undefined | Better HN

0 pointshopelite5mo ago0 comments

These are not hard things to understand or solve, it's just that the majority of people don't want to understand them or face reality and the politicians will always serve up these kinds of con artist lies to placate people.

You cannot add ~60 million foreign national people to the US population in the last 25 years without severely impacting the housing situation when the USA has only built 1.1 million housing units on average over that period; most of those being locked into high prices due to the massive inflation over that time.

What makes it even worse is this obsession with both concentrating populations and jobs in urban centers, while at the same time being concerned with climate change and environmental protection. They are mutually exclusive things. This is an iron triangle issue, you can only have two of three things: affordable housing, immigration, climate/environment protection.

0 comments

pixl975mo ago

> They are mutually exclusive things.

Source: You made it up.

Being closer to where the things are so you can walk significantly drops the amount of fuel needed for transportation and opens up public transportation as a workable option.

> USA has only built 1.1 million housing units on average over that period;

That's a government issue, not a practical one. How many housing units did China build in that same amount of time?

hopeliteOP5mo ago

Please go back to reddit with your nonsense

gfehhffvvv5mo ago

I don’t understand, why is urban concentration anathema to environmental protection? It seems instead to be in service of it?

outside23445mo ago

I don't understand why this is a iron triangle situation.

Higher density housing -- and a lot of it -- solves for all three, right? If not, why not?

xmprt5mo ago

It's because the triangle is missing the secret forth vertex: single family housing with a big private backyard and a lawn in the suburbs that's only accessible by car.

cd4plus5mo ago

What an incredibly weird take. Higher density cities are better in virtually any environmental metric per capita. This is widely supported

add-sub-mul-div5mo ago

Working backwards from not wanting immigrants to be here paints them into some nonsensical corners.

hopeliteOP5mo ago

You want immigrants that plunder the indigenous population while at the same time enriching the upper class at the expense of the lower classes, but you project your own nonsense on others, thereby proving you are full of it. Why do you support the ruling class using "immigrants" to plunder the non-ruling class? You do not even have the capacity to understand that, but you speak on it anyways.

I benefit immensely financially from "immigrants", but that does not mean it is just and I have the integrity to be honest about that. You clearly do not. Stealing by abstraction and supporting it makes you a bad person, not at all the good person you think you are by supporting "immigration", regardless of whether I get richer today than you make in one year or not because of immigrants.

mothballed5mo ago

Even as measured by pollutants per breath inhaled?

epistasis5mo ago

That would be a health metric, not an environmental one. While brake dust is a major contributor to this, a suburb next to a freeway is going to be pretty damn bad too.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointshopelite5mo ago0 comments

0 comments

pixl975mo ago

> They are mutually exclusive things.

Source: You made it up.

Being closer to where the things are so you can walk significantly drops the amount of fuel needed for transportation and opens up public transportation as a workable option.

> USA has only built 1.1 million housing units on average over that period;

That's a government issue, not a practical one. How many housing units did China build in that same amount of time?

hopeliteOP5mo ago

Please go back to reddit with your nonsense

gfehhffvvv5mo ago

I don’t understand, why is urban concentration anathema to environmental protection? It seems instead to be in service of it?

outside23445mo ago

I don't understand why this is a iron triangle situation.

Higher density housing -- and a lot of it -- solves for all three, right? If not, why not?

xmprt5mo ago

It's because the triangle is missing the secret forth vertex: single family housing with a big private backyard and a lawn in the suburbs that's only accessible by car.

cd4plus5mo ago

What an incredibly weird take. Higher density cities are better in virtually any environmental metric per capita. This is widely supported

add-sub-mul-div5mo ago

Working backwards from not wanting immigrants to be here paints them into some nonsensical corners.

hopeliteOP5mo ago

mothballed5mo ago

Even as measured by pollutants per breath inhaled?

epistasis5mo ago

That would be a health metric, not an environmental one. While brake dust is a major contributor to this, a suburb next to a freeway is going to be pretty damn bad too.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse