop doesn’t even have any kind of shelter or overhang? Not acceptable.
Participant[quote=joec]I’ve also read in either Brazil or Mexico that they have female only buses or trains or whatever so this “problem” I’ve mentioned doesn’t happen. It seems like even if there were other women on the bus/train, if there were 5 rowdy guys bothering 1 girl/women, not many females would really stick up for someone else when they themselves could be a target…[/quote]
That would definitely make it a more appealing option, but the terminals and local routes to and from home/work would have to be equally safe.
Participant[quote=spdrun]
You’ve nailed it, Joe. That’s a HUGE reason, if not the primary reason, why many women won’t take mass transit (or bike by themselves late at night or in isolated areas). Why do women drive SUVs? Safety. Why do women want to live in clean, well-maintained, suburban areas? Safety…and good schools, which are also considered “good” largely because they are safer than other schools.
This makes sense on the surface. But what’s interesting is that most denser urban areas have a female/male ratio significantly higher than 50/50. I think that MEN have the desire to protect women and push them to get SUVs, move to the ‘burbs, etc….[/quote]
That’s probably just a matter of where the jobs are…and the single men that many of these women might want to meet. Most single/childless people don’t like living in the suburbs, especially if those suburbs are the type where everything closes down at 8:00 p.m., even on weekends. Once you have kids, everything changes. I think that women, especially those who have kids, would always choose safety over just about everything else.
ParticipantYou’ve nailed it, Joe. That’s a HUGE reason, if not the primary reason, why many women won’t take mass transit (or bike by themselves late at night or in isolated areas). Why do women drive SUVs? Safety. Why do women want to live in clean, well-maintained, suburban areas? Safety…and good schools, which are also considered “good” largely because they are safer than other schools.
Safety is a major concern for most women.
Participant[quote=afx114][quote=CA renter]You can’t force Americans out of their cars, for the most part, and any attempts to do so will result in forceful opposition. While I applaud attempts to make mass transit more convenient (and biking safer), it’s unreasonable to expect everyone to dump their cars in favor or buses, trains, and bikes.[/quote]
Population will grow, so what’s the other solution then? 60-lane highways to accommodate all the cars? Maybe triple-decker 40-lane highways? That thinking is no longer sustainable. The era of adding more lanes is over.
No one is asking “everyone” to dump their cars, but clearly there need to be other options.[/quote]
I’m all for mass transit, separate bike lanes, and also support mixed-use development*, but some planners DO want people to dump their cars, altogether. That’s just not feasible for most people.
I also think we need to have clusters of villages that are fairly self-contained, with very easy-to-use mass transit running between them, with local transportation readily available at terminal points.
*Regarding mixed-use development, the urban planners seem to have missed the mark on this. They build $700K condos over businesses where the most a person can make is $9/hr. You have to build housing *for the jobs* that are there, or have commercial/industrial zoning for the type of housing that surrounds the area. By doing what they are doing now, they are still forcing people to commute to work. It’s a problem with for-profit development and trying to get maximum dollar for each piece of land. All too often, maximum profit doesn’t coincide with maximum benefit.
Participant[quote=mike92104][quote=barnaby33]So you are a tree hugger till you want what you want? I for one am shocked! Never mind that a Pergola is in no way shape or form a need, you just sound like a douche.
I have no idea whether the stains in question are bad for the environment, but your tone is just awful.
Josh[/quote]I’m for environmental laws that make sense and think about the whole picture. It’s great that we have reduced VOC’s, but when doing so renders the product nearly useless, it’s a problem. What is the environmental cost of having to reapply stain every other year, or worse yet having to repair/replace that pergola because it wasn’t properly treated?[/quote]
This is exactly the problem. Same with “Energy Star” appliances that now break down and need to be replaced within 10 years, instead of the 20-30 year lifespan that they used to have. Having to dump and replace everything on an accelerated schedule is far worse for our environment than having something that may use a little more energy or pollute a bit more for a short time.
We are losing sight of the goal, IMHO.
Participant[quote=spdrun]
If you have the trolley to go from Oceanside to downtown, you’d also greatly reduce the traffic on the I-5.
Oceanside to Union Station, SD is almost 40 miles — more of a suburban train line. Far too long to be sitting on a trolley that does at most 50 mph, probably 35-40 mph with stops. Better to dual track the existing coast line from O’side, electrify it at 25kV, and run regular electric multiple-unit railcars.
Something like a Silverliner V would work and is already approved for US rail lines…
[/quote]They already have the Coaster that goes from North County to SD.
The problem is getting to and from the stations; and schedules have to become more convenient. Something the Agenda 21 folks can’t seem to wrap their heads around…that and the fact that “Smart Streets” are a complete and utter disaster. You can’t force Americans out of their cars, for the most part, and any attempts to do so will result in forceful opposition. While I applaud attempts to make mass transit more convenient (and biking safer), it’s unreasonable to expect everyone to dump their cars in favor or buses, trains, and bikes. And putting bike lanes in the middle of traffic lanes is insane.
ParticipantWow, that was fast. Why were they evicted?
Participant[quote=joec]
Another thing to factor is even if you are getting 3%, a lot of times there’s still a loan so it’s a leveraged bet. Leverage, of course, cuts both ways but if the real estate market isn’t a crazy bubble, then getting a 3% return to match inflation for someone with 20% down is more like a 15% return (I think)…As others have mentioned, there is just more “trust” from what I’ve seen with real estate as an asset than stocks and bonds which a lot of Asians feel is an unfair and manipulated game. With real estate, you get depreciation against a decent income to also keep that W-2 lower and I’ve seen parents put their kids on the deed/loan to let them depreciate against their taxes as well and get a tax write of for rental properties…There is just a certain level of sharing which I didn’t see in many Caucasian families (kicked out at 18, self fund college, etc…)[/quote]
Agreed.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Where are people buying that they’re only getting 3% return? 6% isn’t hard to find in the US, 8% is relatively available if you want to do some work.[/quote]
In San Diego, it’s tough to find a reliable 3% return on a RE investment. Not talking about other areas regarding this type of return. Where the Asians are buying, getting any kind of return at all is very difficult because everyone is pushing prices to the upper limits.
ParticipantThey’ve been broadening the definition of “terrorism” over the past decade or so. Yes, that’s a problem.
Participant[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]Joe, I agree with you that many of these families think of RE as the ultimate investment, and that they are often well-situated buyers/owners. The problem will be those who buy so many properties that they can’t have just their family members living in them, so they will have to rent them out to locals who might not be of the same caliber as those owners.[/quote]See, while some have a short sighted view on RE investment, other have a much longer view on things. They view RE investment as their retirement nest egg. I know many who are doing just what joec described. They move, keep their old house and rent them out. Now, those who are nearing retirement have 2-3 houses in nice upper middle class area with rent to supplement their retirement. They’ll either acquire more when the time arise or they’ll pass it on to their kids.[/quote]
Right, I totally get this, but it doesn’t change the fact that getting a ~3% yield on RE (maybe, and there are so many things that can go wrong with rentals) is worse than getting a 5-7% yield on Treasuries. Of course, if they don’t trust the Treasury market, then RE is a better bet.
Buying rentals is a good bet when prices are low and interest rates are “normal” or high. I don’t think it will be a good investment for those who are buying high.
ParticipantVery cool article, Rich! You deserve a lot of credit for doing what you did, especially considering the incredible time and effort you’ve put into this over the years. I remember the early years of this blog (reading since 2004!), and data and information was much harder to come by back then. Lots of critics, too, who liked to call the bears “perma-renters” and “bitter, jealous renters.” Fun times! 🙂
Congratulations, Rich!
-
AuthorPosts
