I think an ultrasonic cleaner can speed it up, just make sure your vessel with the alcohol in it is sealed first, so no vapors come out. I've tried it before, it isn't perfect, but it works better than you'd expect for maybe an hour or two of time spent.
I live in NJ, and what I like to say is that the drivers here actually know how to drive safely and correctly, they simply choose not to. When push comes to shove or they realize they can't drive like a jerk, they immediately cooperate and things move efficiently. It's not a knowledge problem, it's an attitude problem.
What's misleading? You just said it's not a steel exoskeleton, and that the panels were glued on. If your point is that a true exoskeleton isn't needed for sufficient rigidity and strength, sure, fine, but you should make that claim and point out why it's misleading, all you've said is that the claim is correct, but that other cars are made similarly.
I explained that the exterior panels are structurally necessary and that the major ones are welded or bolted on. The response above somehow recasts that as me agreeing they're just plates glued on. That's not a serious attempt to engage with what I wrote. I think it's reasonable to assert an absence of good faith here.
The APIs you'd use to get this data have pretty much all been taken down in the last few years. That's why you don't really see social media analysis anymore.
As someone from NJ...you think seniors and young people don't have affordability problems, especially wrt housing here, in the 5th most expensive state to buy a house? (California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Washington, New Jersey, in that order, according to redfin, if you're going by house cost to income ratio, NJ is 6th)
> you think seniors and young people don't have affordability problems?
Of course I don't think that, which is why I didn't say it. That would be a silly thing to write. What is the advantage for you in mischaracterizing what someone wrote and then expending effort to "correct the record" for a statement no one made?
You created a strawman and then knocked it down.
What I actually said: "New Jersey or Texas that do not have Prop 13 style laws and their seniors are not suffering excessively. However housing is much more affordable for younger people in those states."
Both of these statements are demonstrably true. Let's look at the data.
* NJ price to income ratio for housing: 5.5
* mortgage cost burden: 31% of mortgage owners spend more than 30% of their income on housing.
* renter cost burden: 52% of renters spend more than 30% on rent
* CA price to income ratio for housing: 8.0
* mortgage cost burden: 38% of mortgage owners spend more than 30% on housing
* renter cost burden: 58% of renters spend more than 30% on rent
So housing in NJ is more affordable than in CA.
Now, let's look specifically at seniors.
In California:
* 68% of senior renters are cost burdened
* 35% of senior homeowners are cost burdened
In New Jersey:
* 59% of senior renters are cost burdened
* 35% of senior homeowners are cost burdened
So we see that across the board, seniors in NJ are not cost burdened more than in California, and that in fact they are cost burdened a bit less.
Therefore if your solution is to look to Prop 13 style fixes to address cost burdens for either seniors or the general population, then you are not making a data based argument, and in fact the data goes against you, because there is no excess cost burden in states without these property tax freezes.
I don't know if it changes the result significantly, but remember the NJ has very high property taxes, more than double of California. So mortgage cost alone does not paint the full picture.
This is more significant for seniors, who likely have a paid-off home so their main expense is property tax. So being a fixed-income senior with a home is likely more affordable in California than in NJ. The worst thing after retirement is cost increases when you no longer have a salary that goes up with inflation.
Your exact words were "housing is much more affordable for younger people in those states", which, even by the numbers you have cited, is not correct. More affordable? Sure, we are number 5 or 6, not number 1. Much more affordable? Come on now.
And no, I don't think prop 13 style laws would be helpful, it would just create more problems, as it has in California.
Your argument, as I understand it, is "In current communist countries, things are bad, therefore, nothing communism-adjacent or communism-inspired should be attempted or tried.", is that right? I think there's a bit of a logical leap there from their issues to all communism-inspired taxation.
Are there historical examples of this ever happening in any significant numbers? This idea that people en masse just won't work and live off of the state where opportunities for work are reasonably available seems more like a boogeyman than a real thing. (obviously, if work is not really available, I can see this happening, but I wouldn't describe the people unable to find work as "leisurely" in that case)
reply