I think we need more regulations, laws, and building codes. Not!
Over here in the states, the Amish fight regulations all the time. The only way they win is religious freedom. And the fact that they have been building houses a certain way for 100 years.
- Cancel UN climate payments, use money instead on America water and environmental issues. Sounds good to me. Let China and India clean up their own mess, while we clean up our messes.
- Yes. Too many regulations by unelected bureaucrats. Sounds good to me. I'd rather have one clear and meaningful regulation than two "up for random interpretation."
- Yes. Tax cuts for all working people. Let people decide what to do with their own money (spend, save, donate, etc.). The bigger the government, the smaller the individual.
- Massive immigration changes? Not really. The pamphlet seems to enforce existing laws regarding criminal illegals.
> Tax cuts for all working people. Let people decide what to do with their own money (spend, save, donate, etc.). The bigger the government, the smaller the individual.
Tax cuts are all well and good in a vacuum, but how are we realistically going to pay down the national debt when we enact a massive tax cut on top of a tax rate that is already at historically low levels?
Some people say we can cut all of this government bureaucracy to make up for tax cuts but we'd have to take a figurative axe to all of our federal agencies to get to a point where we can afford a massive tax cut and pay down the national debt.
Otherwise we'd have to enact big cuts to Medicare/Medicaid, defense, and Social Security as well, which people seem loathe to stomach.
> but how are we realistically going to pay down the national debt when we enact a massive tax cut on top of a tax rate that is already at historically low levels?
Here's a hint: we're not going to pay down the debt anytime soon. I would expect the debt to increase by $8-$12 trillion over the next decade if Trump gets all the tax cuts and programs in his agenda.
The electorate hates taxes. At the same time it loves government spending. There is no political will to cut spending in any meaningful way. The last Republican vice president declared that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" - a line that Trump has echoed.
>how are we realistically going to pay down the national debt
We don't want to pay down the national debt. Each treasury note is a promise to provide the holder with real goods and services later, and we need to make those promises to our aging citizenry. We do this in part with the intra-governmental debt that the Social Security Trust Fund holds. Regular citizens also save for retirement, and they hold and demand Treasury bonds as well.
Yes, we should pay down the national debt. Why would we want to pay interest on outstanding debt when we could lower taxes or increase services instead?
You don't have to buy Treasuries to save for retirement. There are all sorts of bonds, foreign and domestic.
If people need to save, someone has to borrow. So where should all that money saved in USD go? The high risk stock market? The reason the US dollar is so powerful in the world is that there is always a safe place to park a large amount of them (the US gov) when you need to use them later. Take that away, and the dollar becomes much less appealing internationally. Treasury rates (what you call interest) are actually negative ATM when inflation is considered (we make money by borrowing it).
We should be spending more wisely, but debt economics is not as simple as it seems.
The government is buying treasuries to push down rates, not because they are doing QE at the moment. Now pushing down rates means there is more money to borrow (the gov buys from owners of bonds, they get cash in return), but it doesn't necessarily mean the government is printing money (you can tell by he inflation rate, which is still quite reasonable).
The corporate bond market cannot soak up trillions of dollars in safe investments. In fact, low interest rates can simply result from high demand for treasury bonds because they are a "sure thing."
>The government is buying treasuries to push down rates, not because they are doing QE at the moment. Now pushing down rates means there is more money to borrow (the gov buys from owners of bonds, they get cash in return), but it doesn't necessarily mean the government is printing money (you can tell by he inflation rate, which is still quite reasonable).
We've had quite a bit of asset inflation. Sure, the consumer products you buy that were made in China aren't going up, but Zillow says my house is worth more than double what I paid five years ago. You can't tell someone looking for housing there's no inflation.
Did you ever stop and wonder why infrastructure costs so damn much in the US? Why a rail segment going from nowhere to nowhere in California costs seventy billion dollars, or a new bridge ten billion?
>The corporate bond market cannot soak up trillions of dollars in safe investments. In fact, low interest rates can simply result from high demand for treasury bonds because they are a "sure thing."
Low interest rates are the result of artificial demand for bonds. If the government would stop monkeying with the bond markets they could "soak up" enough to cover domestic savings. Foreign governments would have to find somewhere else to park their money, but that's not the end of the world.
Environmental regulation, high labor costs; I.e., we aren't a shithole like china.
Housing bubbles come and go, they don't impact real inflation.
Unfortunately, libertarians would throw away all of our influence in global finance for an isolationalist paradise, but it won't work. If Russia and China aren't economically dependent on us, do you think that would actually mean less military tension?
Wait, you want to raise taxes or reduce services now so that we can pay down the debt so that we can lower taxes or increase services later? At near-zero interest rates?
Medicare and Social Security are funded through their own dedicated payroll tax, not the general income tax. Roosevelt intentionally did it this way to make it impossible to repeal.
My working assumption is that the military is mismanaged, and spends trillions of dollars on wasteful projects. I think you can get a pretty big tax cut by just managing the military better.
> I think you can get a pretty big tax cut by just managing the military better.
I find it interesting that in the US people are comfortable discussing improving military efficiency, yet its taboo to discuss reducing the size of the military.
With a concerted effort it would be a major accomplishment to improve military efficiency by 5-10%. Or you could cut the military budget by 40% and still outspend every other nation's military. Yet, I don't recall ever hearing a candidate suggest reducing the military's budget. Hell even after the cold war didn't spending go up after a brief decline?
You're right. A small percentage of a massive industrial complex is actually a ton of money.
There are some situations where US aircraft will fire half-million-dollar heatseeking missiles at empty sky, just in case enemies fire SAMs. That's an expensive habit.
The military doesn't constrain itself financially unless it's forced to. They care more about the mission and the warfighter, as they should. But the guys in Congress who are tasked with constraining the military are too chicken to endanger their support from active duty, veterans, and their friends and families.
The US is a superpower because of our military might. A lot of the technological achievements were due to military research. If we reduce our military size to be `reasonable` we loose our status as a super power.
> The US is a superpower because of our military might.
IMO, the causality is Economic might --> military might + "soft power" --> superpower (look at how China's trajectory). Prioritising military over economy in peace times seems short-sighted
I didn't miss it, but here are some things I've heard him say on that issue:
The first method is to control costs on military projects, and audit their finances. I think he'll do fine on this boring executive work, though I don't think better project management alone is going to get a 35% tax cut on the middle-class.
Second, there are foreign members of NATO that are supposed to pay 2% of GDP for a defense pool that are not doing this. He wants to pressure them into paying their share for protection. Since he's mentioned this, supposedly some countries have started paying into it.
Third, he doesn't actually want to go to war. War is pretty expensive, so building up a military to project strength without actually using it could be cheaper if we pull out of all on-going wars.
> Third, he doesn't actually want to go to war. War is pretty expensive, so building up a military to project strength without actually using it could be cheaper if we pull out of all on-going wars.
But... it's already by far the most well funded and advanced military in the world with a navy that ensures the US can deploy strength anywhere quickly.
And building our stuff without our EPA regs. I'm not sure how they can "clean up their own mess" while basically being an outsourcing arm for all our emissions. It's like we have this magical factory with a really long smokestack. Don't shut down the factory just tell someone else to fix the smoke.
"Cancel UN climate payments, use money instead on America water and environmental issues. Sounds good to me. Let China and India clean up their own mess, while we clean up our messes.
-"
The issue with climate change is that the people making the bess are not the same ones who suffer from the mess. So our mess isn't just ours. And their mess isn;t just theirs.
> - Yes. Tax cuts for all working people. Let people decide what to do with their own money (spend, save, donate, etc.). The bigger the government, the smaller the individual.
A family of 4 with a median household income of $50k/yr pays close to nothing in federal taxes. Tax cuts don't help the people that need it.
Tax cuts for all means reducing government resources, which means increasing the power of huge corporations. This is a hostile takeover of the American government.
Let China and India clean up their own mess, while we clean up our messes.
Near-zero chance that Trump will clean up any of America's environmental mess. Near-certain chance that he will significantly add to America's environmental mess.
> Cancel UN climate payments, use money instead on America water and environmental issues. Sounds good to me. Let China and India clean up their own mess, while we clean up our messes.
He didn't make a point, just an ignorant statement. Which I responded to by pointing out that it was very ignorant.
If you care to make a point worth replying to about 'china and India cleaning up their own messes' (despite the US having the highest CO2 emissions per capita in the world by a huge margin, over 2x that of China's and nearly 10x that of India's, and for a far far far longer time) then be my guest.
If you care to make a point worth replying to about 'china and India cleaning up their own messes' (despite the US having the highest CO2 emissions per capita in the world by a huge margin, over 2x that of China's and nearly 10x that of India's, and for a far far far longer time) then be my guest.
Wait, so you agree with him then, that US has a waaaay bigger mess than china(1/2) and india(1/10), and that the US should clean up its own (biggest) mess first, before the other two?
Nobody is going to clean up anything. Trump's a climate septic, hes got another one in line to head the EPA. Hes stopping these payments whilst simultaneously wanting to increase production of domestic "clean coal", natural gas and shale oil.
Your country has historically contributed far more than its fair share of greenhouse gasses, and these small payments (from the richest country in the world) help other countries reduce emissions and show that you recognise that.
But nope. Let's drop all that so we can prop up some failing coal towns for a while longer.
we already had a "trump won the election" thread. Isn't that enough US politics on HN for the day? This is not new, it was published weeks ago. If i wanted to see more election stuff i'd go to reddit. or just about anywhere else on the internet today.
Oh yeah? It worked for the taxi industry in Austin. They tricked people into banning Uber and Lyft, so the taxi industry can continue to operate their monopoly.
Look at the actual text of what is on the ballot here:
>> This amendment establishes a right under Florida's constitution for consumers to own or lease solar equipment installed on their property to generate electricity for their own use. State and local governments shall retain their abilities to protect consumer rights and public health, safety and welfare, and to ensure that consumers who do not choose to install solar are not required to subsidize the costs of backup power and electric grid access to those who do.
It's pretty tricky. Tell me you honestly don't think that a huge amount of people are going to vote yes on that thing.
>Oh yeah? It worked for the taxi industry in Austin. They tricked people into banning Uber and Lyft, so the taxi industry can continue to operate their monopoly.
I know what you're talking about with that one! Going to quote myself from earlier on it...
>"The way the phrasing was to accept/decline the ordinance to outlaw Uber was so confusingly worded I read it several times and still wasn't sure if I was supposed to vote "yes" or "no" on the ordinance... was it saying "yes" to the new ordinance to overrule/replace the old ordinance or was it voting "yes" to keep the old ordinance? If I voted "yes" was I voting to outlaw Uber or allow Uber? I have a feeling it was intentionally made as confusing as possible."
It isn't that people are stupid - it's that these things are worded in such a way to make it as confusing as possible for people to understand. Or to purposefully mislead, such as the bit you quote.
> It isn't that people are stupid - it's that these things are worded in such a way to make it as confusing as possible for people to understand. Or to purposefully mislead, such as the bit you quote.
I don't disagree with that. Calling someone stupid who is mislead by this type of thing isn't really fair. It's very very tricky and you really need to do research ahead of time in order to make the correct vote. If you don't know who is bankrolling it, or how other groups feel about it, it would be quite difficult to vote "correctly" just based on what you're reading in the voter booth.
The first sentence I interpret as: The power company (mostly Florida Power and Light, but there are some smaller utility companies that largely resell FPL, like Lake Worth Utilities [1]) cannot restrict or prevent property owners from installing solar power. The second sentence I interpret as: the government can restrict or prevent property owners from installing solar power (in the same way it restricts homeowners with building permits and building codes), but subsidies for solar power will be ended.
Not having followed the story [2] I'm inclined to vote "yes" on this (why should I pay for my neighbor's solar installation?) and don't see what's so bad about it. At some point, if solar is going to compete with traditional power sources, it will have to do so on its own terms without subsidies [3].
What do you see that's so insidious in the amendment?
[1] I had them when I lived in Lake Worth. Power cost twice as much, and it took forever to restore power after a hurricane. I refer to it as Lake Worthless Power.
[2] I've stopped listening to the news. It's horrible fear mongering on all sides (a pox on the 24-hour news cycle!). If something important happens, it will filter into my view. My stress levels have dropped dramatically.
[3] Much like electric cars. One subsidy they get is avoiding the gas tax, which goes towards maintenance of roads (on the theory that those who use more gas use more of the roads, and it's generally taxed at the geographical location of use). At some point, that has to change.
I strongly recommend you read the article linked here, as it explains the false equivalency of the bill. Net-metered solar reduces peak usage, reducing costs for utilities. The article has no less than 9 citations proving the point - your bill should go down as people transition to on-site solar.
This bill is about entrenched utilities not wanting to compete - not about solar subsidies.
Also, I believe this reasonable confusion answers @dragthor's question... :-)
The article was a mess to read, and very hard to find the actual reason for rejecting the amendment. The two best reasons I've seen for rejecting this amendment are:
1) it already duplicates existing law and protections, so no real reason to have this;
2) net-metering will go away.
I can see the reasoning for 1 and it's debatable if it's good enough to vote "no." I'll vote "present" on this one.
For 2, I think it really comes down to what is considered a "subsidy." In my mind, it's the installation subsidy---that is, it costs (I'm making this up as I haven't actually researched this) $20,000 to do a solar installation for a home, yet "the government" will rebate $15,000 of it (through tax breaks or an outright check---does it matter how it's done?). I don't see "net metering" as a subsidy though---you are generating a product (in the form of excess electricity) and are selling it to the power company. But having read the "fabulous" article, I just see "this will end net-metering!" without any proof.
On the power company's side, running a grid is hard. They don't just run "all the generators" at 100% all the time because doing so would harm the transmission equipment; excess load is excess heat and over time damages the equipment, so the power companies try very hard to keep the generation matching the load (generally they run a bit high to cover demand spikes but not so high as to do damage to the equipment---it's a fine line). Net metering makes this a bit harder to manage. Traditional sources are more consistent in output and can be controlled better than solar, which is dependent upon too many different conditions over the day [1].
If there's proof that "net-metering" is considered a "subsidy" by the proponents (or the power companies) and then, maybe, I'd vote "no." But the current "net-metering is going away!" fear mongering is not helping here.
[1] Especially here in Florida. It can be party cloudy and still raining. It can be clear, then two hours later overcast with a torrential downpour, then partly cloudy an hour later. You're a power company that needs to maintain power generation to within 5% of load, now do that with unpredictable power supply.
I agree that this is a huge mess, and I appreciate you looking into it further!
I think the Sun Sentinel editorial might do a better job of summarizing what's going on [1]. Net metering was put in place in 2008, but this Amendment 1 would change the wording of the constitution, opening the possibility for a challenge to the 2008 law on grounds it conflicts with the phrasing in the amendment.
To the question of whether net-metering is a de-facto subsidy... Many states, including Vermont [2], Nevada [3], Mississippi [4], Minnesota [5], and Maine [6], have independently found that net-metering provides a benefit to all ratepayers.
I hope this helps clarify your questions - please consider voting no on Amendment 1 and throwing your support behind Floridians for Solar Choice, who are trying to legalize solar leasing arrangements like the ones sold by Solar City/Tesla. [7]
Yeah, I wasn't really swayed by that Sun Sentinel article. I can understand why power companies hate net metering---it complicates their lives (https://web.archive.org/web/20051223090406/http://www.denbes... [1]) and past that, it's jut whining that it'll take even long to recoup installation costs of solar panels. Solar cells still either need to be 1) cheaper or 2) last longer.
I haven't read up on the Tesla roof tiles, but I can only see that being viable (at least here in Florida) if they at least break even over, say, thirty years (outer range of roof replacement) with the occasional hurricane (say, one every five years or so). And how do you clean the things? We had our roof washed several months ago, but that's because my SO thought the roof just looked unsightly [2]. But having to wash the roof (say, yearly just to keep up the efficiency) will definitely cut into the ROI of the system.
They might very well work out financially in Arizona and New Mexico though (more sun, less rain and a simple brushing off of any sand might suffice).
[1] Yes, it's a decade old, but it goes into details about power generation I don't think many people realize. Running a power grid is not easy and it's all too easy to screw up.
[2] Tile roof, which tends to hold up a bit better under hurricanes.
re: why should I pay for my neighbor's solar installation?
If you don't think solar is going to be a valuable part of our nation's energy infrastructure, then by all means, vote yes on this.
But, if you do think that solar has a valuable place in the future of our nation's energy production, then I'm not sure why you would want to place the burden of upgrading the power grid to support solar 100% on the backs of the small minority who are using solar right now. It would create a chicken and the egg situation where no one would want to install solar because of all the extra fees you'd have to pay to get the grid upgraded. And, the only way to bring those costs down is by sharing them with more people, but you never get that because the fees are too high. You'd never achieve critical mass for your solar installs.
If that argument doesn't convince you with its logic, just look at the Audio recording leak on the ballotpedia page. That should basically tell you that the opponents are right: "The campaign was based upon the argument that Amendment 1 was designed and funded by utility companies to deceive voters into thinking it was a pro-solar measure, when, in fact, it was written to benefit utility companies and inhibit solar expansion.". Why would you vote YES on that?
Wow. The first part sounds good until, wait a minute, I need an amendment to the state constitution to put solar panels on my house?
I might have not given that first sentence a lot of thought at first, but by the second sentence my alarms would be going off. It's vague, weasely, and open-ended. But the first sentence is convincing enough that I might never get to the second sentence.
In the end, I don't know that it will trick voters, but it just seems so poorly written as to border on unprofessional. But I am not a lawyer.
Same here! However, there is a line to draw on how much debt to put on someone. I know people who have tuition payments cutting into their living wages, affecting their ability to have even the basic necessities. There is nothing good about this unnecessary suffering, having to worry if you will still be able to afford a meal or a roof over your head.
> However, there is a line to draw on how much debt to put on someone.
Yes, people should decide how much debt they want to take on.
There are vast differences in the value of different degrees (cost and earnings). It's people's responsibility to educate themselves. The rest of us shouldn't have to subsidize someone's terrible decision to go into debt for a degree in basket-weaving.
Yes, we should. The average college freshman is 18 years old.
If you're old enough to drive a car, join the army, or be charged as an adult, you're old enough to realize that paying tens of thousands of dollars for a degree in musical theater isn't a great idea.
It's not rocket science. There are tons of resources online to help you figure out which degrees and schools are good value.
Yes, I agree it would be great if all 17/18 year-olds were able to sift through the marketing BS of school PR departments and the societal pressures to go to college, but it's increasingly obvious that they aren't making good decisions. I'm not convinced free college is the best solution either, but it seems you don't have much empathy for those without the same perception ability as you. I thought I was making the right decision, but now I'm stuck with 2k/mo for 8 years. I'm a bit bitter, yes...
Paying off your debt early also builds really good financial habits which will help in the future. You learn to live below your means, make a budget, etc
If they're Federal loans with a often below-inflation interest rate, the actual good financial habit is often to not pay it off, and instead amass a) an emergency fund and b) sock the rest into retirement via an index fund or something similar.
That ignores risk and also financial burden. If you owe $2k every month to NelNet or another institution, it's much harder emotionally and financially to quit your job to travel the world or start your own company. We had Federal Loans and the interest rate was still 6.5%
> it's much harder emotionally and financially to quit your job to travel the world or start your own company
Sorry, I have to laugh. This is the most HN thing I've read today. It's a tremendous privilege to have the option of quitting your job to travel the world, rather than the fear of being arbitrarily laid off, and failing to put food on the table or lose your house. My redneck might be sticking out this morning, though.
I didn't have student loans, have always had decent paying steady work (except for that time around 9/11), and have never felt financially secured enough to quit a job to travel the world.
I have moved around the country for work quite a bit, so I do feel fairly well-traveled. At least in the continental US.
I moved to Brazil with $2,000 and no job. Granted, I got lucky finding clients that would allow me to work remotely, but you don't need a fortune to drop out of the rat race. Things work out. If you have friends and family and aren't mentally ill, the chances of you ending up on the street are pretty low. You may have to eat fried flour to keep from going hungry, but it's never as bad as you think it will be (speaking from personal experience). The hardest part is taking the leap. I would have backed out if I hadn't already told everyone I knew that I was leaving, but here I am eight years later, still living abroad and making a comfortable living. If you are motivated and industrious you will find a way to thrive in any situation.
Edit: If you are supporting children, the above advice may not apply.
At least colloquially, this term signifies one has been to other countries (or better, other continents) and visited other cultures, immersed in other languages, other governments, other ways of eating, etc. One who stays within a country would not (in my opinion) be "well-traveled", despite the country being enormous. My 2cents.
I believe that definition has a bit of an elitist attitude about it. I don't know you, so I can't say it is your definition, but I have seen it before. I believe it is a totally unfair definition for most people.
I define well-traveled as someone who has traveled a significant distance based on their circumstances in life. By your definition a large portion of the people living in the EU are well-traveled just living their normal lives. Which is a far easier thing to accomplish than someone in the US. I have driven from Orlando FL to Las Vegas NV, a distance of around 2300 miles or so, twice. How many countries does that cover for that range in the EU? I have visited many locations around both cities and in-between. I have lived in four states in different areas of the country, each with their varying cultures. I can tell you for a fact that the Southeast and Southwest US do have different cultures, even though they both sort of speak the same language. Walking through downtown Los Angeles after growing up in small town Alabama is visiting a different culture.
I agree, there is a kind of snobby adherence to the term by some people, as they see the point of becoming "well-traveled" to have been able to afford it.
I politely disagree that the term -- or idea it was meant to abstract -- is to convey how much distance one has traveled, but rather how varied the places have been that one has lived in. Just a short quick visit, e.g. a many-hundred-mile 2-week scourge through Europe, robs you of the experience of living in a non-tourist area where the environment is nothing like what you are accustomed to.
The idea (phrased as "well-traveled" or otherwise) from my perspective is to learn that many countries have very different ways of life; some have better/free access to health care, or not at all; some have almost no diverse ethnicities (e.g. China), or that in the middle-east, you can have countries with a strong diverse mix of many religions (Lebanon); how foreign country governments treat you (no VISA, vs. register yourself with police everywhere); etc.
For those with hard lives, many can be some of the nicest people. Visit China, other south-east Asian countries, rural India, Africa, as well as the well-developed nations in Europe. The most important trait one should take away from travel is: first-hand experience at the range of life that exists on this planet, something which cannot be read from a book.
We take for granted many of the artifacts and ways we work in our lives; seeing others gives us perspective that becomes a useful skill. I wholeheartedly agree that these skills can be developed without leaving the country, among our own rich, poor; and we are fortunate to have all four climates within our borders, too!
The US is about the same geographic size as all of Europe and includes many cultures, languages, styles of government, and foods. Hell, just wandering around different parts of NYC ticks your boxes.
Not having an emergency fund is about the riskiest thing you can do.
> If you owe $2k every month to NelNet or another institution, it's much harder emotionally and financially to quit your job to travel the world or start your own company.
The emergency fund helps with that. When built up, it should cover 6-12 months of zero income. Amassing it first means losing a job doesn't mean deferring payments on the student loans and winding up with years more payments to make as a result.
> We had Federal Loans and the interest rate was still 6.5%
One of my wife's student loans is at 2.5%. At 6.5%, it's not below inflation and paying it off makes more sense.
We took a slightly different approach. Have a 3 month emergency fund, then pay every extra dollar towards the student loan. Paid it off in 3.5 years instead of the 20year plan NelNet wanted. Now we are building out a 6-12month emergency fund and putting money into retirement. Maybe in the short term we are behind in retirement saving, but now we have a lot more cash every month to put into savings and investing. I would still recommend this approach because it emotionally feels wonderful to pay that last f*ing payment :)
But sometime emotions get in the way of financial strategy.
As others point out, it's really unusual to have federal loans as low as 2.5% (as you mention below). Most are considerably more. Are you sure that's a federal loan?
It's also worth noting that 2.5% is still higher than inflation in the last couple years.
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/types/loans/interest-rates indicates direct undergrad loans are currently at 3.76%. At that rate, you're best off paying as slowly as possible and putting the rest of the money into an index fund.
Perhaps it shifted a lot in the last few years. I went back to school to get an EE degree, and it's mostly pretty high interest. Sadly I was pretty financially ignorant until maybe my senior year of my second degree. Plus since I was older, and already had a degree, the amount of money available goes down a lot. I don't know how much that effected my interest rates (though my private education loans were at 10% if you can believe it).
Its nice that you earned your black-belt in self-discipline, but it doesn't benefit society much for you to become a miser to pay for a piece of paper. We are in a consumption economy...we need you spending money on things that create jobs for others, like homes and cars.
Well, Jet isn't the only company to use F# (just AFAIK, the only consumer-facing startup). I can't imagine Walmart wholesale replacing their codebase with whatever the folks at Walmart Labs like to use, as that would be incredibly stupid of them.
Over here in the states, the Amish fight regulations all the time. The only way they win is religious freedom. And the fact that they have been building houses a certain way for 100 years.