Risk compensation is a theory which suggests that people typically adjust their behavior in response to the perceived level of risk, becoming more careful where they sense greater risk and less careful if they feel more protected.[2] Although usually small in comparison to the fundamental benefits of safety interventions, it may result in a lower net benefit than expected.
I really hope at some point in our lifetimes, the deleterious effects of animal protein are pervasively understood by educated Americans to the point where consuming animal parts for their anti-inflammatory benefits would be an oxymoron on par with smoking to prevent cancer.
An overwhelming body of scientific evidence suggests that humans are omnivores and not carnivores and the human body evolved to process animal protein on an occasional basis(like alcohol) and not because it’s good for us on a daily basis.
1. Glucosamine is not a protein.
2. The claimed benefit of glucosamine is not anti-inflammation, but providing the building blocks for cartilage repair as synovial fluid is circulated in the joint.
3. It's very difficult to get sufficient protein from a plant based diet, especially when avoiding soy, which raises estrogen.
There is considerable amount of caffiene in tea as well but it’s absorbed slower by the body than from coffee and most tea has L-Theanine, which is an amino acid which attenuates the caffiene high that is usually present from coffee.
What happens when more people move into the area from the rest of the country and start driving to work from their newly built housing units? Silicon Valley has, at best, poor coverage of Caltrain and no coverage for BART in South Bay. If let’s say 10,000 more families move to San Jose into new housing units and they all need to commute to Palo Alto for work, how exactly would they do that without choking up the already clogged freeway network? Caltrain is already packed beyond imagination during rush hour. Each year, the rush hour commute time between Palo Alto and San Jose increasing by 5 minutes and that’s with limited net population growth in the area. Imagine if the population influx increased 2X or 5X. Housing is not an isolated problem. Due to decades of lobbying by the auto industry and a crippled public transportation strategy, what America really has is a transportation and infrastructure problem.
Without solving that, the housing problem will never be truly solved and building new housing will degrade the quality of life of everyone in the area - both newcomers and existing residents.
This is the most common argument I hear against building, but I am firmly convinced that the reason you have the commute problem in the Bay area isn't because of the number of people, but because the resistance to building has forced development further and further out.
Consider that there is still housing growth, but its in South San Jose, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy. Those people all have to drive past Los Gatos, Cambell, Cupertino, San Jose, and Sunnyvale to get to Mountain View. All your doing is increasing the amount of Miles people have to drive, and that in term increases the amount of time they spend in their cars, and clogs the roads. If you built houses in Mountain View or Palo Alto, none of those people would be on the roads, and if they were it wouldn't be for nearly as long. You don't have to take my word for it take a look at average commute times in the bay area, those increases aren't due to a 2x increase in Mountain View, its due to a 2x increase far outside with people driving in.
Public transportation is great, but the solution is to build houses near where people work, that means San Francisco and Mountain View.
The market has shown people are willing to make the commute. Not only would you need to induce the current commuters to move, you also need to ensure they aren't simply replaced by more commuters, which isn't necessarily a given.
The market has shown that there is extreme demand at the center. We need to build at the center.
There is a fixed amount of people at any point in time in a metropolitan area. Building at the center will not make new people appear. It removes people from the commuting crowd.
Well there is also the issue that the VC's and tech executives would rather workers have to do hour plus commutes to offices conveniently close to SFO and Sand Hill Road than they having to drive out to Vallejo. And much less have live in Kansas city or some such god forbidden place.
That is because at the end of the day VC's want you to spend all your money so they can get more of your ownership. There is no incentive for them for fund companies in middle america where their dollars aren't in such high demand.
You might have it backwards. Traffic is increasing because we're adding offices but no housing nearby. Therefore people need to pour in from further out.
With higher density, alternate transportation options become viable and attractive.
Your argument does not account for people currently outside the Bay Area moving into the Bay Area because of cheaper housing. While people currently residing in far flung places would move closer to their work, the people living in other parts of the country aspiring to live in Silicon Valley would now move to Morgan Hill and Gilroy. Eventually, we will end up with the same housing crunch, except with twice the number of cars on the road.
If you look at the data for SF, 95% of brand new units are first occupied by people who have lived here for a at least a few years. New housing serves people who are already here.
What causes people to migrate to the bay is the office creation, not the housing creation.
That logic doesn't work. 95% of new units going to existing residents doesn't mean that if I built 100 new units, I only get 5 new houses. Those 95% who move to new units leave their old local places open, which in turn go to god knows where.
There is a natural population growth in the bay area from people having and raising children here. Our housing growth rate is slower than the rate of children coming of age. The unoccupied units that current residents are moving into can theoretically be occupied by the children of the current residents as they come of age.
It sounded like this particular family was doing ok until the wife lost her job when she was on maternity leave (wouldn’t happen if maternity leave were actually protected), so they started illegally subletting, and then they got kicked out of their illegal sublet. Yeah it’s clear they basically had no savings at that time though, other than the car.
I read the article a few hours ago but I think I remember them saying like a quarter of the kids in the Salinas public school system were homeless? I agree that in general, people should be responsible about having children. But let’s be clear: a quarter of a city’s kids being homeless is indicative of a deep systemic problem. That’s not something that we should simply accept as natural because they are poor.
Of course, the big issue which they touch on briefly is that the whole “affordable/subsidized housing” crap is not even close to reaching the scale it needs to be at to address the problem. You can’t solve a housing shortage by selling $10 for $3 to a couple thousand people.
