It claims salaries have increased only 35 percent. This seems incorrect to me. For example starting salaries for new developers where I would is roughly 30k (British pound) this is pretty much twice what I started on in 2006.
I'm repeating myself but European cities like Edinburgh are really great in part due to the mix or apartments with pubs and shops near by or directly under flats. Obviously there's still planning required and there has been disputes with venues (with bad outcomes were a residential block was built beside an old music venue and it was forced to close due to noise). Overall though it makes the whole place very livable and walkable
sure, but Edinburgh allows that type of zoning and has all kinds of rules around what can and can't be built - it didn't happen because Edinburgh removed all zoning regulations and they just hoped for the best which is what the OP was advocating.
No not at all. As I said above, regulations such as (X can't be built within N feet of Y) are fine for certain cases. These are not zoning.
Zoning is taking land that's not developed and slicing it up deciding where things should go. That is terrible. It's centralized planning. It is against every principle of freedom of families to choose where to live and to engage in commerce. It is the worst kind of socialism.
It means different things to different people, but what I mean by it is building cities and designing transit in a way that provides opportunities for people of different income levels, careers, and capabilities. If you're a WFH mom you should also be able to walk your kids to school. If you're a painter you should be able to hop on a tram or ride your bike over to your studio. If you're a white-collar software engineer and you make a ton of money, you probably have a larger house but you live in the same neighborhood and you go the same coffee shop as someone who works at a warehouse or helps take care of older people.
One of the contributing factors to racism and bigotry in America at least that we have stratified society and locked everyone into homes out in the suburbs where they don't interact with people from other socioeconomic classes, different ideas, or different life stages. It's easy to hate people when you read about them on the Internet. It's nearly impossible to do so when you see them at the park with their children living the American dream just like you.
Others may have different interpretations and such, but that's what it means to me in an over-simplified nut shell.
No, not at all. Just building more housing and a variety (single family homes, townhomes, etc.) of it (no need for skyscraper condos) and not building highways and focusing on car-first infrastructure at all costs. You don't need any mandates. Things like removing mandatory parking minimums for a building would be an example. No new highway construction would be another.
That whole article could have have been two sentences. Also the problem with it is obvious: not all users have a email client configured. Back in 98 I used to get confused when I clicked an email link and windows would spend ages trying to open up some program called Outlook up!
I'd stop overthinking this, some of the answers you are getting here are ridiculous.
Show it to your manager.
Your job is to add value, that's it. You can add value by automating this process. You did it outside of normal working hours, so what? I'd guess most people here work extra hours.
I'm 40. I'm not sure if I have to try harder to learn. I was never bright in the first place.
I'm way more motivated to learn now. I only really watch Netflix etc on Friday and Saturday nights. Other evenings I try to get an hour to myself to do self learning. (Difficult with a child,!)
My main problem is I prefer learning programming related things not directly related to my programming job.
Currently doing a course on network programming in c (I don't have a com sci degree).
What I really want is to learn maths to the point we're I can do a bit of calculus.
Just listened to John carmack on lex Fridman podcast. Very inspiring. He's switched in to AI research , never seems to stop teaching himself. (Though he has the advantage of being genius).
Yes, but he's a genius who works his ass off. Come to think of it, I don't know of many lazy geniuses. Chas Chandler said Hendrix always had a guitar strapped on him.
In Hong Kong, it's not a problem of over-densification. There's loads of unused land, but the government is incentivised to keep it empty and not zone it for high-density residential. When they do sell off a small parcel of land for new development, they auction it off leading to obscene land prices.
That's what OP means about there not being an incentive for the government to lower cost of living. The high cost of living is subsidising HK's notoriously low taxes.
Oh and to answer the question, the solution is to zone lots more high-density residential, sell a lot of land for less money, and stop subversively taxing the poorest citizens via high CoL. Tax businesses and the wealthy to make up for it. But they're not going to do that, because low taxes on businesses and the wealthy is their USP.
Turns out when you optimise a city for business wellbeing at the expense of citizen wellbeing, then it impacts citizen wellbeing...
No, I don't know. I major in computer science, not economics or public policy. I just think that it is ludicrous that despite every chief executive said that they will tackle this problem, the price just keep rising and statistics keep worsening. They propose some absurd plans like massive 10+ year land reclamation plan [1] to build more houses, despite that there are actually quite a lot of unutilized land in the New Territories.
A high land value tax moves the problem around (instead of young people not being able to buy a house, older folk can't afford to keep the large one they spent their lives in).
In the process, it makes land completely unappealing to rent-seekers while incentivizing high-density development of desirable locations.
> older folk can't afford to keep the large one they spent their lives in
This is only a problem if you believe older folks should continue to live in big luxury houses for a pittance (read: gain the benefits of luxury without having the detriments of luxury), or the country does not have enough smaller housing for them to move.
In situations where housing is severely constrained at the cost of younger people, leaving old people in their large houses should be the last of your concerns. Doubly so for any social structures where older generations are extremely reliant on younger generations (almost every democratic, socialist or communist country).
