I was looking today at what I pay to live here in denver vs back home in rural oklahoma. I also was curious about places like california and oregon.
I don't even know how regular people can live in places like san francisco and new york. you can get a nice two bedroom apartment in rural oklahoma for 500 a month.
in a place like new york you pay like 4000 a month for a friggin studio apartment in the gang infested part of town, living above the local crack house.
you'd think liberal places would be helping the common man keep things affordable. what's the deal here? anybody know?
Quoteyou can get a nice two bedroom apartment in rural oklahoma for 500 a month.
I remember Bill Maher speaking of small towns once....
He said "small towns are small because no one wants to live there."
Quote from: "Minimalist"Quoteyou can get a nice two bedroom apartment in rural oklahoma for 500 a month.
I remember Bill Maher speaking of small towns once....
He said "small towns are small because no one wants to live there."
yeah. but what if you're broke and may not have a choice?
I'm legally blind and currently on disability. if I can't find work soon I may have to move back to my home state where its more affordable. like bill maher said, I don't want to live there surrounded by teabaggers and jesus freaks, but then poor people don't have many options. you'd think liberal places would do something about that. maybe they can't. I don't know. either way its depressing for me. I hope I find work soon.
I think it is because "liberals" see themselves as being elite, while just going along with the current political fad. They just talk about helping the poor, without really doing anything to actually help the poor. They complain about the big multinational corporations while wearing their Gucchi shoes and talking on their Blackberries. Which they can afford by working for the corporations they complain about.
But, that is just my opinion.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"I think it is because "liberals" see themselves as being elite, while just going along with the current political fad. They just talk about helping the poor, without really doing anything to actually help the poor. They complain about the big multinational corporations while wearing their Gucchi shoes and talking on their Blackberries. Which they can afford by working for the corporations they complain about.
But, that is just my opinion.
Damn. On one hand, "You gotta be fucking kidding me...". On the other hand... meh, a good bit of that is true. I disagree with the elite bit, but otherwise yeah. Though I would argue there is no such thing as a Liberal city in the United States (at least no major cities) but rather American Liberal... which in the rest of the world would be Conservative-lite.
You did use liberal in parenthesis, so if that is what you were getting at then my bad.
Shiranu wrote in part:
QuoteYou did use liberal in parenthesis, so if that is what you were getting at then my bad.
Yeah. Why I used the parenthesis.
People in those cities want to be seen "helping" the poor, but they don't want any smelly poor people stinking up their malls.
Because that's just how we roll, yo.
It seems that liberals tend to be better off financially, so I'd expect a city full of them to be more expensive.
That said, I am convened that Colorado is in another housing bubble. My sister and her husband are looking for houses up here in Loveland and everything is outrageously overpriced--the other day they were looking at a $150,000 house with unspecified "contamination" that would have required totally gutting it. I think they are going to have to move to Greeley because houses are much cheaper there, must be because it is Weld county and that is conservative and the center of the North Colorado Secession movement.
I don't think liberal is the only reason certain places are expensive. Liberals tend to be better educated and move to nicer locations. Nicer locations are more desirable and the price goes up. My daughter lives in the Denver area, left Utah after getting a degree and is now married to an IT guy that makes top money, and she does pretty well.
Her home is worth 3 times the home she had in Utah, but the neighborhood is beautiful, safe and close to everything you could want, including quality schools, universities and great vacation areas. I daresay that downtown Atlanta in Bible Belt country is likewise very expensive.
QuoteI don't think liberal is the only reason certain places are expensive. Liberals tend to be better educated and move to nicer locations. Nicer locations are more desirable and the price goes up.
This is the biggest issue, imo. Like minimal said, places prices depend on how high demand they are, just like any other product. Bigger cities = better education systems (to an extent) + infrastructure + consumer base = better jobs = higher prices of everything in the area.
There are conservative areas that are expensive as well because they are retirement cities for old, rich conservatives. But we don't say, "Well, obviously it is some political reason it is so expensive!".
if I can find a place that is safe, low cost, and liberal, I'll be quite hapy. it could simply be that rural areas for whatever reason are more conservative and urban areas more liberal, and simply due to population, the urban areas are more expensive. so it could be two different things (liberalism and price) unrelated to each other, but both of which relate to population. (kind of like how ice cream eating and murders both go up in the summer but aren't related to each other but both relate to the heat)
I can see the price angle, its simple economics 101, supply and demand.but why are rural areas more conservative?
this seems even to be a constant thing in other countries. I got a friend from australia who told me rural ares there are conservative.
I'm not sure why living in the country or city would predispose you to be liberal or conservative.
why wouldn't a poor guy from rural arkansas want a higher minimum wage or healthcare. why would a person from rural kentucky be okay with drinking poisoned water and breathing toxic air?
you'd think where you live wouldn't effect those kinds of things.
I can see why social conservatism thrives in areas where people tend to not meet too many from others cultures as one would from the city, but supporting economic conservatism makes no sense to me unless you're rich, short sighted and heartless.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"I think it is because "liberals" see themselves as being elite, while just going along with the current political fad. They just talk about helping the poor, without really doing anything to actually help the poor. They complain about the big multinational corporations while wearing their Gucchi shoes and talking on their Blackberries. Which they can afford by working for the corporations they complain about.
But, that is just my opinion.
Bullshit! Liberals don't see themselves as elite. That is utter nonsense. The only people helping the poor are Liberals. It certainly isn't the repukes the liberterians or the tea partiers! Fuck corrupt corporations! Not all corporations are bad BTW only the corrupt ones!
In answer to the OP's question. Most high population areas have a high competition for prime living areas. Therefore the cost for those areas goes up. Places that have a great deal of land where the population is spread out have less competition and the living areas are much cheaper. It has nothing to do with politics at all. The Dallas area has 7 million + people, but that population is spread over an area the size of some states. By comparison the San Francisco area has about the same population concentrated in a relatively small area.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"I think it is because "liberals" see themselves as being elite, while just going along with the current political fad. They just talk about helping the poor, without really doing anything to actually help the poor. They complain about the big multinational corporations while wearing their Gucchi shoes and talking on their Blackberries. Which they can afford by working for the corporations they complain about.
But, that is just my opinion.
Bullshit! Liberals don't see themselves as elite. That is utter nonsense. The only people helping the poor are Liberals. It certainly isn't the repukes the liberterians or the tea partiers! Fuck corrupt corporations! Not all corporations are bad BTW only the corrupt ones!
In answer to the OP's question. Most high population areas have a high competition for prime living areas. Therefore the cost for those areas goes up. Places that have a great deal of land where the population is spread out have less competition and the living areas are much cheaper. It has nothing to do with politics at all. The Dallas area has 7 million + people, but that population is spread over an area the size of some states. By comparison the San Francisco area has about the same population concentrated in a relatively small area.
Note that he put "liberals" in quotation marks. It puts his post in a completely different context than what I think you read it as.
QuoteNote that he put "liberals" in quotation marks. It puts his post in a completely different context than what I think you read it as.
This.
I understand where you're coming from hba.. Here in Columbus is a liberal town, but rents have gone through the roof. The thing is greed isn't limited to republican nor democrat nor is inflation and so on. People want money and lots of it, but let's face one reality, very few people actually have the courage of their convictions. They'll tell you how much they care about you on one hand while the other hand is sticking a knife in your back.
As many times mentioned on this very site, people suck, man..
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"if I can find a place that is safe, low cost, and liberal, I'll be quite hapy. it could simply be that rural areas for whatever reason are more conservative and urban areas more liberal, and simply due to population, the urban areas are more expensive. so it could be two different things (liberalism and price) unrelated to each other, but both of which relate to population. (kind of like how ice cream eating and murders both go up in the summer but aren't related to each other but both relate to the heat)
I can see the price angle, its simple economics 101, supply and demand.but why are rural areas more conservative?
this seems even to be a constant thing in other countries. I got a friend from australia who told me rural ares there are conservative.
I'm not sure why living in the country or city would predispose you to be liberal or conservative.
why wouldn't a poor guy from rural arkansas want a higher minimum wage or healthcare. why would a person from rural kentucky be okay with drinking poisoned water and breathing toxic air?
you'd think where you live wouldn't effect those kinds of things.
I can see why social conservatism thrives in areas where people tend to not meet too many from others cultures as one would from the city, but supporting economic conservatism makes no sense to me unless you're rich, short sighted and heartless.
Well, in more rural areas mimimum wage goes further than it would in the city. There's also a certain pride I've noticed in rural folk; asking for assistance, expecially in financial matters, is seen as a form of weakness. You're suppose to "tough it out" and if you don't or can't you somehow failed. If worse comes to worse the only people you're suppose to rely on is family.
Except most rural areas are HEAVILY dependent on government assistance. The difference is who actually goes to VOTE.. Many poor folks seem to find voting an exercise in futility. In rural areas if you're 10-20 miles from town living on government assistance you're very unlikely to bother driving into town just to vote..
Yeah but even then it's kind of a "dirty little secret" type deal. You don't tell your neighbors that you're on goverment assistance, you just say that times are hard. I will agree with the voting deal though. In a rural area those who do vote are typically those who are better off than the rest. Even if the poor ones do vote, they vote conservative because that's what's expected. I have no idea how one would be able to get poor, disenfranchised rural people to vote, much less vote for progressive candidates and causes that would help them in the long run.
They're disinfranchized to make voting as difficult as possible through all sorts of dirty shit trickery and of course airwave saturation.. money.
mykcob4 wrote in part:
QuoteBullshit! Liberals don't see themselves as elite. That is utter nonsense. The only people helping the poor are Liberals. It certainly isn't the repukes the liberterians or the tea partiers! Fuck corrupt corporations! Not all corporations are bad BTW only the corrupt ones!
Thanks for making my point for me about how "liberals" see themselves as being the elite.
I watched a video espousing communism which suggested we go to a 32 hour work week and for work people would shuffle pretty much worthless paperwork around in an office. Those working on farms or doing construction work from "can't see to can't see," see communism as a bunch of lazy fuckers not doing any real work. Which the video I watched supported this notion. So naturally, people working hard physical jobs reject the idea that others can just play in an office a few hours a week, while they work their butts off supporting the bastards, will reject "liberalism." They don't need to know anything more about "liberalism" other than it is like communism.
Personally, I reject the whole conservative and liberal name tags as being realistically valid. Seems to me that most people vote for politicians the same way they voted for their homecoming King and Queen. Pure popularity contest, with both sides talking bullshit and mudslinging at the other side. With the sides being decided by the popularity of a few stated ideals, which catch on with the most people. Then its' ride the bandwagon with the most people on it, for most voters.
I...I...I never voted for the biggest tits nor dick so there goes the homecoming queen/king theory.. :)
In the future politics will be decided by who has the shiniest nipples...what a glorious future it will be.
I don't see myself as being elite. I am elite. I'm better educated than you. I have more money than you. I'm better looking than you, and, I can kick your ass, so fuck off.
AllPurposeAtheist wrote:
QuoteI...I...I never voted for the biggest tits nor dick so there goes the homecoming queen/king theory.. :)
Not really, unless you claim to be most voters.
In support of my theory: //http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/oct/18/voters-tall-politicians-leadership
QuoteVoters view tall people as better suited for leadership
The Skeletal Atheist wrote:
QuoteIn the future politics will be decided by who has the shiniest nipples...what a glorious future it will be.
Not for those with feet fetishes, who like the shiniest shoes. But, I like the idea of closely examining all the shiny nipples myself. :D/
Jmpty wrote:
QuoteI don't see myself as being elite. I am elite. I'm better educated than you. I have more money than you. I'm better looking than you, and, I can kick your ass, so fuck off.
Gee, you make so I can't hardly wait to vote for the other guy. :-D
I have a nice braided pony tail. Vote for me. :)
The fact that around the world conservatives live in ghettos and rural areas while liberals more often live in expensive cities is just more proof that conservatism doesn't actually work.
That said; if you try to help all the poor to live in the good homes, you won't have enough good homes. That part is just economics. I don't know how the US is, but here we have a social living program which does give support to people who don't have a lot of money for housing. But as can be expected, loads of people need to use it, so it's a very long wait to actually get one of those homes.
we have something like that here called section 8.
the problem is similar. ridiculously long wait lists and also the places covered by section 8 tend to be dilapidated crime infested roach motels.
funny enough you can get a nice place at reasonable costs in conservative areas, not dumps.
I know. where I lived in Ada OK, I had a decent two bedroom home. no roaches, no gangs and everything worked (dishwasher, gas, water, etc. and it was $350 a month. of course pretty much everybody but me was a holy roller and staunch republican.
been doing some googling and if I go back I think it'll be to Norman, OK, cheap living, has basic transit, is a college town, (OU) has an arts community, less insane than other parts of the state, and if I could land even a part time job there combined with my disability I'd be living quite comfortably. I could work on paying back my student loans and resume my music education at the same time. so it won't be all bad.
as much as I like Denver I can't sustain the costs much longer. I'm going in debt as it is. I'd be living in a backward ass state but at least I'd be better off financially, get back on my feet and resume my music education. Oklahoma has one of, if not the lowest cost of living in the US.
I'm from New Haven, CT and I can tell you hba that the prices you're quoting are probably close to 1st & 1st.
Normal income people just don't live THAT close to the city. You can find decent places near the city in the 2kish range. Because of my proximity to the city, our prices were mediocre in the 1k+ range.
A shit ton of people worked in the city and lived in Connecticut, they just take the train (1hr ride)! If your limit is $500 though... I'm not sure you'll be able to find any blue states in that range :-/
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"I was looking today at what I pay to live here in denver vs back home in rural oklahoma. I also was curious about places like california and oregon.
I don't even know how regular people can live in places like san francisco and new york. you can get a nice two bedroom apartment in rural oklahoma for 500 a month.
in a place like new york you pay like 4000 a month for a friggin studio apartment in the gang infested part of town, living above the local crack house.
you'd think liberal places would be helping the common man keep things affordable. what's the deal here? anybody know?
It's usually referred to as free market economics. Why are places like San Francisco or LA expensive to live in? Cause lots of people want tollive there. If they found out tomorrow that broccoli cured cancer demand would go through the roof and so would the price of brocoli.
Say you live in the sticks in Mississippi and you've got a pretty good brain and the drive to go to college for a degree and even post graduate work. Some people who do this move back to the sticks and are happy. But most want to make some money, work with others in their field and just honestly like hanging out with others similar to themselves. They will, most likely, need a major metropolitan area to achieve that. People with that kind of education are more likely, than the people they grew up with, to lean liberal.
It isn't so much that liberal places are expensive as much as it is that places which are now expensive have become liberal. Since I think the 80's or so conservatives have been on the move out of cities and liberals on the move into cities. It's got a lot to do with people moving to places that represent them better rather then being practical and living close to work.
Besides you could just move to Detroit, not exactly a conservative haven right? And it's cheep too! : p
It has little to do with politics and much much more to do with simple supply and demand.(and then all the extra modified baggage that affects it)
PS: IMO if your looking for a good liberalish place to live with some decent prices here and there, look somewhere between Olympia,WA and Portland, OR. Our conservatives are practically liberals who like to hunt and fish.
There's places in norman for under 400 bucks a month. and its safer and nicer than where I am now, paying 850 dollars a month. not to mention, transit is 10 bucks a month for the disabled, and here its 60. guitar lessons 90 bucks a month, compared to up here more like 200 a month, Then you factor in other stuff like groceries and electric and cable, all of which are cheaper, and financially its a no brainer. on the bright side even if its a red state There's an active atheist group there for me to join. So I can find some like minded people to hang with.
Quote from: "rock"IMO if your looking for a good liberalish place to live with some decent prices here and there, look somewhere between Olympia,WA and Portland, OR. Our conservatives are practically liberals who like to hunt and fish.
any town in particular?
Because rural areas are taxed to subsidize urban development, and subsidies increase prices. They're only "liberal" because they're afraid of pissing off the poor minorities who tend to flock to cities and who they rely on to serve as manual labor.
Also, because materialism is a left-wing idea.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"we have something like that here called section 8.
the problem is similar. ridiculously long wait lists and also the places covered by section 8 tend to be dilapidated crime infested roach motels.
funny enough you can get a nice place at reasonable costs in conservative areas, not dumps.
I know. where I lived in Ada OK, I had a decent two bedroom home. no roaches, no gangs and everything worked (dishwasher, gas, water, etc. and it was $350 a month. of course pretty much everybody but me was a holy roller and staunch republican.
been doing some googling and if I go back I think it'll be to Norman, OK, cheap living, has basic transit, is a college town, (OU) has an arts community, less insane than other parts of the state, and if I could land even a part time job there combined with my disability I'd be living quite comfortably. I could work on paying back my student loans and resume my music education at the same time. so it won't be all bad.
as much as I like Denver I can't sustain the costs much longer. I'm going in debt as it is. I'd be living in a backward ass state but at least I'd be better off financially, get back on my feet and resume my music education. Oklahoma has one of, if not the lowest cost of living in the US.
Wow, Ada. I'm from Ada. When did you live there?
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"mykcob4 wrote in part:QuoteBullshit! Liberals don't see themselves as elite. That is utter nonsense. The only people helping the poor are Liberals. It certainly isn't the repukes the liberterians or the tea partiers! Fuck corrupt corporations! Not all corporations are bad BTW only the corrupt ones!
Thanks for making my point for me about how "liberals" see themselves as being the elite.
I watched a video espousing communism which suggested we go to a 32 hour work week and for work people would shuffle pretty much worthless paperwork around in an office. Those working on farms or doing construction work from "can't see to can't see," see communism as a bunch of lazy fuckers not doing any real work. Which the video I watched supported this notion. So naturally, people working hard physical jobs reject the idea that others can just play in an office a few hours a week, while they work their butts off supporting the bastards, will reject "liberalism." They don't need to know anything more about "liberalism" other than it is like communism.
Personally, I reject the whole conservative and liberal name tags as being realistically valid. Seems to me that most people vote for politicians the same way they voted for their homecoming King and Queen. Pure popularity contest, with both sides talking bullshit and mudslinging at the other side. With the sides being decided by the popularity of a few stated ideals, which catch on with the most people. Then its' ride the bandwagon with the most people on it, for most voters.
I didn't make your point at all, quite the opposite. I do agree with you about how people vote. For the most part people are uninformed voters because they don't want to be informed. As for Liberalism being like communism that is just absurd. I don't know about the video that you watched as I haven't seen it nor do I know of it's credibility. Seems like a propaganda piece to me.
I think your views are a wee bit cynical. It's easy to claim that all politicians are alike etc...! The fact is that there are very different ideals which lead to political differences.
I think we should worry less about "evenly dividing the wealth" and more about "evenly dividing the work." We should also get rid of all the make-work bullshit, we'd seriously work like 5 hours a week if we got rid of all of it.
I'm on disability and I considered moving to another state. One of the states I considered was Oklahoma. Have a friend in Anadarko. Norman sounds nice. But, my wife doesn't want to leave her friends here, so guess I'm stuck here.
mykcob4 wrote:
QuoteI didn't make your point at all, quite the opposite. I do agree with you about how people vote. For the most part people are uninformed voters because they don't want to be informed. As for Liberalism being like communism that is just absurd. I don't know about the video that you watched as I haven't seen it nor do I know of it's credibility. Seems like a propaganda piece to me.
I think your views are a wee bit cynical. It's easy to claim that all politicians are alike etc...! The fact is that there are very different ideals which lead to political differences.
Afraid I have to disagree. You made the point that liberals think of themselves as being "elite" by saying that only liberals help the poor. Even the Republicans will point at programs which they got started as being beneficial for the poor, so saying only liberals help the poor is an elitist attitude.
The "right" equate liberalism with communism. Not me. As I said I don't like the name tags of conservative and liberal. Too simplistic to be of any real use.
The video I watched was a communist propaganda piece. I try to go out of my way to learn how others think about things, especially those with views very different from mine. Which is why I watched it.
I am cynical. And mykcob4 is right in that I see most politicians as being pretty much alike. The rhetoric is different, but when it comes to a vote, they mostly all vote for the monied interest's.
At least we do agree that the vast majority of voters are grossly uninformed. :-D
Quote from: "zarus tathra"I think we should worry less about "evenly dividing the wealth" and more about "evenly dividing the work." We should also get rid of all the make-work bullshit, we'd seriously work like 5 hours a week if we got rid of all of it.
I don't know what you do for a living, but maybe you should try something else.
Quote from: "billhilly"Wow, Ada. I'm from Ada. When did you live there?
a fellow okie! how about that! :-D
If you know where the walmart super center is, the one out by Lonnie Abbott Blvd and Country Club rd, well there's a trailer park just north of there. thats where I lived.
They've moved the damned wally world a couple of times. It used to be across from the fairgrounds and now it's out north of town. I've only been back a couple times to visit since 88. Seems like it went to hell for a while then the Indians bought most of it after they got gambling. Anyway, GO Cougars!
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"I'm on disability and I considered moving to another state. One of the states I considered was Oklahoma. Have a friend in Anadarko. Norman sounds nice. But, my wife doesn't want to leave her friends here, so guess I'm stuck here.
mykcob4 wrote: QuoteI didn't make your point at all, quite the opposite. I do agree with you about how people vote. For the most part people are uninformed voters because they don't want to be informed. As for Liberalism being like communism that is just absurd. I don't know about the video that you watched as I haven't seen it nor do I know of it's credibility. Seems like a propaganda piece to me.
I think your views are a wee bit cynical. It's easy to claim that all politicians are alike etc...! The fact is that there are very different ideals which lead to political differences.
Afraid I have to disagree. You made the point that liberals think of themselves as being "elite" by saying that only liberals help the poor. Even the Republicans will point at programs which they got started as being beneficial for the poor, so saying only liberals help the poor is an elitist attitude.
The "right" equate liberalism with communism. Not me. As I said I don't like the name tags of conservative and liberal. Too simplistic to be of any real use.
The video I watched was a communist propaganda piece. I try to go out of my way to learn how others think about things, especially those with views very different from mine. Which is why I watched it.
I am cynical. And mykcob4 is right in that I see most politicians as being pretty much alike. The rhetoric is different, but when it comes to a vote, they mostly all vote for the monied interest's.
At least we do agree that the vast majority of voters are grossly uninformed. :-D
Oh for crying out loud. The fact is that realizing that Liberals help the poor and the conservatives don't is just a fact. It's not being elitist. Conservatives give to religious organizations that serve to peer pressure their congregations to vote conservative and to be brainwashed in to rascist prejudice religious thinking.
As far as all politicians vote for monied interest that is not true. Voting for Medicare/Medicaid, for Social Security, for Afordable Medical Act, for community college, for PBS & NPR, for WICK and school lunch programs, for banking regulations and the EPA, all are Liberal ideas made law by Liberal politicians that cared for doing the right thing and not for the monied few!
mykcob4 wrote:
QuoteOh for crying out loud. The fact is that realizing that Liberals help the poor and the conservatives don't is just a fact. It's not being elitist. Conservatives give to religious organizations that serve to peer pressure their congregations to vote conservative and to be brainwashed in to rascist prejudice religious thinking.
As far as all politicians vote for monied interest that is not true. Voting for Medicare/Medicaid, for Social Security, for Afordable Medical Act, for community college, for PBS & NPR, for WICK and school lunch programs, for banking regulations and the EPA, all are Liberal ideas made law by Liberal politicians that cared for doing the right thing and not for the monied few!
Sounds like mykcob4 thinks in black or white. And no, I'm not talking race. I'm referring to politics which is exactly what he accuses conservatives of doing. Or so it seems to me.
There were 16 Reps in the Senate who voted for Medicare and 6 Dems who voted against it. It was not passed strictly along party lines, many Reps voted for it too. It was the Reps who helped LBJ get the Civil Rights Act passed. Yes, there have been many social programs pushed through be liberals, but often conservatives helped them do it. It is not strictly a right and wrong on either side.
Often the devil is in the details. Like the UnAffordable Healthcare Act. Which is in reality a give away to the insurance companies. Like the Patriot Act, it just has a nice sounding name.
The elitist attitude, displayed by many "liberals" drives many people away from liberal organizations. People don't like being talked down to. Which is what most liberals do to anyone who dares to disagree with them. Being trailer park scum, makes me want to vote for someone who at least doesn't shove that fact into my face.
You say that like libratards are immune to condescending attitudes concerning their utopian market economy bullshit.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"if I can find a place that is safe, low cost, and liberal, I'll be quite hapy. it could simply be that rural areas for whatever reason are more conservative and urban areas more liberal, and simply due to population, the urban areas are more expensive. so it could be two different things (liberalism and price) unrelated to each other, but both of which relate to population. (kind of like how ice cream eating and murders both go up in the summer but aren't related to each other but both relate to the heat)
I think you answered your own question right here.
In the heart of Portland Oregon, for instance, it costs more to live than say out in the valley, south of Portland. That area is more rural, but also happens to remain fairly liberal, yet the prices are much lower than in the city or suburbs of Portland itself. The same thing happens around Seattle and New York.
Rural communities do tend to be more conservative, but even the liberal ones are less expensive to live in.
I think a lot of it has to do with tolerance. Liberals can tolerate being around lots of people from many lifestyles and ethnicities much easier than conservatives (this is a huge generilazion I know, but it does tend to be true). So Liberals tend to gather in cities, and those who only want to be with their own "kind" tend to stay in those small towns. And they don't like them no outsiders neither.
When all your goods and services are close, prices go up, space becomes more precious. When there are 50 acres between you and your neighbor, land prices are lower, there is more room for more people. So that part really is simple economics.
I was in Iowa City a few weeks ago. Nice little college town, seemed pretty liberal and the cost of living looked pretty average. I was impressed by how well the state was run. The roads were well paved and the government employees were actually friendly. I would move there if I could.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"mykcob4 wrote: QuoteOh for crying out loud. The fact is that realizing that Liberals help the poor and the conservatives don't is just a fact. It's not being elitist. Conservatives give to religious organizations that serve to peer pressure their congregations to vote conservative and to be brainwashed in to rascist prejudice religious thinking.
As far as all politicians vote for monied interest that is not true. Voting for Medicare/Medicaid, for Social Security, for Afordable Medical Act, for community college, for PBS & NPR, for WICK and school lunch programs, for banking regulations and the EPA, all are Liberal ideas made law by Liberal politicians that cared for doing the right thing and not for the monied few!
Sounds like mykcob4 thinks in black or white. And no, I'm not talking race. I'm referring to politics which is exactly what he accuses conservatives of doing. Or so it seems to me.
There were 16 Reps in the Senate who voted for Medicare and 6 Dems who voted against it. It was not passed strictly along party lines, many Reps voted for it too. It was the Reps who helped LBJ get the Civil Rights Act passed. Yes, there have been many social programs pushed through be liberals, but often conservatives helped them do it. It is not strictly a right and wrong on either side.
Often the devil is in the details. Like the UnAffordable Healthcare Act. Which is in reality a give away to the insurance companies. Like the Patriot Act, it just has a nice sounding name.
The elitist attitude, displayed by many "liberals" drives many people away from liberal organizations. People don't like being talked down to. Which is what most liberals do to anyone who dares to disagree with them. Being trailer park scum, makes me want to vote for someone who at least doesn't shove that fact into my face.
Nope your premiss is just wrong. I don't think in black and white. But lets just look at history. I didn't say Democratic Party and Republican party. I said Liberal and conservative. Teddy R. was a Liberal and a Republican. Lincoln was a Liberal and a Republican. Every bill introduced sponsored and written to benefit the general public was done by a Liberal. That is just a fact. The Affordable Healthcare Act is not a giveaway to the insurance companies at all. In fact it is really are stronger regulation on an industry that has had a free ride forever. You can't have your policy cancelled for a existing medical condition. Administrative cost cannot exceed 20%. You calling it the "unaffordable Healthcare Act" is a FOX propaganda tactic and is just a smear. Your problem seems to be an insecurity issue. Liberals don't down to people. On the contrary, they respect people no matter their economic condition.
QuoteI don't think in black and white.
:rollin:
(//http://kapitalism101.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/demandsupplycurve.jpg)
Literally this and only this.
That graph doesn't make any sense... I know what it's supposed to mean because I know what the basic concept is, but the graph does not work at all if you try to actually read it. I mean; if you have a lot of quantity and a lot of supply, the price is high? What does it even mean to have lots of quantity and lots of supply? :/
Quote from: "gussy"I was in Iowa City a few weeks ago. Nice little college town, seemed pretty liberal and the cost of living looked pretty average. I was impressed by how well the state was run. The roads were well paved and the government employees were actually friendly. I would move there if I could.
It's a wonderful place indeed. I lived there, studied there and worked there.
Just passed through Iowa City a couple of times, but if their winters are like those in Omaha, I don't want to live there. Of course, compared to Denver the winters aren't that bad, I suppose.
PopeyesPappy wrote:
QuoteYou say that like libratards are immune to condescending attitudes concerning their utopian market economy bullshit.
Didn't mean to. Conservatives and "libratards" also act condescending to others who don't hold their views. It is like how people become fanatical about sport teams, where "Anyone who isn't a Braves fan, is a turd." type of mentality. Which is part of the reason I don't like broad political labels. That being said, if liberals want their ideals to be accepted in the "fly-over" states, they should quit labeling those who live there with derogatory names. IMHO.
mykcob4 wrote in part:
QuoteEvery bill introduced sponsored and written to benefit the general public was done by a Liberal. That is just a fact.
Well if you define Liberal as those who benefit the general public, I can't argue with that. I was going by the generally accepted notion that a Liberal is someone who wants bigger government. Which goes back to my contention that the labels liberal and conservative are misleading and pretty much worthless.
mykcob4 wrote in part:
QuoteLiberals don't down to people. On the contrary, they respect people no matter their economic condition.
They why do so many "Liberals" talk down to people like me? Just because I'm white and don't have an advanced degree or thousands to spend on "Liberal" candidates. Read what I wrote to PoppeyesPappy, then continue to make large over sweeping statements. So-called "Liberal" politicians can be as corrupt and disrespectful of the poor, as the worse "Conservative" politicians are. Failure to recognize that is what has allowed the Democrans to make things worse for the poor.
We covered Obamacare elsewhere, let's not open that can of worms here. I just mentioned it to show that not everyone agrees it is good for the poor.
Quote from: "gussy"I was in Iowa City a few weeks ago. Nice little college town, seemed pretty liberal and the cost of living looked pretty average. I was impressed by how well the state was run. The roads were well paved and the government employees were actually friendly. I would move there if I could.
It's a great place to be white.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Just passed through Iowa City a couple of times, but if their winters are like those in Omaha, I don't want to live there. Of course, compared to Denver the winters aren't that bad, I suppose.
PopeyesPappy wrote:QuoteYou say that like libratards are immune to condescending attitudes concerning their utopian market economy bullshit.
Didn't mean to. Conservatives and "libratards" also act condescending to others who don't hold their views. It is like how people become fanatical about sport teams, where "Anyone who isn't a Braves fan, is a turd." type of mentality. Which is part of the reason I don't like broad political labels. That being said, if liberals want their ideals to be accepted in the "fly-over" states, they should quit labeling those who live there with derogatory names. IMHO.
mykcob4 wrote in part: QuoteEvery bill introduced sponsored and written to benefit the general public was done by a Liberal. That is just a fact.
Well if you define Liberal as those who benefit the general public, I can't argue with that. I was going by the generally accepted notion that a Liberal is someone who wants bigger government. Which goes back to my contention that the labels liberal and conservative are misleading and pretty much worthless.
mykcob4 wrote in part:QuoteLiberals don't down to people. On the contrary, they respect people no matter their economic condition.
They why do so many "Liberals" talk down to people like me? Just because I'm white and don't have an advanced degree or thousands to spend on "Liberal" candidates. Read what I wrote to PoppeyesPappy, then continue to make large over sweeping statements. So-called "Liberal" politicians can be as corrupt and disrespectful of the poor, as the worse "Conservative" politicians are. Failure to recognize that is what has allowed the Democrans to make things worse for the poor.
We covered Obamacare elsewhere, let's not open that can of worms here. I just mentioned it to show that not everyone agrees it is good for the poor.
Liberals don't want bigger government. That is just more conservative propaganda. Liberals want a government that makes the playing field fair and safe, that provides equal opportunity for all. Thats not wanting bigger givernment. The fact is that conservatives have increased spending every single time they took office. You are under the dellussion that "government is the problem." That is a bumpersticker mentality slogan stated by Reagan and its a propagandous lie.
I haven't any evidence that Liberals talk down to you or people like you. That is a sweeping generalization and it's a falsehood.
You are just like every single person that I have met that watches FOX and or listens to Rush. They tell you that Liberals talk down to you, that Liberals are elitest and you believe it. The elitest are people like the Koch brothers that prey on the poor. I wouldn't call Warren Buffet an elitest. If you feel insecure because you don't have a certain degree thats your problem. If you feel discriminated against because you're white then you aren't facing reality.
I have a friend that is a conservative . He loves football. He hates the pink that NFL wears for breast cancer awareness. He thinks that men are being discriminated against. I explained that being for something isn't being against something else. Breast Cancer Awareness isn't men it's for Breast Cancer Awareness. He just doesn't get it. I feel that your feeling of being talked down to and being cut down is much in the same light.
Heh..the nfl does the pink thing for market share. They want football to appeal to women and little else so they can sell tickets, commercials and nfl licensed clothing and other crap.
mykcob4 wrote in part:
QuoteLiberals don't want bigger government. That is just more conservative propaganda.
And there is no such thing as liberal propaganda?
I maintain both sides, if there really are two sides, propagandize and often tell bold-faced lies.
mykcob4 wrote in part:
QuoteYou are under the dellussion that "government is the problem." That is a bumpersticker mentality slogan stated by Reagan and its a propagandous lie.
My delusion is that many in government are corrupt. Including many so-called "Liberals." I know the so-called conservatives are corrupt too, but on this forum pointing that out is just preaching to the choir.
Without being able to write a book about politics on this forum, all of our writings are bumper-sticker comments. Gets frustrating doesn't it? #-o
mykcob4 wrote in part:
QuoteI haven't any evidence that Liberals talk down to you or people like you. That is a sweeping generalization and it's a falsehood.
You are just like every single person that I have met that watches FOX and or listens to Rush.
Which is part of the reason I hate sweeping generalizations, but in this case its' not a falsehood. I have only watched FOX news when it was on at a doctor's or dentist's office. I have not listened to Rush since the early nineties. Yet, mykcob4 is implying that I am a supporter of the main-stream conservative Republican propaganda. And I am not supposed to be insulted by the implied bigotry of the statement, unless I am so insecure that I can't recognize a compliment when it is given?
I don't have any problem with anybody who wants to wear pink. Not a football fan. I would probably end up arguing politics with mykcob4's conservative friend. Yet, mykcob4 seems to imply I am just like his friend.
I am against corruption in government. Does that make me a "Liberal" or a "Conservative?" Both of who usually consider me a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theory nut-job. Which is why I dislike "Liberals" and "Conservatives." Neither of which will allow their favorite politician to face public scrutiny for their crimes.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"[ Image (//http://kapitalism101.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/demandsupplycurve.jpg) ]
Literally this and only this.
Thou hast nailed it, O Holy One. =D>
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"mykcob4 wrote in part: QuoteLiberals don't want bigger government. That is just more conservative propaganda.
And there is no such thing as liberal propaganda?
I maintain both sides, if there really are two sides, propagandize and often tell bold-faced lies.
mykcob4 wrote in part:QuoteYou are under the dellussion that "government is the problem." That is a bumpersticker mentality slogan stated by Reagan and its a propagandous lie.
My delusion is that many in government are corrupt. Including many so-called "Liberals." I know the so-called conservatives are corrupt too, but on this forum pointing that out is just preaching to the choir.
Without being able to write a book about politics on this forum, all of our writings are bumper-sticker comments. Gets frustrating doesn't it? #-o
mykcob4 wrote in part: QuoteI haven't any evidence that Liberals talk down to you or people like you. That is a sweeping generalization and it's a falsehood.
You are just like every single person that I have met that watches FOX and or listens to Rush.
Which is part of the reason I hate sweeping generalizations, but in this case its' not a falsehood. I have only watched FOX news when it was on at a doctor's or dentist's office. I have not listened to Rush since the early nineties. Yet, mykcob4 is implying that I am a supporter of the main-stream conservative Republican propaganda. And I am not supposed to be insulted by the implied bigotry of the statement, unless I am so insecure that I can't recognize a compliment when it is given?
I don't have any problem with anybody who wants to wear pink. Not a football fan. I would probably end up arguing politics with mykcob4's conservative friend. Yet, mykcob4 seems to imply I am just like his friend.
I am against corruption in government. Does that make me a "Liberal" or a "Conservative?" Both of who usually consider me a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theory nut-job. Which is why I dislike "Liberals" and "Conservatives." Neither of which will allow their favorite politician to face public scrutiny for their crimes.
Oh come on I said you were like my friend only in the sense that you think that you are being cutdown when someone praises something else. AND I said that I suspected that. We have had the corruption in government talk many times now and it always comes down to you claiming that everyone is corrupt and also claiming that I follow blindly. Neither is ever the case. I said your statements are bumper-sticker mentality sound bites and it implies that you listen or watch those people that you parrot.
You may be against corruption in government but so far all you have done on this forum is display a full blown conspiracy theory mentality about everything.
Quote from: "Plu"That graph doesn't make any sense... I know what it's supposed to mean because I know what the basic concept is, but the graph does not work at all if you try to actually read it. I mean; if you have a lot of quantity and a lot of supply, the price is high? What does it even mean to have lots of quantity and lots of supply? :/
I just pulled it off the internet, admittedly the titles of the axes aren't great for looking at the graph and understanding it.
When I did economics at school we were taught to draw lines off that graph with a ruler which then did actually make sense with those axis titles.
What I was trying to illustrate is that most places that are great places to live are expensive as lots of people want to live there, which drives the price up. Especially for things like city-centre apartments in NYC, where I'm sure the number of people who want to live there vastly outweighs the number of apartments there, and I'm sure that as a result apartments in wherever the good part of manhattan is are extremely expensive.
Perhaps liberalism is influencing where people want to live? Or perhaps this is a coincidental factor and these places have other things going for them as well?
I know it sucks for a person like me. If I had a car and could see to drive it, I would probably live in a rural area that's dirt cheap.
I have to live near public transit, and liberal places typically have much better public transit. The problem is finding an apartment or house that is close to good frequent. reliable transit that is also low-cost and safe from crime.
If you live in America and you're poor and can't drive you don't have any good options you only have an array of shitty options some shittier than others
Quote from: "Plu"That graph doesn't make any sense... I know what it's supposed to mean because I know what the basic concept is, but the graph does not work at all if you try to actually read it. I mean; if you have a lot of quantity and a lot of supply, the price is high? What does it even mean to have lots of quantity and lots of supply? :/
It shows that the less the quantity, the higher the price and vice versa. As the supply goes up, the demand goes down. If you read the graph from the left to the right, it works. It seems like you are reading it from top to bottom?
Price and supply are inversely proportional. This is the one thing I gleaned from the economics 101 class I took as an undergrad.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"if I can find a place that is safe, low cost, and liberal, I'll be quite hapy.
Check out SW Michigan.
any specific town?
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"I was looking today at what I pay to live here in denver vs back home in rural oklahoma. I also was curious about places like california and oregon.
I don't even know how regular people can live in places like san francisco and new york. you can get a nice two bedroom apartment in rural oklahoma for 500 a month.
in a place like new york you pay like 4000 a month for a friggin studio apartment in the gang infested part of town, living above the local crack house.
you'd think liberal places would be helping the common man keep things affordable. what's the deal here? anybody know?
Sounds less like liberal vs conservative than rural vs urban.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"I was looking today at what I pay to live here in denver vs back home in rural oklahoma. I also was curious about places like california and oregon.
I don't even know how regular people can live in places like san francisco and new york. you can get a nice two bedroom apartment in rural oklahoma for 500 a month.
in a place like new york you pay like 4000 a month for a friggin studio apartment in the gang infested part of town, living above the local crack house.
you'd think liberal places would be helping the common man keep things affordable. what's the deal here? anybody know?
Sounds less like liberal vs conservative than rural vs urban.
well sorta, but no OKC is urban and they have low costs and shitty almost useless transit. by now both from posts in this thread and my own thoughts, I think supply and demand explains it. liberal places are nicer and everybody wants to live there. so it drives up costs. limited supply, lots of demand.
poor people don't have any choice but to settle for a cheap shitty crime ridden ratholes, or out in the sticks. Its all they can afford.
I kinda wish section 8 was well funded and that everybody had access to good safe housing near good transit, services, jobs, etc. and with priorities given to those who need it most.
of course we live in a country that just cut millions to food stamps for vets by politicians who in the same bill gave themselves huge checks. So I don't expect much from them anytime soon.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"any specific town?
Not really. Grand Rapids area.
Quote from: "Mermaid"Quote from: "Plu"That graph doesn't make any sense... I know what it's supposed to mean because I know what the basic concept is, but the graph does not work at all if you try to actually read it. I mean; if you have a lot of quantity and a lot of supply, the price is high? What does it even mean to have lots of quantity and lots of supply? :/
It shows that the less the quantity, the higher the price and vice versa. As the supply goes up, the demand goes down. If you read the graph from the left to the right, it works. It seems like you are reading it from top to bottom?
Price and supply are inversely proportional. This is the one thing I gleaned from the economics 101 class I took as an undergrad.
But that doesn't make sense. Having more or less of something doesn't influence the price, the demand compared to the supply determines the price. And as supply goes up, demand doesn't really go down... demand stays the same, price goes goes down. Unless you mean that demand goes down because people receive their goods, but in that case supply would go down by the same amount.
Anyway. I totally get what the graph
wants to say. I took economics 101 as well. It's just that the graph is really weird as drawn.
Quote... Having more or less of something doesn't influence the price.
Er, pretty sure in economics they taught that the more of something you have (on the market anyways) the lower the price gets because it's more readily available, and vice-versa.
Yeah but when you have more of something on the market is what they call supply, and supply is one of the graph lines, so then why is one of the axes labeled "quantity"?
Why is there a datapoint at the top right that says "supply" where the price and the quantity are high? What does that mean? And why is demand at its lowest point when there is a lot of quantity and very little price?
If you want to make the graph actually readable, you should have supply and demand as the two axes and price as the line. That would actually make sense. Right now it's just a bunch of lines labeled "supply" and "demand" that rely on the person reading the graph already understanding exactly what the graph is about, but that anyone who does not get economics 101 would not be able to read. (Nor would anyone who did take economics 101 be able to read it; it's just that they immediately know what it should say so they don't really look at it.)
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"I think it is because "liberals" see themselves as being elite, while just going along with the current political fad. They just talk about helping the poor, without really doing anything to actually help the poor. They complain about the big multinational corporations while wearing their Gucchi shoes and talking on their Blackberries. Which they can afford by working for the corporations they complain about.
But, that is just my opinion.
BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! =D>
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"I was looking today at what I pay to live here in denver vs back home in rural oklahoma. I also was curious about places like california and oregon.
I don't even know how regular people can live in places like san francisco and new york. you can get a nice two bedroom apartment in rural oklahoma for 500 a month.
in a place like new york you pay like 4000 a month for a friggin studio apartment in the gang infested part of town, living above the local crack house.
you'd think liberal places would be helping the common man keep things affordable. what's the deal here? anybody know?
One issue in NYC is rent control. It achieves the near opposite of its goals (affordable housing). About half the apartments are under rent regulation or public housing. That leaves all the market competition in the remaining half of the apartments. Too many people, too few apartments.
The perverse part is that the rent-regulation is tied to the apartment, not the person. The majority of people in rent-regulated apartments are far above the poverty level.
But the consequences for people in rent-controlled apartments if rent-control was given up would be so drastic that there is not political will to do it. Many of them would have to move to the outer boroughs, it would be a hardship.
San Francisco reduces housing a different way: they provide for so much green space, that they just don't have enough apartments to meet the demand.
If you already get what the supply and demand graph is about then skip this post.
(//http://utahrepro.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/supply-and-demand.gif)
I think one of the confusing things about the supply-demand graph is what quantity the "quantity" label is referring to. When you are looking at the "supply" line on the graph, "quantity" represents the quantity of supply. When you are looking at the the "demand" line of the graph, "quantity" represents the quantity of demand.
Take a point on the far left side of "demand" line. The point is high on the graph which means that the price is high. Go straight vertically down from that point to the x-axis (bottom of the graph) and you see that the quantity of demand is low at that high price. Following the "demand" line to the left you see that as the price gets lower, the quantity of demand increases. Superficially, if you look at the "demand" line, it looks like the right side of the graph is showing low demand, but you have to remember that the y-axis (left side of the graph) represents price so a point being low on the graph means low price and the point on the "demand" line being far to the right of the graph indicates a high quantity of demand. IOW, it's just graphically showing that demand is lower at higher prices and that demand is higher at lower prices - or least that is usually the tendency.
You can analyze the "supply" line much the same way except that what the upward slope of the "supply" line as you go rightward on the graph shows is that as price increases the quantity of supply tends to increase.
The reason to put what could be two independent graphs on the same graph is to show the relationship between the two. Where the two lines cross is called "equilibrium". If market conditions are otherwise stable, then the equilibrium price is the price of a market good or service where supply and demand intersect. If the price goes above that amount then there tends to be more supply than demand which is called excess supply (surplus) because there is not enough demand for all of it to be sold in the market. People don't usually keep trying to supply excess stuff to the market because they tend to lose money doing so and that is why the supply tends to drift downward toward the equilibrium point when there is excess supply. If the price goes below the equilibrium price, then demand tends to outstrip supply - a shortage of that good or service. The people supplying the good or service to the market will start increasing prices because people will still buy the good or service even at the higher price, pushing to price toward the equilibrium point where quantity of supply is pretty much the same as the quantity of demand.
Anyway, that's the way I take the supply-demand graph. Economics is not one of my strong suits, though, so please let me know if I made any errors.
HBA, perhaps you might be able to find a cheap, relatively nice and safe town that doesn't have much in the way of transit itself, but does have a rail link to a larger town or city? Some sort of commuter or satellite town that would be nothing much on its own but has the benefit of being near enough to a major city to get to?
I'm not sure if settlements like this exist in great numbers in the US.