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 -
I have been watching a lot about housing lately. The lack of affordability and so on. I won't bother you with details, since they are known to everyone. Almost every capital city in the developed world (and big parts of developing) is struggling with unaffordable rent, insane house price rises etc.
The process is usually something like this. Rural people move to cities, city people move to capital cities and capital cities people move to global cities. And global cities people try to live as close as possible to the city center. All the eastern europeans that I know that moved to UK didn't move to bumfuck nowhere in the Midlands. They moved to London. Ditto for a lot of other immigrants into the UK. So there is real demand to live in London. The process of concentration of people in the big metro areas doesn't seem to slow down or reverse (white flight is the only counter example).
So there is the minor problem that I have with YIMBY people - why do you think that building more will actually solve the problem with unaffordable housing? We have been adding lanes to highways since time immemorial (aka the 50s) and the congestion is still here.
But what I have been thinking is - are freedom of movement and affordable housing compatible at all? The communist regimes had something like city citizenship - you were allowed to move to the capital only with marriage/secured job in the city. Not saying it was good, but it kept the capitals a bit emptier. In the 30 years since the Berlin wall fell in my eastern european country the only people that didn't try to move to the capital are the ones that moved to London, Paris and the big German cities to make their housing situation worse.
Now people are sometimes just priced out and they move. And if the city becomes terrible people will also move. But so far it seems that if the city is safe enough, people are willing to tolerate insane economic hardships to live there. We can't cram 8 billion people in 20-30 megapolises. Could this be solved with policies alone? Should we even solve it? Is it ok to infringe on the right to move to actually strike a balance.
Isn't that what a price actually means though? How much people want a thing compared to how easily such a thing can be acquired. That's what pricing people out of cities is, allocating the scarce, desirable resource (living in the city) to the people most willing to pay for it, and encouraging people who may find living somewhere else while pocketing the sale of their living situation more valuable to sell. Trying to solve anything else with policy is trying to set some sort of alternate goal non? Whether it be to increase density without raising prices or maintaining high prices as a store of value for residents by restricting new/alternative products.
As far as I'm concerned, as are most actual Economists, the true price of something is simply what people are willing to pay for it.
Unless people are literally unable to find any place to live, I can only offer my condolences if they're priced out of living where they simply want to live.
It seems to me that much of the housing "crisis" in the West arises from attempts to intentionally distort the dynamics of a free market. It might be done with noble aims, or naked NIMBYism, but barring the arrival of effective post-scarcity, we simply can't just give everyone their ideal mansion in the middle of the hottest part of the city.
(This coming from a guy who's girlfriend wants to buy a house in London. My bank account already groans under that demand, but I hold no illusions regarding whether we deserve such accomodation.)
But a place is more than economic abstraction. A working class Londoner that has rented in London since his grand grand father died at Passchendaele for me has more right to live in London compared to the son of an African dictator. It matters how long you have been in a place for me.
You are talking about cultural and family roots. "Rootless cosmopolitans" have thoroughly destroyed such concepts. At least in practice.
I don't really care to get into the bigger picture for everyone here, but the opposite is true for me. If I want to stay near my family, where it's lived for generations yet, near my siblings, my mother, my aunt, my grandmother, I effectively can't pay the rent for anything beyond a shoebox. If we built more and rented those places out or sold them on the market, it might be cheap enough for me to live here yet. The issue isn't the 'rootless cosmopolitans', it's fifty-something people and up with their own houses who hate any new housing getting built that might yet drive me away.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The dominant ideology in cities denies any such connection though. A nativist might be able to pull it off, but you can't have atomized global cities without utterly disenfranchising the locals in the medium term.
Nativism applied to an ancient city founded by colonizers absent a pre-existing settlement and who has rights to it can be a fun problem though.
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