|
OOCC is a life where one works 70 hours, high stress, but has more poo poo and more income a "better life" than one where one works closer to family, with more free time, and more certainty / stability with less poo poo? The metrics only tell the story of what they measure. Models however good the data are never the full reality and they are limited. Disregarding this is a failure to understand what they are and thier limitations. It's also a failure of empathy and humanity.
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
DrNutt posted:It's a band aid that needs ripping off at some point because suburban sprawl isn't sustainable. If it had happened back then at least it might have made a measurable difference with regard to climate change. Suburban sprawl is perfectly sustainable in the United States. The vast majority of the U.S. is empty and even denser urban areas in the U.S. are more suburban than European cities. It is just not an efficient or ideal way to grow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Suburban sprawl is perfectly sustainable in the United States. The vast majority of the U.S. is empty and even denser urban areas in the U.S. are more suburban than European cities. No it isn't. The places people mostly want to live are also places that have good farm land. A LOT of farmland is being lost. Lush, green laws also eat a LOT of water. That doesn't matter in places that are already wet but, well, look at California. During a historic drought that hosed up everything people were against water limits because I NEED MY PERFECT GREEN LAWN. A lot of the u.s. that is empty is empty for a reason. Suburbia is an abomination. We as a society need to discard the idea that everybody has to live in a cute little mcmansion in the suburbs or they're a failure of a person. Suburbia might have made sense when there were a couple billion fewer people but now? gently caress no. Treating home ownership as a mixture of a status symbol and right of passage is horrible. Every acre of lush, green grass is an acre of food not being produced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:No it isn't. The places people mostly want to live are also places that have good farm land. A LOT of farmland is being lost. Lush, green laws also eat a LOT of water. That doesn't matter in places that are already wet but, well, look at California. During a historic drought that hosed up everything people were against water limits because I NEED MY PERFECT GREEN LAWN. The U.S. is in no danger of running out of farmland. We literally subsidize millions of acres of farmland that are unnecessary for "national security" and jobs reasons. If that was true, then everyone in Europe would have starved to death before 1920. You might not like suburban growth, but it is perfectly sustainable for the next several hundred years in the United States. You're just working backwards from your preferences. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Sep 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The U.S. is in no danger of running out of farmland. We literally subsidize millions of acres of farmland that are unnecessary for "national security" and jobs reasons. Yeah I guess if you just ignore all the other reasons suburbs are unsustainable, then they're sustainable. Climate change will render suburbs obsolete long before lack of farmland ever would.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Yeah I guess if you just ignore all the other reasons suburbs are unsustainable, then they're sustainable. Climate change will render suburbs obsolete long before lack of farmland ever would. Climate change is not going to render suburbs obsolete. Urban areas in Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and Louisiana are the population centers most affected by climate change. You will be perfectly able to build a suburban neighborhood almost anywhere in the United States long after Miami is underwater. Something being undesirable or inefficient doesn't make it disappear. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Sep 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
The bigger issue with suburban sprawl is that it's expensive as poo poo to maintain and eventually replace the infrastructure. Strong Towns talks a lot about this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
Cicero posted:The bigger issue with suburban sprawl is that it's expensive as poo poo to maintain and eventually replace the infrastructure. Strong Towns talks a lot about this. And when gas is 20 dollars a gallon they might as well be underwater. No one is going to want to spend the kinda of money to convert these subdivisions into walkable neighborhoods with much denser housing when they can just be abandoned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:OOCC is a life where one works 70 hours, high stress, but has more poo poo and more income a "better life" than one where one works closer to family, with more free time, and more certainty / stability with less poo poo? The metrics only tell the story of what they measure. Models however good the data are never the full reality and they are limited. Disregarding this is a failure to understand what they are and thier limitations. It's also a failure of empathy and humanity. If data is just fake news mumbo jumbo why is the real thing the thing you say? You have humanity and empathy so we just gotta trust you that everything was better when your dad was a kid?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:No it isn't. The places people mostly want to live are also places that have good farm land. A LOT of farmland is being lost. Lush, green laws also eat a LOT of water. That doesn't matter in places that are already wet but, well, look at California. During a historic drought that hosed up everything people were against water limits because I NEED MY PERFECT GREEN LAWN. Last I check Americans did not want for food production, and did not seem very interested in growing even more extra food to give to people in country that need it. It is probably for the best if much land that could be good for farm isn't particularly used now. I feel you might be significantly overstating suburb as horrible too. It is clear that silly places like Arizona houses that have fake lake and grass in middle of literallly desert aren't long term working. But there aren't so much American living there. Biggest swathe of suburbs in country is northeast axis from Boston to Washington and that holds 1/6 of country population in 500 km by 200 km. That is roughly the land size of Portugal, but with 5 times the people! Yet the people there still have big American houses on big lots once they are not right inside city. If you have big house on whole acre of land, and it is for a family of four, and then everyone of your neighbor is that, you will fit over 2500 people into each square mile, if instead house is just on half-acre, such suburb development can fit 5000 people in a square mile. It is no apartment building living, but if you made the whole world population live like those it would fit in small fraction of US. Even current American has 81% of the population lives on less than 3% of the land in whole country, despite so much of sprawling. In end of things, American development does not look much different from European development beyond the surface. It is made deceptive by how in Europe, you run too quickly into other town or city suburb from all the extra history. But you can put strange enclave of development 100 kilometer from American city and still have another 100 kilometer to go to next one, in most of place. There is simply more empty space to notice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
America doesn't want for food production right now but urban sprawl is slowly creeping into increasing farm land while facing an increasing water crisis. We're draining and polluting aquifers like mad while treating them like an infinite water source. California is literally sinking because of it. We also spend our farm land stupidly. Beef is insanely inefficient but a lot of our corn crop goes to factory farming cows for all the cheeseburgers we gobble down. It's a death of a thousand cuts happening in real time. Things are fine right now but this can't keep going.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The U.S. is in no danger of running out of farmland. We literally subsidize millions of acres of farmland that are unnecessary for "national security" and jobs reasons. American farmland might be sustainable under current conditions if climate change weren't happening, but it is, and its effects on the land are often exacerbated by farming practices that maximize short-term output at the expense of both the surrounding environment and the health of the land being farmed. Better farming practices can mitigate this to some degree, but the majority of currently-existing American farmland will be at risk of desertification by the end of the century (if not sooner) unless current climate change trends are halted, and there isn't enough unused arable soil in the parts of the country that aren't also at risk to make up the difference in lost farmland. Likewise, American suburbia as it exists is only workable due to the fact that nearly every household owns at least one car, and individual car ownership itself isn't sustainable even in the short term as long as we're burning fossil fuels in those cars. Mitigating the effects of suburban living on climate change isn't merely a matter of personal preference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 02:39
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If data is just fake news mumbo jumbo why is the real thing the thing you say? You have humanity and empathy so we just gotta trust you that everything was better when your dad was a kid? No, idiot. Metrics measure what they measure, and they tell us about that, no more no less. And right now some of the econometrics, some Leon was referencing, ain't adequate. See all of Leon's assertions are factually correct. But they aren't addressing issues people see in thier lives and in the lives of those around them. This is a problem many economists are wrestling with right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:No, idiot. Metrics measure what they measure, and they tell us about that, no more no less. So where do you get your information? From your heart? If my heart says different do you just have a better heart? Why not just accept that the narrative you accepted of a better past is not reflective of reality and that the reason we need to fix poverty is because it could be fixed in the future, not because it was fixed in the past?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 03:49
|
|
|
No one gets it from evidence and observations. More than one way to skin (model) a cat. When the metrics one is using don't seem to address or provide solutions to the problems one has, it's time for new metrics. Which again is something that is going on in economics right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:No one gets it from evidence and observations. More than one way to skin (model) a cat. When the metrics one is using don't seem to address or provide solutions to the problems one has, it's time for new metrics. Which again is something that is going on in economics right now. Do they just have to keep making new metrics until it gives the answer you want or would it be possible you could see data that contradicts your gut feeling on how things are and have your mind change?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 05:33
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:No one gets it from evidence and observations. More than one way to skin (model) a cat. When the metrics one is using don't seem to address or provide solutions to the problems one has, it's time for new metrics. Which again is something that is going on in economics right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 05:36
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:No it isn't. The places people mostly want to live are also places that have good farm land. A LOT of farmland is being lost. Lush, green laws also eat a LOT of water. That doesn't matter in places that are already wet but, well, look at California. During a historic drought that hosed up everything people were against water limits because I NEED MY PERFECT GREEN LAWN. Lol. We pay billions of dollars a year in subsidies to farmers to keep production levels in check so they don't crash the market completely with overproduction. I hate sprawl, probably vastly more than you do given that I've gotten to watch it devour the rural area I grew up in to make a McMansion infested bedroom community for the upper middle class and drive my family off our land, but it's not using any notable percentage of arable farmland. The problems with suburbs are many and well documented, but causing a shortage of farming land isn't on the list. nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:Last I check Americans did not want for food production, and did not seem very interested in growing even more extra food to give to people in country that need it. It is probably for the best if much land that could be good for farm isn't particularly used now. It's a logistics issue. If all available farmland produced at maximum capacity, it would both swamp out the available transportation and storage to get it to market, and crash prices to the point of being unprofitable in the extreme.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 05:38
|
|
|
I wonder if massive wealth disparity affects Leon's much touted "average per capita income" Nah, I'm sure that's gotta better and that's why we're all so rich now Jethro posted:Right, but sometimes, like with perception of crime versus reality of crime, the only problem is that lots of people feel and believe garbage. Is that the case with our current economic feeling of malaise? I don't think so, but there isn't a smoking gun metric to say "here is why we're all hosed." Unemployment (including U6) is super low, but labor participation is down a bit The opioid crisis is big, but maybe we've just made meth hard enough to make to drive people away from that. GDP and the Dow continue to go up, but those only matter to the 1%, except when they go down and the 99% are screwed. But I guess that's what you're saying. Something is hosed up, no one's sure exactly what, but there's enough smoke it's probably not the perpetual "the past was better" kvetching, it's an actual fire. 
Unoriginal Name fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Sep 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 05:39
|
|
|
Jethro posted:. But I guess that's what you're saying. Something is hosed up, no one's sure exactly what, but there's enough smoke it's probably not the perpetual "the past was better" kvetching, it's an actual fire. Yep and the big one is the decoupling of productivity and real wages.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 06:00
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Yep and the big one is the decoupling of productivity and real wages. B-b-b-but solving that would mean actually having to put in work and slightly inconveniencing the super rich 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 11:21
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Nah, I'm sure that's gotta better and that's why we're all so rich now If you make 30,000 a year you are one of the top 1% richest humans alive (or ever alive). If you make minimum wage you are in the top like 7% . There is nothing wrong with the idea that someone can be extremely rich compared to the past or compared to most people on earth but still very poor compared to the standards of their community. The guy in the south who is too poor to run air conditioning as much as temperatures would want and has a leaky roof can be poor and worth helping even if he's objectively much richer than people in the past or people in other countries. It's okay to think we have problems in society worth solving without thinking someone is the poorest person to ever live anywhere. First world wealth is a reason we SHOULD help people, not an excuse not to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 12:54
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:I wonder if massive wealth disparity affects Leon's much touted "average per capita income" Real Median Household income is up to record levels as well. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N It crashed from 2009 to 2012, had small dips in 1990 and 2001, and a large dip in the late 1970's, but has risen every other year since the 1960's. Nobody is saying that "everything is fine." Just that screaming "Everything used to be better!" when it was objectively not is not productive to helping anyone. Keeping accurate information from yourself doesn't help you or anyone else. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Sep 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 13:57
|
|
|
Inequality is worse now than ever before and it's also more obvious to everyone on the planet than ever before, so even if you could pick something to say 'really, it used to be a lot worse!', that's not really relevant to how people now are going to perceive things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 14:32
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Inequality is worse now than ever before and it's also more obvious to everyone on the planet than ever before, so even if you could pick something to say 'really, it used to be a lot worse!', that's not really relevant to how people now are going to perceive things. That's fine. And inequality is one of the things that actually is worse! You should say that. Just don't try to find facts by working backwards from your preferences. That's how you get people claiming that climate change will destroy suburbs in 20 years or that the United States is rapidly heading towards mass starvation because rural Wyoming farms are all being converted into McMansions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 14:38
|
|
|
I can't believe I have to say this, but it's possible to for someone to make more money than people in the past and be objectively worse off, ie unable to afford food and shelter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 14:41
|
|
|
Maera Sior posted:I can't believe I have to say this, but it's possible to for someone to make more money than people in the past and be objectively worse off, ie unable to afford food and shelter. It has literally been posted dozens of times in this thread that this is not the case currently. Food has plummeted in price and has gone from 19% of a household's income in 1960 to 5.5% of the average household's income. Overall, housing has risen less than the combined gain in wages and decline in cost of other staples. Low-income renters in coastal urban areas are the one group that is overall worse today when it comes to income to housing costs ratio (and they hit the bottom in 2010 and have been improving since). This group is still better off overall than they were in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Sep 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It has literally been posted dozens of times in this thread that this is not the case currently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 15:03
|
|
|
Maera Sior posted:Actually, no, people keep on talking about disposable income (while not using the same definition), per capita income, median income, and so on. The range of experiences has not been discussed, never mind buying power beyond the last half-century in the US. It actually has. Multiple times. And buying power is just a measure of inflation on different goods... which was literally posted last page.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 15:09
|
|
|
Maera Sior posted:I can't believe I have to say this, but it's possible to for someone to make more money than people in the past and be objectively worse off, ie unable to afford food and shelter. It's also possible for someone to be objectively better off and still have real issues. If your dad lived in a tar paper shack with no running water and you live in a trailer with a cracked toilet that leaks water all day you are richer than your dad objectively but that doesn't mean you wouldn't like your toilet to function better or that having a nonfunctional toilet is fine because your dad didn't have one (and when your kid lives in a house with a working toilet he's not gonna feel like the richest guy in town because he owns a toilet when you didn't). If you can afford 75% of the insulin your kid needs you are objectively better off than the guy in the past or the guy in a third world country that simply can not access any insulin but you aren't going to feel rich as your son slowly goes blind and has his kidneys fail from poorly managed diabetes. People in the first world are very rich, and richer than they have ever been. That does not imply anything about not needing to help people. Poverty is relative to the community standards of the time and place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
Inch high monograss lawns are stupid but eliminating all of them overnight would save about 2% of the water usage. The wholly 47% of California water usage is in the cattle production line. "the grain and alfalfa grown in California as food for cows, sheep, horses, pigs and goats consume at least 10 million acre-feet of water each year — three times what the almond industry uses. That’s just the water delivered to the crops via dams, canals and pumps. Another 10 million acre-feet of precipitation is estimated to be consumed by the plants directly. The animals themselves drink about 200,000 acre-feet more per year." https://www.comstocksmag.com/web-only/livestock-production-drinks-water-drought-stricken-california And if we really got strained and needed to make the most of our farmland, we could start by converting farms that are just soybeans for export and not-for-human-consumption corn. Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Sep 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
But also gently caress your stupid lawns and golf courses. Build more public housing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
Welcome to the #resistance, uhhh... *checks notes* Steak-Umms? https://twitter.com/steak_umm/status/1045038141978169344 https://twitter.com/steak_umm/status/1045040154291949568 https://twitter.com/steak_umm/status/1045041907561304064 https://twitter.com/steak_umm/status/1045043102862503941 Shrecknet fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Sep 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Make my ends meat
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
i feel so #blessed for this thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
Actually steakums, statistics show that life has never been better, millenials are just big ol' complainers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
Elizabeth Mills posted:Welcome to the #resistance, uhhh... *checks notes* Steak-Umms? Get your bag of wake-umms at stores now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
lmbo i'm the guy who hacked a twitter account to say some important things instead of scamming people out of bitcoins.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
I think the problem is not so much that things are worse as that the shortcomings (i.e. poverty, lack of medical care, lack of social mobility, low-quality public education) have become increasingly inexcusable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 06:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
steak-uums is not a brand it is a twitter original
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 07:08
|
|
