I’m sure well meaning progressives reacted similarly when people informed them that affirmative action would end up primarily benefitting white women.

It’s only free if you aren’t required to pay for it.

That’d be because a hell of a lot of “progressive” social change looks a lot like a wish list for middle/upper middle class white families.

Who is we?

It’s easy to support a bill that omits the whole part where you fund the program...

Inequality has not been “growing” for 40 years. It has been a fixture of American life since day one. The only thing that has grown is the fact that a bunch of middle/upper middle class white kids perceive themselves as being on the wrong side of the dividing line and “suddenly” America has become an unfair place.

The Drafthouse isn’t saying your vote doesn’t matter re: policy because the Drafthouse isn’t a democracy. You don’t get a vote in the first place.

Splinter: We want to win! We want fighters. Stop all this sucking!

Singapore and socialist countries deal with scarcity by restricting access to their programs. Any justification for considering someone to be “them” rather than “us”? Go pound sand. I mean you literally just suggested punishing foreign investors as if your dollars are worth more than theirs. Does that homeownership…

I understand perfectly well what you are saying. I am asking you how that works in a world where scarcity is the reality and you keep refusing to address the fact that the demand for housing in various places isn’t limited to the people currently living in those places.

Although I am not a Rockstar employee it is not at all uncommon for me to work at night or on the weekends when I’m working on something that’s actually engaging.

If suddenly, tomorrow, use/zoning regulations were gone, housing was magically present, and it was 100% free to live in NYC do you think demand for these completely free accommodations in NYC would remain constant or would it increase? Would there be millions of people that had not previously considered living in NYC…

How is the fact that there are physical limitations to available space in an area “capitalistic logic”?

I’m not talking about artificial scarcity. I’m talking about the physical limitations of the space people wish to inhabit. There is a certain, finite, amount of space in every area. Even if you eliminate all use/zoning regulations that doesn’t change.

The Senate is about numbers.

It’s difficult to empathize with people that are shamelessly and obliviously spoiled and lacking in perspective.

I think the thing you’re blatantly ignoring is called scarcity.

People that live in less expensive cities may make marginally less money but they have considerably more purchasing power. Whatever additional money you make is easily negated by the difference in the cost of housing.

That’s your definition of crushing disappointment? And you’re not ashamed to have that documented out in public?

Cities are where the jobs are. You do not need to live in one of the US’ mega cities to find plentiful opportunity. Never mind that a hell of a lot of the people making the “but the jobs” argument are likely just nondescript office drones and I promise you the nondescript office drone role exists literally everywhere.