Honestly this was true for large parts of USAs history, but that hasn’t been the case for a while now.

In truth our democrat and republicans reps have almost no similar voting history, they vote the opposite of each other on almost every issue.

Below is a good visualization of what I mean. You can see that from the 50’s to the 80’s, there was really quite a bit of voting overlap by the parties, so during that period, you’d be right, both parties could be consider the same or similar.

But for the last 30 years or so, democrats and republicans have had very little overlap on what they vote in favor for. It’s party line votes on almost everything.

So how people can say “both parties are the same”, when they vote the opposite on almost everything is beyond me.

And that’s not even taking into account executive actions, like for example for the last 50 years or so every democrat president has provided contraceptives as part of foreign aid, and every republican has not.

We may not have options in terms of political parties to choose from, which I agree is bad, but saying both parties are the same is to be willfully blind.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/23/a-stunning-visualization-of-our-divided-congress/

What data do you have to say neither of those options are relevant?

“Mid-priced homes are becoming more popular with investors, making up 32% of investor purchases in the fourth quarter, a record high. Low-priced homes are still most popular with investors, making up 37% of purchases.”

Low cost homes, exactly the ones in rural/historically low income area you described, are the most purchased category of residential real estate.

Also, the downtowns of those areas, which are almost all single story commercial/retail, are exactly the places most in need of walkable, dense development I’m describing, especially if there’s a housing shortage and most of the surrounding areas already have built up residential developments.

So both of those options are actually more relevant for your example then the US as a whole.

https://www.redfin.com/news/investor-home-purchases-q4-2021/

You seem to attribute the housing affordability crisis the last few years to WFH-ers, but isn’t it more fair to say that there are multiple other factors contributing to it?

Not just the post COVID appreciation for housing, but things like historically high percentage of investor owned homes (including corporate and foreign buyers), and historically low building rates compared to projected need, to name a few.

So then the question becomes, which of these should we focus on? For me, that means what gives you the most positives, and least negatives.

Let’s look at three options:

1. Banning corporate and foreign non-occupying homeowners from owning American residential real estate
2. Rezoning low density areas (particularly single story commercial/retail in smaller cities and towns’ downtowns) into vertical dense mixed use residential and commercial/retail development
3. Ending work from home

1 and 2 accomplish our primary goal of reducing home prices across the country, both by increasing supply (1 would too, since those investors would need to sell, increasing supply), and 1 would also reduce demand. 3 does not, because any price reductions in rural areas will be offset by higher rates in urban one

2 also gives us positive secondary benefit of encouraging walkable cities, which leads to health improvements, less traffic, and reduced climate impact. 1 would also increase business investment, encouraging long term growth, if the “money printer” option of buying US residential properties and collecting rent is not available.

3 gives us no positive secondary benefits, and since it does essentially the opposite of 2 in terms of walkability, it also is the only one with a high negative cost.

So pretty clearly that idea is the worst one for solving housing affordability. So why support it when their are other much better options available to accomplish your goal?

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

It’s the highest voted comment in his original post.

If she initiated these new things, then I think you’re right that she thinks you like them, and doesn’t want to lose you over her not being willing to do them.

First, get things straight in your own head about would you like to have done any of those things with her if you had not seen the video?

Then, once you have an idea about what you like or don’t, tell her something like “hey, while (the things you like) I do like and would like to keep doing, if it’s ok with you, (the things you don’t like) were her idea, and I don’t want you to feel like it’s something we have to do together because it’s not something I particularly enjoy. I much prefer (doing this thing you two did together, that your ex didn’t do).” Even if that thing is just holding hands after or something like that, not necessarily kinky.

The main thing to remember is that you’re her first, so she has no frame of reference to compare you too, whereas you have an ex that she’s worried she’s being compared to.

So just let her know that your happy with how the relationship is, and exactly what you said at the end of your post, that you want to grow together and view this as the relationship of not just your present, but far in the future as well, so she shouldn’t have any concerns.

I knew someone that did something similar for the same reason, though it was conversations about his future with his mom that he was trying to avoid.

Something that helped with him is to go outside, NOT to interact with people, but just to go on hikes or walk, where you can keep your headphones in and not say a word to someone else, but just to get outside your room, which even though it’s a refuge, can also start to feel like a prison.

Honestly you interact with people much more indoors than outdoors, so viewing a walk as a form of peaceful solitude can be great for getting fresh air and exercise, and you’ll notice you get much less judgement from your roommates if your going outside. You’ll also notice your mental health will probably improve as well.

So the balance you have to get right is between respecting their experience and defending your right to make the final decision.

Asking them, “what are your thoughts on how to handle this situation”, and if the idea sounds good implementing it immediately, will go a long way to showing them you’re not going to insist on your way in every situation, which is the main cause of animosity, especially when the other person is more experienced.

But just by showing you’ll consider their ideas, you should expect some people to push to have you accept every idea they have, which can occur more often when they think they should be in your place anyway.

When that happens, it’s important to clarify that while you want to get everyone’s input, the final decision rests with you, and once you make it, you expect everyone to carry it out. And though constructive feedback on how to improve the process is always welcome, critiquing it simply because it is not their idea is not.

If you say that to them, looking them in the eyes with a calm but determined voice and expression, they’ll understand you’re a boss that wants input but will remain independent, which is the type of boss people respect.

In this sense it’s not much different from managing any team, except you should be more willing to seek out their input because they truly do have more experience.

One more thing that’s extremely important. When you make a decision, especially when it’s one where you chose between competing ideas or you went with your own, always explain the rationale for your decision. If your explanation makes sense and is honest, they’ll understand you were truly choosing what you thought was the best decision, and not just picking the one from your favorite person (including yourself).

Nothing diminishes respect more than showing favoritism, especially if they think you benefited from it to get your position.