emmacharp

Ha! Nice, we're in good company then!

In the end, I think we agree more than we disagree. Heheh.

I also think that rent control that fix a price without any way to increase it are harmful. I'm definitely not willing to maintain any of these.

Not sure about rent control and NIMBY, though. Property owners, be it condos or houses, are pretty much also in thrall of this pernicious mind disease.

And yes, I do care a lot about this. Did it show? Heheh. I think we made great strides here and thank you for your time and patience.

PS: my ears can take a lot, don't worry!

I'd say the baseline being argued here (being able to keep living where you live) to be considered "aristocracy" is pretty darned low.

So yes, prices will go up, displacing people. You don't need to have 2000$ more in rent per month to be driven out of your neighbourhood. 200$ may be enough.

And then, if gentrification, immigration, tourism or any other external "shock" brings new, richer or more desperate demand for housing, landlords can raise prices as high as they can go, making housing precarious for lots of people.

As per your comment, I'd say zoning laws and NIMBY are bigger fruits hanging lower than rent stabilization.

My question still lingers: since housing prices as they are now disincentivize building because of poor profit opportunities, how can removing rent control spell more profit opportunities for private interests without increasing price?

If prices stay somewhat the same without rent control, where is the incentive to build more housing?

And do you think prices have to increase so that you can have an "artifical oversupply" of housing?

And I thought you were advocating for free markets, yes, since you talked about "market rate". Sorry for the wrong inference.

And just to be clear, I'm not a proponent of rent control, maybe rent stabilization as you said. I think, in general, people being able to keep living where the lived for a long time is a social good of great value and that we should try to implement housing policies that will make that possible.

I understand supply and demand... but it's a really basic theory.

My point is: prices will have to increases for supply to increase as well. Saying that increasing supply will keep prices low makes no sense if right now prices are too low for private interests to build more housing.

Supply won't keep prices "low" and certainly not lower than they are now. How would that work? How would they make profit?

Well said.

These are real propositions to solve a real problem. That's the kind of discussion we need to have.

A free-er market in itself only won't help urban people keep their roof.

But for supply to expand, prices must go up, right? They can't go down.

That is what I'm trying to understand, since a lot of people here imply that "increase in supply will lower prices".

I see. Thank you for the detailed comment.

Let's say I accept your phrasing and naming of the problem & solution.

Given that one big consequence of managed housing economics is depressed profits, how can "free market" supply increases lower housing costs? Won't profits suffer then? Reducing incentives to build?

As I see it, and said in the original comment, for supply to increase, price cannot decrease. It can only increase for building to be more enticing than with rent stabilization/control.

Not sure how this is beneficial to future generations.

Maximum rates of increase per year is a type of rent control. It is, where I live, based on inflation, tax increases and investment in the building.

And you may have "fixed that for me" by rephrasing what I said but you also did not address what I had brought up before you fixed it up.

Do you think people being driven out of their homes and neighbourhoods by rapidly increasing housing costs a problem?

If so, we can discuss about the means to mitigate it. If not, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Goods are not all equals. Housing is not Food.

And you did not address the problem. Or maybe you don't think it is a problem.

PS: I'm well versed in Austrian economics. But theory, hypotheticals and thought experiments don't represent every real, empirical issue.

Won't falling prices disincentivize building by lowering possible profits?

Won't lower prices reduce returns to building ownership?

Rent control, as flawed as it may be, aims to solve a real socioeconomic problem: people being driven out of their homes and neighbourhoods by rapidly rising costs.

Proponents of a free market solution to this problem point out the disincentive effect it has on building new rental housing by depressing possible profits. Getting rid of the price control should encourage building and thus, by increasing supply, keep rental prices low... BUT. Won't profits be kept low then, perpetuating the disincentive to build? I mean, If depressed profit opportunities are the problem, housing cost must rise for them to become enticing.

So, as I understand it a free housing market, all other things being equal, cannot provide a solution to the "people being driven out of their homes" problem.

But, please, enlighten me if I'm mistaken.

As the internist told me when, after a long and strange bout with covid at the very beginning of the pandemic (March to July 2020), he diagnosed me with fibromyalgia: "In the end, we may never know if you really have fibromyalgia or not. What matters is will the medication make you feel better."

And boy, did it work. Low dose amitriptyline changed my life.

PS: I was feeling like shit before covid. Covid only made it so much worse that it became impossible to ignore. For me and the multiple doctors I've seen at the time.

I'm canadian, yes.

But a well thought out subsistence allocation won't just "give" everybody 1000$ per month. The majority of people who continue working may/should end up even. I don't see a paid for scheme altering in major way the oligopolies you are talking about.

And I'm curious, oligopolies in which industries a you thinking about?

There are so many knee-jerk reactions and hot takes about the really simple idea that people should be assured the means to subsist. The two most entrenched and, dare I say, ridiculous ones being:

1. "No one will ever work anymore!"

Really? People do not care about material well-being, leisure goods or the feeling of usefulness? What does it say about our current labor market if, given a poverty line subsistence (!), the majority will choose to forego any superior value good? Maybe that we are forced to work, against our will? Where's freedom in that? If this is the case, we clearly have an economic efficiency problem here and now.

2. "Inflation will eat any gain, prices will skyrocket!"

First, if we consider inflation as "too much money printing", then paying for the subsistence allocation with a variety of cuts and taxes will not trigger inflation. Simple. As for price increases, well we already have something to counter these and it's called the market. As in the price increase signals to actual & would-be producers that there's money to be made by producing more potatoes, lodging, clothes, etc. This is textbook economics.

When there is talk of subsistence allocation (or UBI) too often common sense seems to be left at the door. Something reaaaally irks many people. I cannot help but think of it as irrational.

But I'm ready to be convinced otherwise!

edit: added invitation to discuss...

Can't help but think that these games are to CSS development what Guitar Hero was to guitar playing...

> CSS inevitably becomes a spaghetti soup of states after a while.

Not if you lint your CSS with rules preventing these kind of things. The same is true for maintainability. Stylelint is a great tool for that.

Why wouldn't `.button.is-success` be enough? And aren't you already using `success` somewhere else in your component? In JS, maybe?

If you use CSS and HTML together, rationally, you don't have to name any more things than you already have in Tailwind. Naming everything in CSS is a self-inflicted problem that you can easily annihilate with modern though widely supported CSS features.

First, sorry for the response delay. I don't know why I didn't see your answer.

As for the case in point, in fact, I think CSS can be as fast if not faster. But that's totally for me to prove. Hehe.

That's why I'm working on a set of simple rules for efficient styling with CSS. A website with documentation, examples and tools is in the works. If you're interested, I can give you a heads up when it's online.

Feedback from Tailwind users is important and would absolutely be welcomed!

PS: thank you for the explanation.

Sorry if I'm being obtuse but I still don't understand.

As I see it, the problem was one of SASS code architecture. What do you mean then by "enable debugging symbols"? How does that solve the "chaotic file architecture" problem?

Well, I'd say yes, we welcomed and considered any proposition made by our team members, junior or not. The CTO makes the final decision. But if it's a good idea, it'll be included in the workflow, yes. Source maps would be a good example of this. And it's not hard to include in my experience, even more when considering the added value.

And, yes, I've had problems in the past with hunting rules as you say. But it's been a good long while since it happened.

Thanks for the great reply.

Here are my thoughts:

In your code example, all that is in :root should be used from project to project. As it is Tailwind. Only values should change. Again, same as Tailwind. So I don't really see a problem.

For .component1, you would do the same in Tailwind albeit with fewer characters but as I said, your IDE should pick up the slack here.

mb<tab> --gap<tab> and it is done.

As for your duplicate width problem, it can be solved easily with a linter that prevents styling across files. I'll give you an example if you're interested. At the same time, you would be repeating "width" across components in Tailwind too.

So the duplication still exists, if I understand correctly. Same with the growth of CSS... In Tailwind you grow the HTML instead. Fixed clases or not. I don't see how it is better but, again, maybe I'm missing something.

As for the media queries, same as above: your IDE should pick up the slack.

BUT!

The thing is that by writing modern CSS, you would not need most of these media queries! Do you know "clamp()[1]"? It's magical

And unfortunately not supported in Tailwind at the moment

.component1 { clamp(var(--gap-default), 1vw, var(--gap-large)) }

the above will do what you want without media queries! clamp() solves a loooot of these use cases. Honestly I don't write much media queries anymore and yes, that's great.

And if I may, I think Tailwind here prevents you from thinking about better and simpler solutions like this one. If it ain't included in what you're using, it's normal to not think about it. But really, this is a game changer. And it's been available for certainly three years. That's a lot.

And in the end, I'd say using real CSS with Tailwind kind of defeats the purpose. You end up with different styling methods for different components. I don't think that's good. More like a "hack".

But really, your example above is right on point: by excluding new approaches, Tailwind disincentivize you from using them when they would solve many of your problems elegantly and simply.

[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/clamp

edit: the Tailwind example provided is bad CSS. As were the ones given in the first fundamental post by Mr Wathan. These are strawmen. If you're interested, I'll give you an example of good CSS producing the same output.

Perfect! I certainly will.

Yeeah! That is really great to read!

If you are ok with sharing an email address or a website, I'll be sure to give you a heads up when the site is up and running.

Thank you for the kind and useful offer!

Well, I'm building websites and apps.

And, as I'm sure you know, milliseconds are important in our craft. You can easily shave or add hundreds of milliseconds with HTML or CSS.

And to be honest, I find your general line of inquiry here to be quite agressive and dismissive. I think, respectfully, a little more good faith could further our understanding of each other.