archBOSTON.org

Go Back   archBOSTON.org > Outside Of Boston Metro > General Architecture & Urban Planning

General Architecture & Urban Planning All things architectural or urban in general, or withinin cities outside of Boston & Greater New England.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-28-2017, 12:05 PM   #81
TheRifleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 3,839
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmp1284 View Post
$400k as a condo unit.
Everett is majority Section 8---Those people will get pushed right out of the home due to the lack of Building around the surrounding areas.

Yes. I get it that people should educated themselves and try to better there situation. But some people are not programmed to think of Finances, Real Estate valuations, or other aspects of the economy they are just looking to survive.

As an educated person---I love the ignorant comment work harder? As I'm a trusted Taxpayer into this corrupted fucking system as I'm watching our past Politicians hand over very special real estate & tax deals on prime real estate land in Boston. As our taxes & rents continue to increase--dramatically.

How do you justify making an ignorant comment like that as I'm watching the same group of muther-fuckers getting bailed-out because they made bad bets in the overall general markets only to keep these Real Estate values at insane levels especially on prime real estate.
Its like stealing from the working-class and just swindling their real estate which happens to be well-located because of inflation.

It's basically our obligation to protect the people that can't help themselves sometimes from your backwards logic of saying Work Harder as the politicians/Corporations just swindle everything around you with real value and true wealth.
HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY A COMMENT LIKE THAT TO A FELLOW TAXPAYER?

Last edited by TheRifleman; 03-28-2017 at 12:48 PM.
TheRifleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2017, 12:32 PM   #82
kmp1284
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Holland Park, W11
Posts: 1,592
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

It was mostly intended as sarcasm, like ninety percent of the other stuff I say here. Obviously no one wants to be on the short end of the income gap however from an economic perspective, income inequality can be viewed as a good thing. Itís indicative of a high degree of wealth and a robust and diverse economy that meets the needs of those at all earning levels.
kmp1284 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2017, 12:49 PM   #83
bigpicture7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brighton, MA
Posts: 1,023
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

I've been biting my tongue on this comment as I've watched you two debate, but at this point it needs to be said:

The issue isn't income stratification, which as kmp1284 points out, can be OK. If we want a meritocracy...if we value risk-takers...if we value those who are OK with being service workers. Stratification is fine.

The issue is income inequality, whereby as a nation's productivity increases (as usually indicated by GDP growth), those gains only go to a limited few. In other words, if everyone works harder and more output is produced, but then some people scheme the system to get disproportionately richer off the same output, whereby others (who are working just as hard as they did the day before) have a flat income while cost of living increases around them. This is exploitation. It is indicated by someone working just as hard being able to afford a loaf of bread one day, and not being able to afford that same loaf of bread the next despite not changing anything else about their lives.

So, yea, we need to be able to house Boston's service workers...and they need to make a living wage. And I am not sure whether they are all making a living wage right now.

Here's the picture that says it all...wage growth tracked national productivity growth from WWII until early 1980s:

Last edited by bigpicture7; 03-28-2017 at 12:59 PM.
bigpicture7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2017, 01:56 PM   #84
TheRifleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 3,839
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

BigPicture--- I agree with what everything you wrote. ---Except KMP comment on income Inequality being okay

You pretty much describe how Inflation is increasing very dramatically in Boston which can only be stopped by rising Interest rates.

#1 Interest rates determine labor value (Low Interest rates destroyed the buying power of the working class people) They have gotten their productivity stolen from them. Just look your charts.

#2 Throughout all the Banker Bailouts & the QE money the real money went to the stock market to hold up the stock valuations including real estate values. Its not like some working stiff at StopNShop can actually qualify for a homeowners loan for 400K+ Condo.
This helped both Wall St and the Govt to dump all those bad loans back into the market with increasing real estate tax revenue as properties rise due to the low interest rates and bailouts to the bankers.

So what is Boston End game?
The city needs to encourage big-time developments at this point to bring the cost of real estate down and help increase tax revenue to a sane level for the overall good of the area help improve the transit flow throughout the area.

Boston cannot stay the same---REAL CHANGE needs to happen now to help working class workers service Boston:
Seaport is not enough---Boston will never go back to the 70's and 80's type era "Affordable blue collared city"---Unless a Zombie Apocalypse--
TheRifleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2017, 02:02 PM   #85
kmp1284
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Holland Park, W11
Posts: 1,592
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRifleman View Post
BigPicture--- I agree with what everything you wrote. ---Except KMP comment on income Inequality being okay
People put in varying degrees of effort and accept different levels of risk in life. Some people do not deserve the same thing as others.
kmp1284 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2017, 02:07 PM   #86
bigpicture7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brighton, MA
Posts: 1,023
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRifleman View Post
---Except KMP comment on income Inequality being okay
Thanks, but I didn't say income inequality is OK.

That was actually my main point...that income stratification - meaning that some people will get paid more than others on the basis of what job they hold - is OK and natural (e.g., a brain surgeon will inevitably make more than a dental hygienist). But that income inequality is a different phenomenon, and it is not OK.

I was specifically trying to call attention to the difference between these phenomena. Income inequality is the term for unjust allocation of a nation's productivity growth. Meaning: lets say it takes two type of people to manufacture a Widget, person A and person B. They are both very hard working, but person A's job pays more because they had to go to school longer and their skills are more specialized, and person B makes less. In Year 1: person A makes $100,000/year and person B makes $30,000/year...and the two of them agree to this arrangement. In Year 5, however, the profit margin on Widgets has increased because Person A and B have been steadily becoming more productive at making widgets...except, Person A sneakily finds a way to hide this extra profit margin from Person B....and now, Person A makes $200,000/year, and Person B still makes $30,000/year. All the while, Person B busts his/her butt working just as hard or harder than Year 1.

That is income inequality, and it's exactly what's been going on in the US for the past 40-ish years. Productivity has gone up - we as a nation produce more using the same amount of input - but the average U.S. salary has NOT gone up in real terms. The answer to "where'd all that extra money we all collectively earned go?" is income inequality.
bigpicture7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2017, 02:09 PM   #87
bigpicture7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brighton, MA
Posts: 1,023
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmp1284 View Post
People put in varying degrees of effort and accept different levels of risk in life. Some people do not deserve the same thing as others.
And this is what I labeled income stratification. Which I have no problem with.

But this is not income inequality.
bigpicture7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2017, 02:14 PM   #88
TheRifleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 3,839
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpicture7 View Post
And this is what I labeled income stratification. Which I have no problem with.

But this is not income inequality.
Agree 100%
TheRifleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2017, 02:32 PM   #89
kmp1284
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Holland Park, W11
Posts: 1,592
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpicture7 View Post
Thanks, but I didn't say income inequality is OK.

That was actually my main point...that income stratification - meaning that some people will get paid more than others on the basis of what job they hold - is OK and natural (e.g., a brain surgeon will inevitably make more than a dental hygienist). But that income inequality is a different phenomenon, and it is not OK.

I was specifically trying to call attention to the difference between these phenomena. Income inequality is the term for unjust allocation of a nation's productivity growth. Meaning: lets say it takes two type of people to manufacture a Widget, person A and person B. They are both very hard working, but person A's job pays more because they had to go to school longer and their skills are more specialized, and person B makes less. In Year 1: person A makes $100,000/year and person B makes $30,000/year...and the two of them agree to this arrangement. In Year 5, however, the profit margin on Widgets has increased because Person A and B have been steadily becoming more productive at making widgets...except, Person A sneakily finds a way to hide this extra profit margin from Person B....and now, Person A makes $200,000/year, and Person B still makes $30,000/year. All the while, Person B busts his/her butt working just as hard or harder than Year 1.

That is income inequality, and it's exactly what's been going on in the US for the past 40-ish years. Productivity has gone up - we as a nation produce more using the same amount of input - but the average U.S. salary has NOT gone up in real terms. The answer to "where'd all that extra money we all collectively earned go?" is income inequality.
But widget makers are a dime a dozen and a perfectly capable one can be found for $30k. As they are employees and not shareholders, there is no logical reason to pay them anything more than what the market dictates they are worth.
kmp1284 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2017, 02:48 PM   #90
bigpicture7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brighton, MA
Posts: 1,023
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmp1284 View Post
But widget makers are a dime a dozen and a perfectly capable one can be found for $30k. As they are employees and not shareholders, there is no logical reason to pay them anything more than what the market dictates they are worth.
The whole point is that the market doesn't guarantee them a living wage.

If there weren't government minimum wage laws, they would live in squalor in tent cities on the outskirts of town. Because, you are right, KMP, there is no mechanism (other than min. wage) to stop that.

Economics alone isn't how we as a society operate. We have a democracy to agree on a set of values. The set of values that we agreed to live on between WWII and 1980 was that we should establish the concept of a living wage for the bottom strata. And we as a nation established that the bottom strata should track GDP growth. That worked fine for our country for most of the 20th century. The rich get to get richer when the GDP goes up. But the poor can still buy bread. Everyone wins, and the upper strata wins more because their slice of the GDP is more, but at least the lowest strata is just fine.

The difference between your opinion and mine is as simple as setting the minimum wage to some neutral index, like a .000000001 of GDP growth (I'm too tired to get the # of zeros right).

But we're corrupt policymakers. We set minimum wage = to some set value that is guaranteed to be obsolete a year after its set. Why not just set it equal to an index? The only answer to that is intentional exploitation.

Your argument that everyone should just try harder makes absolutely no sense. We need people to clean toilets. We can't do without those people. And it's a narrowing pyramid of roles at each successive strata.
And there's this concept called asymmetric bargaining power...a CEO can singlehandledly set toilet cleaner's wages...but it would take some sizeable percentage of them to agree to strike to prevent that. Even right wing economists agree to asymmetry of bargaining power; even they agree society would collapse without setting some sort of a minimum wage. This is NOT supply/demand 101....THAT is when you buy a pair of shoes, and you and the seller have equal bargaining power, and the fair price adjusts itself.

So why not just agree to pay minimum wage based on an index and not a set minimum wage value? I'll tell you why: because minimum wage obsolescence is how CEOs pad their cost performance statistics to make themselves look better to stockholders. It's called cheating - it means they're not actually running their companies better, but they're making it look like they are. I really hope you're not an investment analyst.

There is NO reason not to set minimum wage equal to a GDP growth-based index.
bigpicture7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2017, 03:47 PM   #91
TheRifleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 3,839
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpicture7 View Post
The whole point is that the market doesn't guarantee them a living wage.

If there weren't government minimum wage laws, they would live in squalor in tent cities on the outskirts of town. Because, you are right, KMP, there is no mechanism (other than min. wage) to stop that.

Economics alone isn't how we as a society operate. We have a democracy to agree on a set of values. The set of values that we agreed to live on between WWII and 1980 was that we should establish the concept of a living wage for the bottom strata. And we as a nation established that the bottom strata should track GDP growth. That worked fine for our country for most of the 20th century. The rich get to get richer when the GDP goes up. But the poor can still buy bread. Everyone wins, and the upper strata wins more because their slice of the GDP is more, but at least the lowest strata is just fine.

The difference between your opinion and mine is as simple as setting the minimum wage to some neutral index, like a .000000001 of GDP growth (I'm too tired to get the # of zeros right).

But we're corrupt policymakers. We set minimum wage = to some set value that is guaranteed to be obsolete a year after its set. Why not just set it equal to an index? The only answer to that is intentional exploitation.

Your argument that everyone should just try harder makes absolutely no sense. We need people to clean toilets. We can't do without those people. And it's a narrowing pyramid of roles at each successive strata.
And there's this concept called asymmetric bargaining power...a CEO can singlehandledly set toilet cleaner's wages...but it would take some sizeable percentage of them to agree to strike to prevent that. Even right wing economists agree to asymmetry of bargaining power; even they agree society would collapse without setting some sort of a minimum wage. This is NOT supply/demand 101....THAT is when you buy a pair of shoes, and you and the seller have equal bargaining power, and the fair price adjusts itself.

So why not just agree to pay minimum wage based on an index and not a set minimum wage value? I'll tell you why: because minimum wage obsolescence is how CEOs pad their cost performance statistics to make themselves look better to stockholders. It's called cheating - it means they're not actually running their companies better, but they're making it look like they are. I really hope you're not an investment analyst.

There is NO reason not to set minimum wage equal to a GDP growth-based index.
One thing you are missing from your Thesis:
Is the valuation of the U.S. dollar (Per Gold Standard) Before it was taken off.
Dollar determines the price mechanism for goods and services.

Interest rates determine the value of the US Worker productivity--because at the end of the day that Paycheck needs to pay his bills for Food, Housing energy costs.

There is a serious disconnect with our Govt/FED on understanding why Interest rates are pinned so low for so long.
TheRifleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2017, 03:58 PM   #92
KentXie
Senior Member
 
KentXie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Fenway
Posts: 3,516
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRifleman View Post
One thing you are missing from your Thesis:
Is the valuation of the U.S. dollar (Per Gold Standard) Before it was taken off.
Dollar determines the price mechanism for goods and services.

Interest rates determine the value of the US Worker productivity--because at the end of the day that Paycheck needs to pay his bills for Food, Housing energy costs.

There is a serious disconnect with our Govt/FED on understanding why Interest rates are pinned so low for so long.
While interest rates and inflation does erode purchasing power, you are missing the entire point of keeping interest rates low.

As stated multiple times in the past, the reason why interest rates were kept low is so that people do not save and instead spend. In a depressed economy, you have to drive up consumer demands and the only way to do that is to make money cheap and readily available. Rising consumer demands = demand for employees = job creation. If you quickly raise interest rates, you will end up suppressing the recovery as people pull back on spending.

Furthermore, the depreciation of the US dollar, while eroding the purchasing power of US Americans also makes US goods more competitive and more attractive as it becomes cheaper. In other words, this would increase demand for US goods internationally. Again, this would create jobs for the US workers which would also eventually increase their wages when the unemployment rate falls (and thus would increase their purchasing power via higher income).

Finally, keeping interest rate low and allowing inflation helps in repaying back fixed rate loans by refinancing with lower interest loans to pay off higher interest debt or decrease the interest rate for those who have floating rate loans. By spending a smaller proportion of their income on accruing interests, consumers can spend more on goods and services which would help prop up demand.
KentXie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2017, 08:06 AM   #93
Justin7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,231
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmp1284 View Post
People put in varying degrees of effort and accept different levels of risk in life. Some people do not deserve the same thing as others.
There's the old kmp! While there are of course exceptions, I know you're aware that the vast majority of the wealthy in this country are either born into money or opportunity.

While building 800ft towers isn't going to do much to fix this, can we agree that Boston could use more housing stock (particularly on transit lines) in order to bring pricing down enough to accommodate somewhat lower incomes? A city benefits from diversity.
__________________
"You cannot take in a whole Boston street with a single glance of the eye and then lose your interest because you have thus taken the edge off future discovery; on the contrary, every step reveals some portion of a building which you could not see before, some change in your vista, and some suggestion of pleasant variety yet to come, which not only keeps your interest alive but heightens it and persuades you to go on."
Justin7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2017, 08:54 AM   #94
kmp1284
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Holland Park, W11
Posts: 1,592
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin7 View Post
There's the old kmp! While there are of course exceptions, I know you're aware that the vast majority of the wealthy in this country are either born into money or opportunity.

While building 800ft towers isn't going to do much to fix this, can we agree that Boston could use more housing stock (particularly on transit lines) in order to bring pricing down enough to accommodate somewhat lower incomes? A city benefits from diversity.
For one week only! I'll just never be able to wrap my head around the concept of a living wage for no-skill jobs. A slightly higher minimum wage is more than appropriate(and it probably should be indexed in some manner). The simple fact is that minimum wage jobs should be looked upon as a place to start in the workforce, not to spend an entire career. If one is only willing to exert minimal effort and take no risk, why then should they be compensated at a level beyond the minimum required by law or what the market dictates?
kmp1284 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2017, 09:33 AM   #95
DZH22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,719
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin7 View Post
There's the old kmp!
I have been enjoying this back and forth over the last few days. TRM has embraced a bunch of democratic talking points, KMP has gone all-in on the republican side, and they are hashing it out with no regard to the irony of it all. It's all quite delicious.
DZH22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2017, 09:38 AM   #96
bigpicture7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brighton, MA
Posts: 1,023
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmp1284 View Post
For one week only! I'll just never be able to wrap my head around the concept of a living wage for no-skill jobs. A slightly higher minimum wage is more than appropriate(and it probably should be indexed in some manner). The simple fact is that minimum wage jobs should be looked upon as a place to start in the workforce, not to spend an entire career. If one is only willing to exert minimal effort and take no risk, why then should they be compensated at a level beyond the minimum required by law or what the market dictates?
I'm actually perfectly willing to live with this.

Tying the min. wage to an index is key. The rest of the career ladder will fill in (in terms of salary growth with increased skills).

This has been a couple of days of good compromise on this thread : )

Last edited by bigpicture7; 03-29-2017 at 01:05 PM.
bigpicture7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2017, 03:51 PM   #97
Hubman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Anywhere, USA
Posts: 545
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

NJ going for 900'.
http://archive.northjersey.com/news/...lest-1.1501352
Nice tower, kind of reminds me of Winthrop Square.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by tysmith95 View Post
Gold doesn't signify luxury, it signifies bad taste.
Hubman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2017, 08:40 AM   #98
kmp1284
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Holland Park, W11
Posts: 1,592
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Looks like Salesforce Tower has topped off...

http://www.salesforcetower.com/cam/
kmp1284 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2017, 05:33 PM   #99
stick n move
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dorchester
Posts: 3,233
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

San Fran

stick n move is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2017, 11:40 AM   #100
Hubman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Anywhere, USA
Posts: 545
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Quote:
Originally Posted by DZH22 View Post
I have been enjoying this back and forth over the last few days. TRM has embraced a bunch of democratic talking points, KMP has gone all-in on the republican side, and they are hashing it out with no regard to the irony of it all. It's all quite delicious.
+1. It is funny to watch them tear each other apart.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by tysmith95 View Post
Gold doesn't signify luxury, it signifies bad taste.
Hubman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Roxbury Developments czsz Development Projects 239 10-06-2017 08:55 PM
Dorchester Developments Boston02124 Development Projects 765 10-03-2017 05:57 PM
MA Casino Developments TheRifleman Development Projects 2307 09-14-2016 10:29 AM
JP Developments Pierce Development Projects 19 07-25-2010 06:49 PM
How are these developments still happening? palindrome General Architecture & Urban Planning 1 11-13-2009 03:38 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.