The inexorable decline of American cities
- Thread starter Roosh
- Start date
Lazy, worthless scum are the enemy of society. It is wrong to be a worthless bum. It is liberal thinking to say that giving lazy scum what they deserve is no different than rounding up Christians. Christians are good citizens. Worthless bums are evil and should be treated as criminals (as criminals ought to be treated). The reason liberals want to let the worthless bums do what they want is because they want to destroy Christian society. Let's not help them or support and encourage their efforts.
I know that someday the anti-Christ will round up Christians and exterminate them, but that doesn't mean we should let degenerate scum take over our cities now.
I know that someday the anti-Christ will round up Christians and exterminate them, but that doesn't mean we should let degenerate scum take over our cities now.
Last edited:
The Road is a great analogy for their general appearance. Wish there was an easy macro solution, seems like a problem that can only be solved on an individual level . . . maybe it's a symptom of how far society has drifted from Christian principles.
Homelessness, drug addition and mental illness (all intertwined) are priority number 1 for this country right now and it’s not even on either left or rights political radar at all to fix any of those issues. I like the work for food as a start, where working means keeping your area clean of trash and human decrements and you’ll be given a daily meal to squat in your tent is a baby step at least. Agree that mentally ill need to go into a mental institutions, they need removed from society.
I've been to New York 3 times over the past couple of months. At the expense of sounding like a broken record, the city is an embarrassment. Due to the lax police wild things just happen and happen so often the locals just play it off like its nothing. Its true that this kind of mentality has always been a staple of New Yorkers, but, the conditions are worse than I've ever seen and I've been going to New York for years. Prior to Covid I was down there sometimes once a week. So, even though I'm not a local, thank God, I have enough experience there to see the contrast. I imagine any sentient New Yorker sees the same thing.
Boston is in poor shape too. They had their mayoral elections recently and, surprise-surprise, they elected some moonbat liberal and a very moonbat DA. The DA is going to mimic SFO's lax policies on crime too, because, after all, that's working so well. Retailers are already limiting their inventory, mostly due to Covid and all that, but, soon they'll be smash and grabs.
Boston's drug problem is progressively getting worse and it was already terrible. We have a methadone mile, which intersects the South End (the gay part of the city). As Roosh has observed anytime there is homelessness and rampant drug abuse homosexuality is not far behind. I've lived in Massachusetts all of my life and I've never seen Boston this bad.
Boston is in poor shape too. They had their mayoral elections recently and, surprise-surprise, they elected some moonbat liberal and a very moonbat DA. The DA is going to mimic SFO's lax policies on crime too, because, after all, that's working so well. Retailers are already limiting their inventory, mostly due to Covid and all that, but, soon they'll be smash and grabs.
Boston's drug problem is progressively getting worse and it was already terrible. We have a methadone mile, which intersects the South End (the gay part of the city). As Roosh has observed anytime there is homelessness and rampant drug abuse homosexuality is not far behind. I've lived in Massachusetts all of my life and I've never seen Boston this bad.
Since so many administrative office buildings/cube farms are no longer in use as the pandemic exposed that those TPS reports can be just as easily be completed remotely anywhere vs sitting in a cube with Bill Lumberger looking over your shoulder all day, there is a ton of existing office space that could be repurposed into cheap housing for homeless (where they can get help with addiction, job placement etc) or new mental health housing facilities for those that don’t have families to take them in as they don’t have the ability to care for themselves. And those corporations should be saving a ton to get out of leases and improve their bottom lines. Even if the remote workers are only producing 80% compared to when they had a boss hovering over them, the financial gain for the company is still better I’d assume.
Possibly. Regarding remote working, it goes like this. Central Business District (CBD) office space, i.e. Park Ave Manhattan or downtown SFO, is very expensive. They call it AAA space. Also, the contracts are long-term, nearly a decade or more in some instances. This is a very substantial line item in the balance sheet. Covid revealed to us that conventional technologies make it possible to work, pretty much, from anywhere, this presents an irresistible opportunity for corporate CFOs to minimize this liability. And, in fact, possibly remove it entirely. I've seen a couple of companies that are 100% remote. Even if productivity goes down that can be offset by how much money the company can save, plus, the increase in equity value due to the fatter operating margins.
As it pertains to repurposing latent office space etc, that's a good idea and perhaps that will happen. And perhaps it will reduce or lessen homelessness, heck, even eliminate it. Again, the incentive to not purchase CBD real estate is compelling and, furthermore, even if company's don't go entirely remote they will partially go remote. It only takes one high-value hire that insists to be remote to sway that dynamic. I could see companies using remote as a signing bonus. So, overall physical footprints should go down. Also, if the location is irrelevant, then, why bother with CBD in favor of less expensive CRE outside of the city?
I think CBD and, for that matter, cities are going through a fundamental disruption. The necessity to be in the center of it all isn't there and the money you can save from not being there is even more compelling. You really don't need a massive CRE footprint any longer.
This points towards a disappointing future for cities and I think we're seeing it take shape right now. As remote work entrenches itself fewer commuters will go to the cities. Fewer companies renting office space, fewer people, less tax revenue means more dysfunction and you have a systematic decline. Even if all the homeless find shelter in a once-bustling office building, don't expect it to be pleasant and nice.
Its already a literal hellscape and its only going to get worse.
I’m still struggling to understand the sustained high and escalating costs of housing and rentals in the Bay Area and other major urban areas around the US if an increasing percent of the population can’t afford it or more people are leaving certain areas than coming in. Why don’t the basic laws of supply and demand seem to affect the market value of housing in these areas? The rust belt departure of population makes sense, older homes can be had for cheap anywhere around Cleveland, Detroit etc.
There are 18 million millionaires in the US, and most of them live in places like SF/Bay Area. This is known in real estate as the fortress effect, in that most of these people aren't depending on their salary to make their mortgages, and in fact whne housing prices go up, so does their wealth, a lot of it being tied up in real estate.
That and the fact that in SF there are stringent anti-growth/zoning laws that restrict new building, a lot of these laws are put in place by large landlords who fund astroturfed environmental organizations. Whereas in cities like Dallas, Atlanta, Houston, Charlotte etc there are fewer restriction on growth, so the price of new housing is tied to construction cost, not artificial hoarding of land as you have in CA.
That and the fact that in SF there are stringent anti-growth/zoning laws that restrict new building, a lot of these laws are put in place by large landlords who fund astroturfed environmental organizations. Whereas in cities like Dallas, Atlanta, Houston, Charlotte etc there are fewer restriction on growth, so the price of new housing is tied to construction cost, not artificial hoarding of land as you have in CA.
Would be interesting stat to see current housing purchases what % buyers are: a) a typical home buyer who will reside at the residence b) an individual buyer for investment (I.e plan to rent it or flip it and never reside there) c) investment real estate firms or LLCs
It's a function of a variety of forces, many of which are abstract, so, they're not as apparent. One such force, which is very relevant today is inflation. Hard assets, such as real estate, appreciate in value because there are more dollars in circulation. Then you have interest rates, which when sufficiently low make transactions occur that would have otherwise not happened. This happens in all markets but is especially true in real estate. So, by way of low-interest rates you have created a new tranche of incremental buyers. They enter the market and bid up the price. Markets that appreciate also attract speculators. Once again, the net effect here is more market participants, which increase demand and prices. In places like SFO there's another relevant factor at work too, which is international buyers. These buyers are different in many respects. They may be buying as a speculator or, in the case of the Chinese, as a way to get their capital out of China. The latter is particularly relevant in SFO. I've heard it said that much of the premia for real estate in the Northwest is attributed to Chinese buyers. Of course, once again, whether they're Chinese or not they amount to yet another tranche of incremental buyers that increase demand and bid-up pricing.
All the being said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with your assumption that real estate has upside limitations since most of the purchasing is for shelter, rather than capital flight or speculation. Surely, this component is most influential and, therefore, if its eliminated or under stress pricing will react. And it will...eventually. Markets of all kinds have a weird way of sustaining long after an otherwise rational investment thesis predicts it should correct. This is actually an adage on Wall Street. The reason why this phenomenon occurs is due to the things I listed above. But there's something else too. Apropos to your confusion, you must remember that we're not living in ordinary times, or better yet, market conditions. This is best illustrated with interest rates. Interest rates, the price of money, are like the alpha-omega of markets.
Sustained manipulation of interest rates results in systematic market perversions. Consider the US has not allowed the short term interest rates to be subjected to price discovery via a free market for decades. Ordinarily, there's an ebb and flow of interest rates, which through an unseen hand sort of way flushes out malinvestment. No such mechanism has been allowed to unfold. This perverts otherwise natural forces. So, expect the unexpected, to some degree, in this instance for housing prices to remain unsustainably high and unaffordable to most of the buying (local) public.
Easy_C
Peacock
+1 for demonstrating a better understanding of basic financial concepts than most here.
I'd add that there is another factor: there is only so much capital seeking fixed income available. As confidence in government debt declines it means that capital goes elsewhere. They're thus willing to take lower yields on their investment, which by proxy (because yield = return/investment cost) means that investors are willing to pay more for a property relative to the income that they receive from it.
It's because real estate returns are no longer competing just with other real estate investments. They're competing with government bonds.
I'd add that there is another factor: there is only so much capital seeking fixed income available. As confidence in government debt declines it means that capital goes elsewhere. They're thus willing to take lower yields on their investment, which by proxy (because yield = return/investment cost) means that investors are willing to pay more for a property relative to the income that they receive from it.
It's because real estate returns are no longer competing just with other real estate investments. They're competing with government bonds.
They are filling an important role, similar to what currently happens in the cities. Eventually people will beg to put under brand new brutal, dominant force to restore law and order. People will cheer to see boots on the necks of these wild animals. And then... the boot will on the necks of everyone else. Don't you wonder how all of this large group of late teens/early 20s - who all know each other well enough to get into a brawl - can afford to fly in the first place?
Not wearing a mask = disobeying the NWO. These airport fights, retail smash & grabs, street gun fights = advances the NWO.
Last edited:
“People”
Here is what I am talking about when I say people are running free committing crimes so that the boot can come down on everyone's neck. The mayor of San Francisco just announce that enough is enough, and that there will be changes made to combat the crime wave.
londonbreed.medium.com
Here are the bullet points, and people will readily agree to this to stop the crime wave.
The people with their expensive property will be happy to be tracked using facial recognition, something they were totally against a couple of years ago.
From the article:
"Breed acknowledged that privacy rights need to be considered, but insisted the need is urgent.
"There is a balance to be had, I know. But right now when our officers aren’t able to use cameras during a mass looting event, then that policy is out of balance," she said."
Everyone will be happy to throw privacy out the window in order to enact this. When frankly they could have been responding to these smash and grabs on a timely basis all along.
A Safer San Francisco
Today I am announcing a series of new steps to address public safety in San Francisco.
londonbreed.medium.com
Here are the bullet points, and people will readily agree to this to stop the crime wave.
The people with their expensive property will be happy to be tracked using facial recognition, something they were totally against a couple of years ago.
From the article:
"Breed acknowledged that privacy rights need to be considered, but insisted the need is urgent.
"There is a balance to be had, I know. But right now when our officers aren’t able to use cameras during a mass looting event, then that policy is out of balance," she said."
Everyone will be happy to throw privacy out the window in order to enact this. When frankly they could have been responding to these smash and grabs on a timely basis all along.
A city in my region recently tried a similar approach. It was admirable, but it didn't work. The city had simple rules like no drugs in the facility, you can't be disruptive and noisy all night... Real basic stuff: "lefty city folk showing how accommodating they are" type rules.
After a few months, less than 20% of the rooms were being used. City is back to bums everywhere, setting up tent-camps along the highway and in "temporarily fenced" parks near downtown.
Still, that isn't stopping them from employing the same model on a much larger scale. They bought an old hospital or something...
