|
TheImmigrant posted:How do you suggest this happen? Seems like it would require government to dictate where people may and may not live. Are you comfortable with requiring government analysis of your class before being allowed to live in a certain neighborhood/city/state? I certainly am not. Well, one possibility is the affordable housing provision for new construction that's being tried out in NYC (and has been tested in Amsterdam if I am not mistaken).
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
The average middle class guys live in suburbs, not cities. There are economic reasons involved. You're mixing poor with yuppies not middle class people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Well, one possibility is the affordable housing provision for new construction that's being tried out in NYC (and has been tested in Amsterdam if I am not mistaken). That is enticement. What was suggested is coercion. I'm all in favor of affordable housing integrated in high-cost neighborhoods, but completely opposed to telling people where they may or may not live.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The average middle class guys live in suburbs, not cities. There are economic reasons involved. You're mixing poor with yuppies not middle class people. What's the difference between 'average middle class' and 'yuppies?'
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:That is enticement. What was suggested is coercion. I'm all in favor of affordable housing integrated in high-cost neighborhoods, but completely opposed to telling people where they may or may not live. We are talking about re-ordering society, so I don't see why enticement or coercion would be dismissed out of hand. My concern would be handling the backlash and preventing white flight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:52
|
|
Panzeh posted:The average middle class guys live in suburbs, not cities. There are economic reasons involved. You're mixing poor with yuppies not middle class people. Phenomenon varies by locality, but yeah. Certainly in the US. Less the case in, say, Paris. Yuppies are people with a starter kit for being firmly in the middle class.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:This was tried with busing, whites reconfigured society to escape it. If you try to force them with more drastic means, they'll commit acts of terrorism. Busing mainly effected the working poor who still lived in cities. The middle class had already left for the suburbs by the late sixties.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Phenomenon varies by locality, but yeah. Certainly in the US. Less the case in, say, Paris. Paris is possibly even more segregated than most US cities. Arabs and Africans are stored in awful HLMs in the banlieues far from central Paris, with a very few high-minority neighborhoods inside the city like the 18th Arrondissement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Hold on though, you're still giving things up no matter what. If someone is getting mad because they're being asked to spend money on the homeless, or has apoplexy at the very thought that sexism and racism might still be a factor, why are they going to suddenly fork over money or change how they behave because the guy doing it is wearing a suit? This is WhatIAmTalkingAboutInThePostYouQuoted.txt. Effectronica posted:For that matter, people that are highly engaged with the system are unlikely to try and change it, either. You didn't see the Rockefellers rushing down to join the Freedom Riders. It's the people who are engaged with the system and are persuaded to help who are going to change it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:We are talking about re-ordering society, so I don't see why enticement or coercion would be dismissed out of hand. My concern would be handling the backlash and preventing white flight. It worked great in Germany, public sector used to own 4 million apartments and rented them out to low income people at reduced cost. White flight wasn't a problem because the city owned so few apartments per location that it didn't create problems. Yeah, people still bitched about Gypsies leaving their trash everywhere, but that's just the way of the noble European people. For the most part things were fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:It worked great in Germany, public sector used to own 4 million apartments and rented them out to low income people at reduced cost. White flight wasn't a problem because the city owned so few apartments per location that it didn't create problems. Yeah, people still bitched about Gypsies leaving their trash everywhere, but that's just the way of the noble European people. For the most part things were fine. I don't see any coercion there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I don't see any coercion there. There wasn't any. And the program was abandoned for reasons completely unrelated to its success. I would really like to see how this would play out in US suburbs though. I assume people won't flee because a single poor person moved into their neighborhood?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Social Security. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qoAhovyAPs My understanding is that with more and more older people getting hosed by the fact that they let society devolve into a class system, there will be a growing energy to end the suffering and abuse due to their lack of ability to maintain their current standard of living. Money will funnel into that system, and as it grows, we simply need to continue to expand it. After the old people are taken care of, then we take care of the lower class. By the time thats done, there will be enough money redistributed into the consumer market that all should be well. That plus the "return" of free speech, free market, and an end to propaganda and false advertisement. Also classcoins.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:There wasn't any. And the program was abandoned for reasons completely unrelated to its success. Bedroom-community suburbs (most of them) in the US are doomed. The trend is toward gentrification of core urban areas. Gentrification is not without problems, but it is an improvement on low-density urban sprawl. The big issue will be how to prevent the ghettoization and decay of once-affluent suburbs. Whereas inner cities typically have solid, durable housing stock, suburban McMansions tend to be shoddily-built affairs that aren't meant to last, and have few services and little sense of community.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
I think suburbs can survive as independent towns, with relaxed zoning laws and mixed use re-purposing of all those McMansions. They may have shoddy workmanship, but they're usable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Bedroom-community suburbs (most of them) in the US are doomed. The trend is toward gentrification of core urban areas. Gentrification is not without problems, but it is an improvement on low-density urban sprawl. The big issue will be how to prevent the ghettoization and decay of once-affluent suburbs. Whereas inner cities typically have solid, durable housing stock, suburban McMansions tend to be shoddily-built affairs that aren't meant to last, and have few services and little sense of community. Form a WPA 2.0, employ people in these suburbs to knock down the shittiest houses and build space for local businesses, schools, religious centres, and artists. Teach people how to fix up a house without dangerous structural problems. This is (without the WPA part) kind of happening already in parts of Detroit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:48
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Paris is possibly even more segregated than most US cities. Arabs and Africans are stored in awful HLMs in the banlieues far from central Paris, with a very few high-minority neighborhoods inside the city like the 18th Arrondissement. Yep. Exactly my point. The minorities get shoved to the burbs, the middle class is in the middle.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I've got millions of dollars from it that I'm using to bribe people into pretending they're not sexist. If that isn't doing good in the world I don't know what is!! Actually, just use your millions to pay ten people to work full-time doing whatever it was you thought was activism before. Effectronica posted:Hold on though, you're still giving things up no matter what. If someone is getting mad because they're being asked to spend money on the homeless, or has apoplexy at the very thought that sexism and racism might still be a factor, why are they going to suddenly fork over money or change how they behave because the guy doing it is wearing a suit? For that matter, people that are highly engaged with the system are unlikely to try and change it, either. You didn't see the Rockefellers rushing down to join the Freedom Riders. If you actually think something is worth doing, you can try to figure out how to do it yourself and then you get around the problem of convincing some selfish* rear end in a top hat to donate a penny to a probably-very-worthy cause. You don't have to convince another person with money to use it if you're the person who has money. * If you're lucky enough to be capable of receiving a college education and you have no dependents that you didn't create, then it's pretty selfish to spend your time doing anything other than figuring out how to make money to allow others to spend their time on those problems you consider important. Why are you arguing on an Internet forum instead of enrolling in an engineering program / starting a business / self-publishing werewolf porn books / etc. right now? This is how you fix your class system - nothing changes if you don't do anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:32
|
|
EB Nulshit posted:Actually, just use your millions to pay ten people to work full-time doing whatever it was you thought was activism before. Actually, I think I'll be spending time figuring out a machine that you can hook into your circulatory system to avoid death by sleep deprivation, building one and then hooking you up to it, a good couple IVs, a catheter, and then putting you to work 24/7.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
I would hook myself up to such a machine willingly, tbh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 00:10 |
|
wateroverfire posted:This is WhatIAmTalkingAboutInThePostYouQuoted.txt. Oh, hey, I missed this one. Okay, see, the problem is that you're presenting something that is nebulous enough for you to pretend isn't inconsistent, but actually is. Either people don't want to do the right thing because it disadvantages them, or they're put off by the fact that respectable people aren't calling for it, but both can't be true. I guess you're going with number two, which is that if people just dressed nicely and were fawning in their politeness, cash would start flowing in. Unfortunately, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that asking really nicely doesn't stop people from being racist or sexist and opposing remedies to these problems, and there's even more evidence to suggest that people aren't stupid, and can recognize when they're being asked to screw themselves for other people. Basically, option A is more likely to be correct. Even if that weren't the case, though, and it really was possible to sucker people into voting in a revolutionary vanguard party just by putting on a suit and talking like a corporate consultant, there's still the ethical considerations of lying and cheating people. Not that you'll consider such things as important, mind. But that being said, you seem to think that your second sentence contradicts what I wrote. Indeed, it supports it. After all, if people engaged with the system are the only ones who can change it (and let's leave aside the basic question of whether the civil rights movement amounted solely to talking LBJ into waving a magic wand because that's likely to be the sort of conversation that genuinely, for-real, pisses me off) and the situation needs changing, obviously it's because they don't get involved or believe change is needed all on their lonesome!
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 04:05
|
|