Record Black Friday spending despite Fox News telling everyone the economy is terrible

[Fenixgoon]

I'm going to disagree with the conclusion of this thread.

Americans ARE spending like crazy, but its not what we think. The WSJ has stated that Americans are recklessly spending when in fact most people are hurting financially.

But hey. Just put it on credit. Americans are spending like there's no tomorrow.

do you have any hard data?

i want to say news outlets have been pushing "OMG the economy" for at least two years now. either due to spending, or somehow low unemployment being a bad thing. HTF is that bad? people have jobs. 0% unemployment would be fan-fucking-TASTIC! (oh no, employers have to compete for workers. the fucking horror of capitalism at work!)

the only thing more outrageous than a $16 big mac meal is that the guy purchased it and THEN bitched about it. the pricing is up front. nothing is obligating you to buy a big mac meal. if you don't want to pay $16, then don't buy it. but by spending that money, you're saying you're ok with that price.

and given the huge amounts of money spent by americans this black friday - whether in cash or in debt - we're all ok with spending it, by and large. which means there's a positive outlook on economic prospects. i bet christmas spending will be up, too.

 

[Mai72]

do you have any hard data?

i want to say news outlets have been pushing "OMG the economy" for at least two years now. either due to spending, or somehow low unemployment being a bad thing. HTF is that bad? people have jobs. 0% unemployment would be fan-fucking-TASTIC! (oh no, employers have to compete for workers. the fucking horror of capitalism at work!)

the only thing more outrageous than a $16 big mac meal is that the guy purchased it and THEN bitched about it. the pricing is up front. nothing is obligating you to buy a big mac meal. if you don't want to pay $16, then don't buy it. but by spending that money, you're saying you're ok with that price.

and giving the huge amounts of money spent by americans - whether in cash or in debt - we're all ok with spending it, by and large. which means there's a positive outlook on economic prospects.

its not doom and gloom?

 

[NWRMidnight]

its not doom and gloom?

No, not really. It's all fear tactics and manipulation by the media, and even the politicians for the most part currently.

Let's take the article that is linked by the OP.
First, the increase in Black Friday online sales is meaningless unless we know how it effected brick and mortar sales. One can break records for increases, as the other brakes records for losses. So the " record online sales " is arbitrary. Just from that standpoint alone. That's before inflation and other influences are calculated in.

Then you take the WSJ and other articles like it that throw around how many dollars Americans have on credit cards and such. But those are arbitrary, and just as meaningless because they are in todays dollars compared to previous years dollars, and a lot of times, with no adjustments made for inflation, income increases, etc., even population effects it to a point. Add in the increased credit card use for earning rewards, where they get paid off monthly, yet may still show a balance depending on how those people chose to pay them (last statement balance vs before statement close date for example)

Our economy has been driven by credit for decades.

 

[HomerJS]

I'm not interested in your little "test".

I figured you know nothing

 

[fskimospy]

What? Seriously? That's bullshit, it's not baked into the rent or mortgage.

Go read my edit btw, I changed the first part.

How does it show why America is facing a housing crisis? Because of parking? Seriously? Also, what the fuck is a NIMBY?

If you think landlords offer bathrooms for free you are deluding yourself. They are required by law, but that is baked into the rent.

You are right that lots of places have parking requirements but as I’ve said this is part of the problem - those requirements are bad and drive up the cost of housing.

 

[woolfe9998]

Yes, the unfortunate thing is this is almost certainly NOT a housing bubble - this is just years and years of banning housing construction coming home to roost. I almost wish it were a housing bubble as that's probably easier to dig out of than to build 7-10 million new houses.

We need state governments to step up and do the right thing for their citizens and remove local control of housing regulation. First step would be to make any area zoned residential by right construction of unlimited density along with the abolition of all parking minimums.

Newsom is finally doing something about it in CA.

Newsom signs 56 housing bills to boost affordability, help tenants

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday signed multiple housing bills aimed at tackling the state’s lack of affordable housing and making it easier for tenants to rent a home in the first place.

www.nbcbayarea.com

Newsom signed a whopping 56 bills into law which he said "incentivize and reduce barriers to housing and support the development of more affordable homes."

Housing developments will now be more streamlined with less red tape, density laws can be overruled in the interest of housing, and institutions like colleges or religious organizations can now use portions of their property to build housing. Newsom also signed a bill that will please anyone who has tried to rent in California on a limited income: Landlords can now only collect one months' rent as a security deposit instead of two.

 

[Ajay]

its not doom and gloom?

Hmm. @Mai72 posted this and is not gone?

 

[NWRMidnight]

If you think landlords offer bathrooms for free you are deluding yourself. They are required by law, but that is baked into the rent.

You are right that lots of places have parking requirements but as I’ve said this is part of the problem - those requirements are bad and drive up the cost of housing.

Bathrooms have been standard since the beginning of the 20th century. This is the 21st century. You might wantvto get with the times. Having a bathroom is not baked Into the rent. Proven by your own comment of bathrooms being required by law. That means, by law they are part of the structure, so having a bathroom has no influence on the rent. Your argument is equivalent to saying having electricity and plumbing is baked into the rent. It's a bullshit argument. Yes, it's part of the cost of the structure, but that isn't the same argument.

Parking requirements does increase costs, just as every modernization does to devolping societies. In today's world where cars are becoming a basic requirement unless you have good community, affordable transportation, and live in proximity of that transportation, parking is a basic requirement for housing.
Which is why regulations for it are needed and a good thing.

The biggest problem about parking, is in most cases, it's not designed to use space efficiently. That inefficiency can harm multi family housing. It's not the parking, it's the inefficient use of space for such parking that is the problem.

 

[Pens1566]

A 2 bath 1200 sq ft apartment is going to cost more than a 1 bath 1200 sq ft apartment.

It's "baked in".

 

[fskimospy]

A 2 bath 1200 sq ft apartment is going to cost more than a 1 bath 1200 sq ft apartment.

It's "baked in".

Yeah I’m not sure why this is hard to understand.

 

[fskimospy]

Bathrooms have been standard since the beginning of the 20th century. This is the 21st century. You might wantvto get with the times. Having a bathroom is not baked Into the rent. Proven by your own comment of bathrooms being required by law. That means, by law they are part of the structure, so having a bathroom has no influence on the rent. Your argument is equivalent to saying having electricity and plumbing is baked into the rent. It's a bullshit argument. Yes, it's part of the cost of the structure, but that isn't the same argument.

Parking requirements does increase costs, just as every modernization does to devolping societies. In today's world where cars are becoming a basic requirement unless you have good community, affordable transportation, and live in proximity of that transportation, parking is a basic requirement for housing.
Which is why regulations for it are needed and a good thing.

The biggest problem about parking, is in most cases, it's not designed to use space efficiently. That inefficiency can harm multi family housing. It's not the parking, it's the inefficient use of space for such parking that is the problem.

I think it would be better if people building new housing and those buying or leasing it could decide for themselves how important a dedicated parking spot is.

Instead, the laws you say are a ‘good thing’ end up wasting valuable space and driving up costs for no reason. I call this a ‘bad thing’.

 

[sdifox]

Hmm. @Mai72 posted this and is not gone?

He just disabled his account. I would have just turned off all notifications :shrug:

 

[Ajay]

He just disabled his account. I would have just turned off all notifications :shrug:

Thanks. I did that once, not realizing at the time that I could just disable notifications. I wanted a break from posting, but also wanted to keep reading some of the threads I was interested in. That damnable white on red numerical notification icon was like drove me nuts. Stupid human brains - what is the deal with red

 

[Ajay]

Parking requirements does increase costs, just as every modernization does to developing societies. In today's world where cars are becoming a basic requirement unless you have good community, affordable transportation, and live in proximity of that transportation, parking is a basic requirement for housing.
Which is why regulations for it are needed and a good thing.

By observation - there must be an ordinance that requires on parking space per apartment in our city (and a two car paved driveway for SFH). For the triple deckers built at the end of the 19th thru the beginning of the 20th century, there is now the option for additional on street parking if a family has more than one car. None of these exist in downtown area of the old city or surrounding industrial areas. Newer apartment complexes and condos require off street parking of at least one car per apartment usual in the form of a parking lot. Less expensive places build in a little extra parking (maybe even +50%), 'luxury' apartments always provide two parking spaces using parking structures. I do not like the open parking lots downtown. As I quoted @fskimospy below - I find it both a waste of space and an eyesore. Parking structures built off the main drag (usually a couple streets away) make much more sense to me. Packing in cars 5,6,7 stories high is a much more efficient use of that valuable land and is typically amortized (forever!) as part of the rent payment. Our city also has a couple of public parking structures in the downtown area for those working downtown and those shopping (there is limited on street parking as well). We also have limited public transport via city buses.

TLDR; parking lots (aside as is needed for malls and plazas further from the city center) are a waste of space and ugly (housing with some small green areas could be built there instead). Since cars are often a part of daily life in cities, vertical parking structures + mass transit make the most sense in cities; particularly for more dense downtown areas.

I think it would be better if people building new housing and those buying or leasing it could decide for themselves how important a dedicated parking spot is.

Instead, the laws you say are a ‘good thing’ end up wasting valuable space and driving up costs for no reason. I call this a ‘bad thing’.

I'm not 100% sure how a voluntary system would work out. A builder, especially in the city center, could save allot of money by not building off-street parking. But, it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem to get a system going where cities need to beef up mass transit, improve walkability and provide/encouraging public and private multistory parking garages to get rid of parking lots and off street parking in shopping/eating and business areas. Aside from the investment challenge of building the required infrastructure (and challenges of passing such ordinances), I am very much in favor of this sort of path. We could increase housing and beautify our cities a bit as a bonus.

 

[fskimospy]

By observation - there must be an ordinance that requires on parking space per apartment in our city (and a two car paved driveway for SFH). For the triple deckers built at the end of the 19th thru the beginning of the 20th century, there is now the option for additional on street parking if a family has more than one car. None of these exist in downtown area of the old city or surrounding industrial areas. Newer apartment complexes and condos require off street parking of at least one car per apartment usual in the form of a parking lot. Less expensive places build in a little extra parking (maybe even +50%), 'luxury' apartments always provide two parking spaces using parking structures. I do not like the open parking lots downtown. As I quoted @fskimospy below - I find it both a waste of space and an eyesore. Parking structures built off the main drag (usually a couple streets away) make much more sense to me. Packing in cars 5,6,7 stories high is a much more efficient use of that valuable land and is typically amortized (forever!) as part of the rent payment. Our city also has a couple of public parking structures in the downtown area for those working downtown and those shopping (there is limited on street parking as well). We also have limited public transport via city buses.

TLDR; parking lots (aside as is needed for malls and plazas further from the city center) are a waste of space and ugly (housing with some small green areas could be built there instead). Since cars are often a part of daily life in cities, vertical parking structures + mass transit make the most sense in cities; particularly for more dense downtown areas.


I'm not 100% sure how a voluntary system would work out. A builder, especially in the city center, could save allot of money by not building off-street parking. But, it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem to get a system going where cities need to beef up mass transit, improve walkability and provide/encouraging public and private multistory parking garages to get rid of parking lots and off street parking in shopping/eating and business areas. Aside from the investment challenge of building the required infrastructure (and challenges of passing such ordinances), I am very much in favor of this sort of path. We could increase housing and beautify our cities a bit as a bonus.

If consumers value parking commensurately with its cost then a developer who includes parking as part of their building will have a competitive advantage over other buildings and will be able to charge more and make more profit.

What I think the reality is, is people are so used to free street parking provided to them at others’ expense they have no idea how much this actually costs in cities and are outraged when confronted with it.

Basically we spoiled car owners for years with big government subsidies and they don’t want to lose them. Even worse, they don’t seem to even realize they are receiving them. I mean think how crazy it is to demand any new housing construction include parking at new residents’ expense just so old residents can continue to enjoy their government handouts.

 

[HomerJS]

I'm going to disagree with the conclusion of this thread.

Americans ARE spending like crazy, but its not what we think. The WSJ has stated that Americans are recklessly spending when in fact most people are hurting financially.

But hey. Just put it on credit. Americans are spending like there's no tomorrow.

The premise of this thread is we do not have a shitty economy like Fox News is trying to tell everyone.

Remember how Fox promoted the idea we were in a recession? We were not and are moving further away from it.

Black Friday spending is more evidence of a good economy vs a bad economy.

 

[Zorba]

According to this OKC is about 75% single family homes, in line with other cities.

U.S. Cities With the Most Single-Family Homes [2024 Edition] - Construction Coverage

Adequate supply of single-family homes is a current challenge. Researchers calculated the percentage of housing units that are single-family and ranked cities and states accordingly.

constructioncoverage.com

If the free market shows that people only want single family houses then giving me everything I want will have no effect and you can just make me happy. After all, I’m only asking to stop banning different types of housing. If there is no demand, no one will build them so there no reason to ban it. Agree?

As far as the rest you’re basically arguing against capitalism. I do think it’s interesting though that half the time NIMBYs say that developers will only build for the rich and here you’re saying they will only build on the worst land. How does that square?

Your approach has led to mass human misery. I think we can do better.

I never said OKC wasn't mostly single family, I said there is basically zero restrictions on building new houses throughout the city. Roughly 2/3 of the OKC land is still "rural" and the city does not prevent development. Yet, housing prices have skyrocketed in the last decade.

I do think pure free market capitalism has proven to not be in the best interest of the broader population on the vast majority of topics. Feel free to point to any example of a city without planning that has developed densely since the advent of cars. If you think no regulation will help housing, why not healthcare? How do you feel about building codes? Should houses be built with #16 conductors on 30 amp circuits to bring down costs?

 

[fskimospy]

I never said OKC wasn't mostly single family, I said there is basically zero restrictions on building new houses throughout the city. Roughly 2/3 of the OKC land is still "rural" and the city does not prevent development. Yet, housing prices have skyrocketed in the last decade.

Assuming this map is accurate the overwhelming majority of OKC is zoned single family only. In addition, areas outside of high cost metro areas saw their prices substantially increase during/after the pandemic as remote work let people move to cheaper markets.

Residential Zoning in Oklahoma City

Map of R-1 single-family, other types of residential zoning, and other zoning in Oklahoma City. (Inspired by Cities Start to Question an American Ideal.) View High Resolution Map (PDF)

shanehampton.com

I do think pure free market capitalism has proven to not be in the best interest of the broader population on the vast majority of topics. Feel free to point to any example of a city without planning that has developed densely since the advent of cars. If you think no regulation will help housing, why not healthcare?

I don't believe in no regulation on housing, I just don't believe in any regulation on housing density as our current restrictions have caused a humanitarian catastrophe. Regulations are sometimes good, and sometimes bad. This goes for health care as well - some health care regulations are good, and some are bad. There are in fact plenty of health care regulations I would scrap or revise to make compliance easier, but there are also plenty I think are good! The problem with land use regulation is we are so massively, massively over-regulated. I think a good analogy would be that people like the personal touch of a small town doctor so the government decided to ban all healthcare facilities other than single doctor ones. That would be bad!

Regardless, I'm still confused as to what theory of action there is where increased density would lead to increased car usage. The denser an area, the less attractive car use is due to closeness of amenities and inconvenience of traffic, and the more attractive mass transit is due to reaching the population densities necessary to support it.

How do you feel about building codes? Should houses be built with #16 conductors on 30 amp circuits to bring down costs?

As I have said many times I oppose regulation on housing except those related to safety. All regulations on density should be abolished though, yes. In addition, all parking minimums should be abolished.

 

[K1052]

If consumers value parking commensurately with its cost then a developer who includes parking as part of their building will have a competitive advantage over other buildings and will be able to charge more and make more profit.

What I think the reality is, is people are so used to free street parking provided to them at others’ expense they have no idea how much this actually costs in cities and are outraged when confronted with it.

Basically we spoiled car owners for years with big government subsidies and they don’t want to lose them. Even worse, they don’t seem to even realize they are receiving them. I mean think how crazy it is to demand any new housing construction include parking at new residents’ expense just so old residents can continue to enjoy their government handouts.

When I lived in Chicago there was a 100-ish unit TOD building that was going to have no parking and the neighbors were apoplectic. Developer said fine then exclude anybody who lives there from obtaining a parking permit for the neighborhood (basically all streets around it are permit only). The neighbors agreed and the building was constructed. Project fully leased up in a month and a half.

A lot of people are unable to conceive that there is a huge unmet demand from people who either don't or don't want to own cars.

 

[Ajay]

Basically we spoiled car owners for years with big government subsidies and they don’t want to lose them. Even worse, they don’t seem to even realize they are receiving them. I mean think how crazy it is to demand any new housing construction include parking at new residents’ expense just so old residents can continue to enjoy their government handouts.

True. Though I think it is fair to build public/private multistory parking garages as a mean to get rid of on street parking. Most people, even in cities, will still want some at least one parking spot (people do travel outside of their city). I just want to kill on street parking to improve walkability combined with mass transit. Cars have become too built into American culture to just end their use in cities. So, yeah, that means a mix of subsidized parking garages for construction (only). So, some money from developers, some from the City/State. It's not ideal, because the cost of housing doesn't decrease as much, but it opens up opportunities for more housing units by getting rid of parking lots; and done correctly limits traffic on city streets (some should be able to be shut down completely if planned correctly with the right mass transit).

TDLR; compromises will need to be made due to cost and politics as per usual.

 

[Ajay]

When I lived in Chicago there was a 100-ish unit TOD building that was going to have no parking and the neighbors were apoplectic. Developer said fine then exclude anybody who lives there from obtaining a parking permit for the neighborhood (basically all streets around it are permit only). The neighbors agreed and the building was constructed. Project fully leased up in a month and a half.

A lot of people are unable to conceive that there is a huge unmet demand from people who either don't or don't want to own cars.

Interesting. Was their sufficient paid parking elsewhere for the renters to park their cars? [not that anyone sane wants to drive in the city proper]

 

[K1052]

Interesting. Was their sufficient paid parking elsewhere for the renters to park their cars? [not that anyone sane wants to drive in the city proper]

Condo owners that don't use their spaces would be the most likely source in this location but you're probably talking $100-200/mo depending on the space (outside vs inside etc). The building also has a huge secure bike room.

 

[HomerJS]

Those of you that think Biden is responsible for high gas prices.

Currently gas prices/gal in

Texas 2.75
California 4.92

State gas taxes

Texas .20
California .67

Tell me again how oil companies are not profiteering.

 

[hal2kilo]

When I lived in Chicago there was a 100-ish unit TOD building that was going to have no parking and the neighbors were apoplectic. Developer said fine then exclude anybody who lives there from obtaining a parking permit for the neighborhood (basically all streets around it are permit only). The neighbors agreed and the building was constructed. Project fully leased up in a month and a half.

A lot of people are unable to conceive that there is a huge unmet demand from people who either don't or don't want to own cars.

I would love to not own a car. A car is now just a financial liability that continually depreciates. The local car repair shops around here are thieves and evidentially not enough of them, because it takes longer to get an appointment for repair than a doctor's appointment. Sorry, rant over.

 

[iRONic]

I would love to not own a car. A car is now just a financial liability that continually depreciates.

^^This!!

I’mma follow you off-topic for one minute here. There is one pro for being bound to this wheelchair. It's an accessibility issue we had to change from the last place we lived.

I live in a community now that has a sidewalk with access to my bank, my kid’s high school, his allergist, a delicatessen, a dentist, and gas station/convenience store. These are all within 1.1 miles of my house.

Of course I also have an ICE Toyota Sienna minivan to carry my fat ass & this wheelchair around. I maintain that 12 year old loser cruiser like it was one of my aircraft! Lol, simply because I can't afford not to have access for this chair. We've had our eyes on a grocery getter for my wife and it looks like we'll pull the trigger on an EV next year.

So yeah, cars suck.