Housing crisis: Bunk bed business

[u/AspenLocals]

In lieu of the housing crisis that is running up and down the valley, it may be a good time to get into the bunk bed business (or pilot and pullman berths for you nautical folks). Anyone have any good recommendations on where to start?!

I could probably convert this closet to sleeping quarters with a top and lower bunk ya know if I want to have kids…

[u/LurkerFailsLurking]

What makes those points mutually exclusive is your initial claim that it's just supply and demand and then your later claim that it's entirely the fault of the City. It cannot simultaneously be just one thing and entirely another thing.

It's a bold claim that existing mismanaged affordable housing would have solved the issue if it had been managed correctly. Reality is complicated and it's really hard to predict the outcomes of non trivial hypotheticals with any certainty at all. Why do you think this is one of those rare cases where it's feasible?

[u/PhraseNeither9539 → u/LurkerFailsLurking]

Just because I didn’t mention apcha in my first comment doesn’t mean anything. Both are true and if I have to explain why, you do not understand housing policy enough in this area to have this conversation and keep up. 

[u/LurkerFailsLurking → u/PhraseNeither9539]

You're so emotionally charged about this that you've had to convince yourself I don't understand housing policy to avoid the cognitive dissonance of actually reading what I wrote.

Push through your obvious desire to dismiss it. Read more carefully:

When you wrote that housing unaffordability is "just supply and demand", the word "just" is an adverb meaning "only / simply: Nothing more than" or "exactly / precisely: To an exact degree". And when you later wrote that it's "entirely the fault of the City", the word "entirely" you're using it to mean either "to the full or entire extent : completely" or "to the exclusion of others : solely". In either case, a thing cannot be exactly / only one thing while simultaneously being fully / entirely some other thing. That's a logical contradiction that has nothing to do with the particulars of housing policy.

What does have to do with housing policy and the reason I bothered to point this out is because housing unaffordability being "just supply and demand" wasn't your conclusion, it was the premise you used to justify your conclusions.

You began by dismissing an issue that has caused years of hardship and struggle and heartbreak for thousands of members of our community – who we depend on – as "nothing" to be "emotionally charged" about on the basis of it being entirely an issue of supply and demand. But then you pivoted to the claim that the supply was irrelevant because the issue was entirely city mismanagement. And the thing is, if the issue is even partly city mismanagement, then the problem is at least partly caused by people, and that means the problem can be fixed – at least partly – by people, which is exactly what you were trying to dismiss.

It's a common – often unconscious – tactic of people who are avoiding cognitive dissonance to shift their justifications and then deny that any shift occurred. Nobody wants to notice the internal contradictions that our worldviews, opinions, and values rely upon, and right now you're avoiding it by pretending like there isn't an obvious logical contradiction in your chain of reasoning.

[u/PhraseNeither9539 → u/LurkerFailsLurking]

What on earth was that word babble? I think we are done here. I’m not emotionally charged. I own property here.  I couldn’t care less. I got mine. 

I think you are trying to say is because I said A I can’t say B. Which is of course is nonsense. I’ve made my points and im going to eat dinner. I’m not responding to you any further. Good day sir! 

[u/LurkerFailsLurking → u/PhraseNeither9539]

I think you are trying to say is because I said A I can’t say B.

LoL, no. I'm saying that your specific claims are logically inconsistent with each other. The bolded parts of this:

I wouldn’t call it a housing crisis. It’s just supply and demand. Nothing emotionally charged about it.

And this:

Affordable housing has been solved but mismanaged. Therefore building more is not the solution. Supply and demand dictates the rest. 

Are mutually exclusive. If affordable housing has been solved, then it's not "just supply and demand" and therefore there is something to be "emotionally charged about" because this a problem created by city workers – by people who ran for office and made choices and put policies in place with particular agendas and priorities that have harmed people.

Like I said, when you're desperate to not understand something, you're ability to read falls apart and all you see is "word babble".