Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
You seem to think that poor people exist to be at the whim of market conditions beyond their control with their places of residence theirs only until someone wealthier comes along to drive the prices beyond their ability to pay for it, never mind the fact that said home might have been paid for, or even built, by that poor person's ancestor following a period of service in the military (VA Guaranteed Home Loans, for example), retirement plan, scrimping and saving for many years, or other examples of the "hard work" that many people like to accuse the poor of not participating in.

If the poor person built or otherwise owns the house, then they can't be priced out by increasing rent, because they're not paying rent.

To be fair, he might also mean property taxes. I have known of a few instances where older people were forced to leave the neighborhood because they could not afford the new taxes.

As for Yuppies, it can be extremely frustrating when you lived in a neighborhood all your life, went through the good and bad, and the city ignored your pleas for better roads, schools, and law enforcement. And you survive. Then a group of upwardly mobile folks move in and make the same complaints, and suddenly (in comparison), the officials start responding. So it goes...

 AdeptSister wrote:

As for Yuppies, it can be extremely frustrating when you lived in a neighborhood all your life, went through the good and bad, and the city ignored your pleas for better roads, schools, and law enforcement. And you survive. Then a group of upwardly mobile folks move in and make the same complaints, and suddenly (in comparison), the officials start responding. So it goes...

To be very fair, if a poor neighborhood got good roads, good schools, and enough police to be safe, rents would rise anyway, as more middle class people would want to live there.

The bitter truth is that poor people are stuck living where nobody else wants to.

 AdeptSister wrote:
To be fair, he might also mean property taxes. I have known of a few instances where older people were forced to leave the neighborhood because they could not afford the new taxes.

But it's a very marginal case, as rates are a much smaller portion of expenses than rent. It needs to be someone who's on a very tight budget facing a massive increase in rates. Even then they've got the massive windfall of the higher home value, so sympathy can only go so far.

Nah, I think it's almost entirely about renters who can't afford to live an area anymore. And ultimately, I just think it's just a reality that when you rent, you're subject to market forces. If that's intolerable, don't rent.

And I know that lots of people can't afford to buy, and can only afford to rent. My point, ultimately, is that having a lot of people in that situation is the real problem, and where concern and policy should be focused.

There's a lot of interesting stereotypes here. Yes, we've all seen donkey-caves who are personally unpleasant who also enjoy showing off something frivilous with Money.

But then when all of these characteristics are pasted on every individual partially falling under some categories, then that's simply wrong.

For example, is there anything detestable about being young, upwardly mobile, and ambitious? That smart, hard-working young person who has an education in science or technology or something similarly difficult? And drives a honda, saving up for rainy days or a house and a family in the future?

That's a lot more common of a picture than the honestly dated stereotype of a money-driven 80s guy in an Armani suit. Yes, those exist. They're just not anywhere near as common as 'normal young people' who happen to have some prosperity.

 Ouze wrote:

 toasteroven wrote:
I wasn't aware that they still existed.

Indeed. I think the preferred social group to malign is now "hipsters", assuming they're still a thing.

Hipsters are everywhere in New York.

They ruin neighborhood bars, lakes and bike trails in the autumn.

Wait

So hipsters are geese?

 toasteroven wrote:
Wait

So hipsters are geese?

Ha!

At least geese don't take selfies at the edge of a cliff as you're riding past them.

And geese don't come into bars talking as loud as they can so everyone can hear how smart they are.

I suppose those two things are true.

But I have no doubt that they would if they could.

 notprop wrote:
People still use Yuppie?

I thought we moved back to the more traditional term 'pillock' years ago?

Found my new DCM title!

 Killionaire wrote:
For example, is there anything detestable about being young, upwardly mobile, and ambitious? That smart, hard-working young person who has an education in science or technology or something similarly difficult? And drives a honda, saving up for rainy days or a house and a family in the future?

That's a lot more common of a picture than the honestly dated stereotype of a money-driven 80s guy in an Armani suit. Yes, those exist. They're just not anywhere near as common as 'normal young people' who happen to have some prosperity.

Yes, but when they're like that we don't call them yuppies.

I mean sure, there is always going to be some unfair stereotyping, but that doesn't make the term or the concept useless.

 sebster wrote:

 Killionaire wrote:
For example, is there anything detestable about being young, upwardly mobile, and ambitious? That smart, hard-working young person who has an education in science or technology or something similarly difficult? And drives a honda, saving up for rainy days or a house and a family in the future?

That's a lot more common of a picture than the honestly dated stereotype of a money-driven 80s guy in an Armani suit. Yes, those exist. They're just not anywhere near as common as 'normal young people' who happen to have some prosperity.

Yes, but when they're like that we don't call them yuppies.

I mean sure, there is always going to be some unfair stereotyping, but that doesn't make the term or the concept useless.

Are you saying that being upwardly mobile and ambitious is detestable to you, or are you adding in without saying that if the person is arrogant about it makes it detestable?

Relapse wrote:
Are you saying that being upwardly mobile and ambitious is detestable to you, or are you adding in without saying that if the person is arrogant about it makes it detestable?

What I'm saying is that if someone goes out and gets a nice job, we call them a lawyer, or an investment banker or whatever their job is. If they then buy themselves an obnoxiously fancy car, and start talking about how they only drink Grey Goose, then they get called a yuppie. Well, at least that's what happened in 1985.

Is any of this detestable to me, personally? No, but then I'm 36 years old. I've been through my stage of rejecting the false notions underpinning our material society, man, and I've been through my stage of trying to impress random strangers by buying fancy crap. Now I'm just another working dude, with a mortgage, a couple of investment properties and some shares. When I see someone buying flash stuff, I don't think it's evil, just stupid, and want to tell them to save and invest their money.

 sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Are you saying that being upwardly mobile and ambitious is detestable to you, or are you adding in without saying that if the person is arrogant about it makes it detestable?

What I'm saying is that if someone goes out and gets a nice job, we call them a lawyer, or an investment banker or whatever their job is. If they then buy themselves an obnoxiously fancy car, and start talking about how they only drink Grey Goose, then they get called a yuppie. Well, at least that's what happened in 1985.

Is any of this detestable to me, personally? No, but then I'm 36 years old. I've been through my stage of rejecting the false notions underpinning our material society, man, and I've been through my stage of trying to impress random strangers by buying fancy crap. Now I'm just another working dude, with a mortgage, a couple of investment properties and some shares. When I see someone buying flash stuff, I don't think it's evil, just stupid, and want to tell them to save and invest their money.

I see where you're coming from. I had a roomie that worked at a tech firm who was a jackass. When his buddies came over, it was an interesting mix between that crew and my friends, who were students, construction or manufacturing workers, etc. They were doing the flashy crap thing and letting everyone know how well they were doing. A direct quote from this roommate about a woman who dumped him a couple of years before he moved in went this way, said in a gloating fashion: "She's married with two kids now and I've got a gold card".

Once he said that, the non yuppies looked at each other and started cracking up, and congratulating him on going into debt for useless gak. He was, for some reason, annoyed that we were mocking his gold card.

He started getting his head screwed on straight a few months later after he moved out when his company hit the skids and he came face to face with the fact he wasn't a lord of the planet, and heavily in debt. He ended up joining the Navy.

 sebster wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
You seem to think that poor people exist to be at the whim of market conditions beyond their control with their places of residence theirs only until someone wealthier comes along to drive the prices beyond their ability to pay for it, never mind the fact that said home might have been paid for, or even built, by that poor person's ancestor following a period of service in the military (VA Guaranteed Home Loans, for example), retirement plan, scrimping and saving for many years, or other examples of the "hard work" that many people like to accuse the poor of not participating in.

If the poor person built or otherwise owns the house, then they can't be priced out by increasing rent, because they're not paying rent.

As mentioned above, property taxes. Especially for the elderly, who tend to live on fixed incomes, paying a higher property tax is often not feasible, or possible.

 Psienesis wrote:
As mentioned above, property taxes. Especially for the elderly, who tend to live on fixed incomes, paying a higher property tax is often not feasible, or possible.

And I already responded to that. Here it is again, through the magic of copy & paste;

"But it's a very marginal case, as rates are a much smaller portion of expenses than rent. It needs to be someone who's on a very tight budget facing a massive increase in rates. Even then they've got the massive windfall of the higher home value, so sympathy can only go so far.

Nah, I think it's almost entirely about renters who can't afford to live an area anymore. And ultimately, I just think it's just a reality that when you rent, you're subject to market forces. If that's intolerable, don't rent.

And I know that lots of people can't afford to buy, and can only afford to rent. My point, ultimately, is that having a lot of people in that situation is the real problem, and where concern and policy should be focused."

You might have to clarify on the "massive windfall" of higher home value. Doesn't that only come into account if you are willing to use your home's equity?

 AdeptSister wrote:
You might have to clarify on the "massive windfall" of higher home value. Doesn't that only come into account if you are willing to use your home's equity?

If you're being forced out of the area because you can't pay the property taxes, I assume you're selling the house. Even if you're renting it, you're now receiving the much higher rents. The only way you don't benefit is if you move out and just leave the house vacant

Ok. Thank for the clarification of your point. The issue that I was talking about was while they can get that "windfall," they lose the house and their neighborhood. Which can be quite sad for people who have gotten attached to the place where they spent a lot of their life. That is what we mean by "forced out" by gentrification.

And I agree that rent is a major concern as well. It just is sad to see the people you grew up with have to leave because it is no longer affordable. *shrug* So it goes. ..

I hate their looks, especially clothes. Completely tasteless.

I hate everyone equally.

Except the ladies.

 kronk wrote:
I hate everyone equally.

Except the ladies.

Even yuppie ones?

 Skinnereal wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I hate everyone equally.

Except the ladies.

Even yuppie ones?

Bank accounts all look the same in the dark.

Relapse wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Are you saying that being upwardly mobile and ambitious is detestable to you, or are you adding in without saying that if the person is arrogant about it makes it detestable?

What I'm saying is that if someone goes out and gets a nice job, we call them a lawyer, or an investment banker or whatever their job is. If they then buy themselves an obnoxiously fancy car, and start talking about how they only drink Grey Goose, then they get called a yuppie. Well, at least that's what happened in 1985.

Is any of this detestable to me, personally? No, but then I'm 36 years old. I've been through my stage of rejecting the false notions underpinning our material society, man, and I've been through my stage of trying to impress random strangers by buying fancy crap. Now I'm just another working dude, with a mortgage, a couple of investment properties and some shares. When I see someone buying flash stuff, I don't think it's evil, just stupid, and want to tell them to save and invest their money.

I see where you're coming from. I had a roomie that worked at a tech firm who was a jackass. When his buddies came over, it was an interesting mix between that crew and my friends, who were students, construction or manufacturing workers, etc. They were doing the flashy crap thing and letting everyone know how well they were doing. A direct quote from this roommate about a woman who dumped him a couple of years before he moved in went this way, said in a gloating fashion: "She's married with two kids now and I've got a gold card".

Once he said that, the non yuppies looked at each other and started cracking up, and congratulating him on going into debt for useless gak. He was, for some reason, annoyed that we were mocking his gold card.

He started getting his head screwed on straight a few months later after he moved out when his company hit the skids and he came face to face with the fact he wasn't a lord of the planet, and heavily in debt. He ended up joining the Navy.

Yeah, it's a quite repulsive subculture with all their sick status plays. It's a demented cult. Wearing special bizarre status clothes, driving special status cars, etc.
The worst thing is that they try to block careers of people who aren't in their subculture.

I respect hard working successful individuals... But not subcultures monopolizing workplaces.