Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe instead of more housing we should look at fewer people? How many IS sustainable? Can we incentivize a lower population overall?

This is the way. The problem is the entire economy is based on endless growth, so there would be an "adjustment" at first.

Long-term this looks like what's happening naturally. Birthrates are down pretty much everywhere. It probably won't happen fast enough to have a huge impact on housing issues before we die, but US population will probably start declining in our grandchildren's lifetimes.

The US's one weird trick is that a sizeable chunk of the world wants to live here, stymying DCUM commenters that want this to be a miserable degrowth society

Even the places that send immigrants to the US have declining growth rates. Population decline is almost certainly coming for the whole world, including the US.

Ok. Can we have density while you await your inevitable miserable heaven?

No.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe instead of more housing we should look at fewer people? How many IS sustainable? Can we incentivize a lower population overall?

This is the way. The problem is the entire economy is based on endless growth, so there would be an "adjustment" at first.

Long-term this looks like what's happening naturally. Birthrates are down pretty much everywhere. It probably won't happen fast enough to have a huge impact on housing issues before we die, but US population will probably start declining in our grandchildren's lifetimes.

The US's one weird trick is that a sizeable chunk of the world wants to live here, stymying DCUM commenters that want this to be a miserable degrowth society

Even the places that send immigrants to the US have declining growth rates. Population decline is almost certainly coming for the whole world, including the US.

Ok. Can we have density while you await your inevitable miserable heaven?

Listen, I'm not just talking about what the numbers show is happening. I'm not suggesting any kind of policy one way or another or describing anything as heaven.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe instead of more housing we should look at fewer people? How many IS sustainable? Can we incentivize a lower population overall?

This is the way. The problem is the entire economy is based on endless growth, so there would be an "adjustment" at first.

Long-term this looks like what's happening naturally. Birthrates are down pretty much everywhere. It probably won't happen fast enough to have a huge impact on housing issues before we die, but US population will probably start declining in our grandchildren's lifetimes.

The US's one weird trick is that a sizeable chunk of the world wants to live here, stymying DCUM commenters that want this to be a miserable degrowth society

Even the places that send immigrants to the US have declining growth rates. Population decline is almost certainly coming for the whole world, including the US.

Ok. Can we have density while you await your inevitable miserable heaven?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe instead of more housing we should look at fewer people? How many IS sustainable? Can we incentivize a lower population overall?

This is the way. The problem is the entire economy is based on endless growth, so there would be an "adjustment" at first.

Long-term this looks like what's happening naturally. Birthrates are down pretty much everywhere. It probably won't happen fast enough to have a huge impact on housing issues before we die, but US population will probably start declining in our grandchildren's lifetimes.

The US's one weird trick is that a sizeable chunk of the world wants to live here, stymying DCUM commenters that want this to be a miserable degrowth society

Even the places that send immigrants to the US have declining growth rates. Population decline is almost certainly coming for the whole world, including the US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe instead of more housing we should look at fewer people? How many IS sustainable? Can we incentivize a lower population overall?

This is the way. The problem is the entire economy is based on endless growth, so there would be an "adjustment" at first.

Long-term this looks like what's happening naturally. Birthrates are down pretty much everywhere. It probably won't happen fast enough to have a huge impact on housing issues before we die, but US population will probably start declining in our grandchildren's lifetimes.

The US's one weird trick is that a sizeable chunk of the world wants to live here, stymying DCUM commenters that want this to be a miserable degrowth society

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe instead of more housing we should look at fewer people? How many IS sustainable? Can we incentivize a lower population overall?

This is the way. The problem is the entire economy is based on endless growth, so there would be an "adjustment" at first.

If you grew up in the county and want to now raise your family in the county that is growth. If your parents moved to the county that was growth too. If your kids one day want to have their families in the county, that is growth as well. And not to mention the fact that other people wanting to live here is also growth. All of this is good. All sorts of problems come with de-growth -- deficits, decaying and incorrectly sized infrastructure, deferred maintenance, etc...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe instead of more housing we should look at fewer people? How many IS sustainable? Can we incentivize a lower population overall?

This is the way. The problem is the entire economy is based on endless growth, so there would be an "adjustment" at first.

Long-term this looks like what's happening naturally. Birthrates are down pretty much everywhere. It probably won't happen fast enough to have a huge impact on housing issues before we die, but US population will probably start declining in our grandchildren's lifetimes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe instead of more housing we should look at fewer people? How many IS sustainable? Can we incentivize a lower population overall?

This is the way. The problem is the entire economy is based on endless growth, so there would be an "adjustment" at first.

According to DCUM, Montgomery County is an imploding hellhole that everybody is fleeing from, so if that's true, you're all set!

Anonymous wrote:Maybe instead of more housing we should look at fewer people? How many IS sustainable? Can we incentivize a lower population overall?

This is the way. The problem is the entire economy is based on endless growth, so there would be an "adjustment" at first.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe instead of more housing we should look at fewer people? How many IS sustainable? Can we incentivize a lower population overall?

really dumb brexit-level thinking here.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe instead of more housing we should look at fewer people? How many IS sustainable? Can we incentivize a lower population overall?

Build a wall around metro DC!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve always believed the ag reserve is the biggest FU to poor people in the DC area. As if there isn’t enough agricultural land in this country.

Redevelop all of the old rundown crap. Poor people do not want to live outside of Damascus. They want to be close in so they can use public transport when they take the bus and metro in to clean your house and raise your children.

No poor people clean my house or raise my children.

Do your kids go to summer camp? How much $$ do you think a camp worker makes?

Maybe instead of more housing we should look at fewer people? How many IS sustainable? Can we incentivize a lower population overall?