This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
To open federal lands or not?
Most people in the US are unaware that the Federal government owns like half of the land in the western states. In states like Utah and Nevada, the ratio is even higher. Some people, mostly on the right, have proposed opening up this land for settlement and development. I'm of two minds but mostly against. Here's some arguments I see against and for.
Against:
Development is permanent. Once land is developed, it is almost never returned to its natural state.
Development is ugly. I love the beautiful wide open spaces in the west. In the east, there is very little true wilderness. Everything is someone's private property, with the associated buildings, trailers, junky cars, trash, etc...
Development turns public spaces into private property denying citizens of their birthright to enjoy the open spaces
For:
Development is pro-natal. Cities are fertility and IQ shredders. Density increases prices and decreases fertility, especially among high IQ people. If we want people having 3, 4, 5 kids, we need cheap housing with lots of space. But states like Utah, Colorado, and Nevada have relatively expensive housing despite lots of open space.
Development is good for the economy.
Should we open the public lands?
Is it ? I believe the causation is reversed. People who want kids move to suburbs because American inner-cities are the shame of the 1st world. Mormons moved because they wanted more kids, but more land won't magically create more mormons. Fertility rate is a super-national phenomenon. Intra-national fertility shows low variance (eg: Europe) and at times clashes with the more space = more fertility assumption (eg: France)
83% of the U.S. population lives in urban areas. So, at most, people would move to suburbs or exurbs. Suburbs and exurbs are already quite sparse and privately owned. People are tied to their job and profession. They move to cities for work. As long as jobs exist in cities, people aren't leaving urban areas.
Blatantly false. High demand and low supply increases prices.. Density increases supply, and therefore decreases prices. It's just that the densest places have such a high demand, that no amount of density can limit housing price increase. Places like Austin and Auckland have seen slower housing price growth because of permissive zoning (densification). On the other hand, Bay Area suburb prices keep shooting up because it's already full with single family homes, and rezoning isn't permitted.
Name one 1st world nation with a fertility rate above 2.5. The decline in fertility is relentless & global. I appreciate every genuine attempt towards increasing fertility. But, there is no evidence that more space leads to people having more kids.
Israel may count, but zoom in on any Israeli exurb/suburb and it's vastly denser than most American cities. Clearly density was not the issue. I want to offer a counter-solution for the same problem. Densify aggressively instead.
Jobs are in cities. People won't move and they can't move. But, you can make it easier for them to own property near where they work. If space is the issue, then going from 2 -> 4 bed apartments should solve those issues.
Is it ? First the multi-year infrastructure spending sink & then the annual drain on low-density infrastructure. All for a bunch of people who were unemployable enough to move to the middle of nowhere ? How is it any different than social science fake-jobs in the govt. It creates temporary jobs, with negative long term value.
The US needs to aggressively build out family-sized apartments within its existing cities. SJ, SF & LA should be the first targets. Boston, DC & Miami should be next. Austin & Phoenix (Tempe) area already in the middle of a build out, so non-coastal America is covered. In the north, I think Canada (Vancouver & Toronto) will cannibalize growth potential from Seattle & Chicago....so imma leave the north out of this.
"own"? I thought you were talking about apartments.
Anecdotal: the families I know all - all - fit into either families who managed to own a house, or fled from cities precisely because they were fleeing from apartments and condos. The main issues being stability was not within their control (e.g. if things are tight this month you can put off properly patching your driveway - but not if the condo association voted to do so), and moving was expensive both in direct financial cost and indirect impacts from e.g. children having to move schools.
Remember that something like 1-in-4 American households live paycheque-to-paycheck. If you're in that position, unexpectedly having to move can financially ruin you.
Yeah. Around the world people buy apartments and own them. I personally know friends in Mumbai, Delhi, Geneva, Singapore*, Zurich & Paris who own apartments. The apartments are as liquid as any other type of housing. Because the apartment complexes have large shared facilities, it promotes a natural sense of belonging and community. Makes it great for families.
Here are some attainable upper-middle class apartment complexes that I have personally visited. Hongkong, NYC, Zurich, India, Paris, Geneva and Boston. (generally, ignore the ugliness of some of them. They were built during a tasteless modernist era. But they're quite pleasant once you're there)
These are all fairly dense family oriented complexes. Here, people do not own cars or have a single hatchback for out-of-town trips. You'll notice how the density doesn't mean compromising on green space. Instead, consolidating people into vertical spaces means that the remaining flat land can be used for green space, community gardens and playgrounds. Also, the condos are distant from arterial roads, so quiet and safety, that's associated with suburbs, aren't compromised. The gated nature of many pseudo-public spaces facilities as communal sense of child supervision. You can leave your kids alone, but they're never alone or vulnerable.
Admittedly, I didn't grow up in the US. I grew up in a less fancy version of my above examples, back in India. I don't have the same visceral dislike for apartments like some Americans. I know that American apartments are usually sad motel-esque setups, premium millionaire homes or yuppie share homes. Not a lot of normal 30-40 something families in cities.
That being said, suburbs don't seem all that great either. From my experience living in American suburbs, every house I around me was cookie cutter. Yards were empty. Kids were always supervised. No one walked. I frequently visit French and Swiss cities. Here, people live in apartments, but I see a lot more kids outdoors. Parks are well used. From my anecdotal experiences, European city life is superior to American suburban life in every way.
How is that different from an HOA or interest payments on a loan ? Maintenance costs are constant. Once enough has been collected, condo associations spend from their budget. Random one-off bills are unheard of.
Wouldn't missing your loan payments put you at the same risk ?
This is not an out-of-the-blue unexpected additional cost.
(A sudden spike in interest rates can be - but tends to be on a significantly longer lagtime, and fixed-rate mortgages are a thing.)
Interesting. I am mostly unfamiliar with international housing. Does 'own' here include:
The right to know if maintenance is being deferred on the building?
The right to remain in the building if the building has e.g. been condemned due to deferred maintenance outside your control?
The right to remain in the building if someone buys the land to tear down the building?
The right to replace appliances / flooring / roof / etc?
The right to decide on which ISP will service your unit?
The right to have accurate forecasts of the cost of rent in the future?
The right to have a friend stay the night at my place?
The right to store my bike inside my place?
All of these I have seen violated by landlords in the US. (Which makes sense, as these normally are not rights. They are, however, all control that is normally given up by renting versus owning.)
This is one of the major reasons why fixed-rate mortgages exist, yes. To allow for better planning and mitigate tail liability.
This is one of the pushes away from buying property in cities, yes. Not the only one.
On the contrary: random one-off bills are common, at least in the US. You may wish to look up the term 'special assessment'.
Condo association decides that the parkade really needs redoing now instead of next year on schedule, majority of condo owners agree... welp there's a sudden unexpected 4-digit bill outside of your control regardless of your personal financial situation. To name an example a coworker went through.
Yes, they have monthly society meetings for communicating these things. It is similar to an HOA, but with significantly less power. I grew up in an apartment, and we never faced sudden costs. All one-time spend was delayed until the collective 'savings account' had enough in it. The monthly maintenance bills stayed constant. (adjusted annually) Also, because the housing society consists of your peers, they're generally receptive to late payments in a way that banks simply are not.
If a family stops paying maintenance (electricity, water, building upkeep, heating are often pooled through common systems), then the building will cut off electricity and water to the apartment. But, that's about it. You can continue living in Squalor if you so wish.
Yep. Your house is your house. The building's rooftop and the outsides are upgraded with collective investment and decision making. But once you're indoors, it's all you.
Yep. The ISP have already put in the cables. But, we always had a choice among 2-3 different providers. I was quite surprised to find out that people in the US often do not have choice of ISPs.
Doesn't apply to ownership. Maximum rent increase/yr is generally capped by the city govt. So, buildings don't play much role here.
Yes, it's your house. Why would the building need to know or care ? Similar things were very common back home.
Hope we're talking about the same thing. There are no landlords here. There is usually a housing collective or housing society. It's like being a joint shareholder. All decisions are made by committee.
Sounds like a USA problem. Not sure what would cause this. It's very rare for large apartments to need sudden spending. Any scheduled upgrades/revamps are planned 3-ish years in advance. Monthly maintenance rates are accordingly increased, but the pain is distributed over years. So when the time comes, the money is already there.
Yes, this happens. But, I've never heard of it being a sudden bill. Always distributed over many years. Also, major expenses in our colony requires a super majority (66%+).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link