Posted mainly for the image. We're at the dangerous 'unemployed lawyer' phase :ph34r:
QuoteBlame Rich, Overeducated Elites as Our Society Frays
By Peter Turchin Nov 20, 2013 2:01 PM GMT
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fimage%2Fiedj9axTRNMI.jpg&hash=8178d69a72f500cdcda38043f5c608e7895a3a88)
Complex human societies, including our own, are fragile. They are held together by an invisible web of mutual trust and social cooperation. This web can fray easily, resulting in a wave of political instability, internal conflict and, sometimes, outright social collapse.
Analysis of past societies shows that these destabilizing historical trends develop slowly, last many decades, and are slow to subside. The Roman Empire, Imperial China and medieval and early-modern England and France suffered such cycles, to cite a few examples. In the U.S., the last long period of instability began in the 1850s and lasted through the Gilded Age and the "violent 1910s."
We now see the same forces in the contemporary U.S. Of about 30 detailed indicators I developed for tracing these historical cycles (reflecting popular well-being, inequality, social cooperation and its inverse, polarization and conflict), almost all have been moving in the wrong direction in the last three decades.
The roots of the current American predicament go back to the 1970s, when wages of workers stopped keeping pace with their productivity. The two curves diverged: Productivity continued to rise, as wages stagnated. The "great divergence" between the fortunes of the top 1 percent and the other 99 percent is much discussed, yet its implications for long-term political disorder are underappreciated. Battles such as the recent government shutdown are only one manifestation of what is likely to be a decade-long period.
Wealth Disrupts
How does growing economic inequality lead to political instability? Partly this correlation reflects a direct, causal connection. High inequality is corrosive of social cooperation and willingness to compromise, and waning cooperation means more discord and political infighting. Perhaps more important, economic inequality is also a symptom of deeper social changes, which have gone largely unnoticed.
Increasing inequality leads not only to the growth of top fortunes; it also results in greater numbers of wealth-holders. The "1 percent" becomes "2 percent." Or even more. There are many more millionaires, multimillionaires and billionaires today compared with 30 years ago, as a proportion of the population.
Let's take households worth $10 million or more (in 1995 dollars). According to the research by economist Edward Wolff, from 1983 to 2010 the number of American households worth at least $10 million grew to 350,000 from 66,000.
Rich Americans tend to be more politically active than the rest of the population. They support candidates who share their views and values; they sometimes run for office themselves. Yet the supply of political offices has stayed flat (there are still 100 senators and 435 representatives -- the same numbers as in 1970). In technical terms, such a situation is known as "elite overproduction."
A related sign is the overproduction of law degrees. From the mid-1970s to 2011, according to the American Bar Association, the number of lawyers tripled to 1.2 million from 400,000. Meanwhile, the population grew by only 45 percent. Economic Modeling Specialists Intl. recently estimated that twice as many law graduates pass the bar exam as there are job openings for them. In other words, every year U.S. law schools churn out about 25,000 "surplus" lawyers, many of whom are in debt. A large number of them go to law school with an ambition to enter politics someday.
Don't hate them for it -- they are at the mercy of the same large, impersonal social forces as the rest of us. The number of newly minted MBAs has expanded even faster than law degrees.
Lawyer Glut
So why is it important that we have a multitude of desperate law school graduates and many more politically ambitious rich than 30 years ago?
Past waves of political instability, such as the civil wars of the late Roman Republic, the French Wars of Religion and the American Civil War, had many interlinking causes and circumstances unique to their age. But a common thread in the eras we studied was elite overproduction. The other two important elements were stagnating and declining living standards of the general population and increasing indebtedness of the state.
Elite overproduction generally leads to more intra-elite competition that gradually undermines the spirit of cooperation, which is followed by ideological polarization and fragmentation of the political class. This happens because the more contenders there are, the more of them end up on the losing side. A large class of disgruntled elite-wannabes, often well-educated and highly capable, has been denied access to elite positions. Consider the Antebellum U.S.
From 1830 to 1860 the number of New Yorkers and Bostonians with fortunes of at least $100,000 (they would be multimillionaires today) increased fivefold. Many of these new rich (or their sons) had political ambitions. But the government, especially the presidency, Senate and Supreme Court, was dominated by the Southern elites. As many Northerners became frustrated and embittered, the Southerners also felt the pressure and became increasingly defensive.
Slavery had been a divisive force since the inception of the Republic. For 70 years, the elites always managed to find a compromise. During the 1850s, however, intra-elite cooperation unraveled. On several occasions Congress was on the brink of a general shootout. (As one senator noted about his "armed and dangerous" colleagues, "The only persons who do not have a revolver and a knife are those who have two revolvers.")
Although slavery was the overriding issue dividing the elites, they also differed over tariffs and cultural attitudes toward immigration. In the decade before the Civil War these centrifugal forces tore apart the two-party system. The Democratic Party split into its Northern and Southern factions, while the Whigs simply disintegrated.
Civil War
Slavery was an absolute evil and was going to be abolished, sooner or later. But its abolition didn't need to result in hundreds of thousands of Civil War deaths. (About the same time, Russia banned serfdom without a civil war. The Russian Revolution came 50 years later -- when Russia was hit by its own elite overproduction.)
This U.S. historical cycle didn't end with the cataclysm of the Civil War. Huge fortunes were made during the Gilded Age and economic inequality reached a peak, unrivaled even today. The number of lawyers tripled from 1870 to 1910. And the U.S. saw another wave of political violence, spiking in 1919–21.
This was the worst period of political instability in U.S. history, barring the Civil War. Class warfare took the form of violent labor strikes. At one point 10,000 miners armed with rifles were battling against thousands of company troops and sheriff deputies. There was a wave of terrorism by labor radicals and anarchists. Race issues intertwined with class, leading to the Red Summer of 1919, with 26 major riots and more than 1,000 casualties. It was much, much worse than the 1960s and early 1970s, a period many of us remember well because we lived through it (see chart).
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fimage%2FiTEsHgdRSawQ.jpg&hash=981e8469572812b73f05e00f9b235bc057bfb20f)
The spike in violence then was relatively mild, perhaps because it fell in an era known as the Great Compression. Economic inequality had started to decline after 1930. The difference between the incomes of the rich and poor was compressed. Elite overproduction was reversed: The number of millionaires (in 1900 dollars, $1 million equals almost $30 million today) declined in absolute terms (while population continued to grow).
The Great Compression unraveled in the late 1970s, when workers' wages stagnated. We are living in a new cycle of growing inequality, elite overproduction, ideological polarization and political fragmentation.
Today we are seeing not just a bitter struggle between the Democrats and Republicans; the Republican Party itself is fragmenting. Now, as during the 1850s, many of the political elites disdain compromise and are instead inclined to fight to the bitter end. Thankfully our senators haven't armed themselves with revolvers and Bowie knives.
Preventing Catastrophe
We should expect many years of political turmoil, peaking in the 2020s. And because complex societies are much more fragile than we assume, there is a chance of a catastrophic failure of some kind, with a default on U.S. government bonds being among the less frightening possibilities.
Of course, catastrophe isn't preordained. History shows a real indeterminacy about the routes societies follow out of instability waves. Some end with social revolutions, in which the rich and powerful are overthrown. This is what happened to the Southern elites -- decimated in the Civil War, beggared when their main assets, slaves, were freed, and excluded from national power in Washington. In other cases, recurrent civil wars result in a permanent fragmentation of the state and society.
In some cases, however, societies come through relatively unscathed, by adopting a series of judicious reforms, initiated by elites who understand that we are all in this boat together. This is precisely what happened in the U.S. in the early 20th century. Several legislative initiatives, which created the framework for cooperative relations among labor, employers and the government, were introduced during the Progressive Era and cemented in the New Deal.
By introducing the Great Compression, these policies benefited society as a whole. They enabled it to overcome the challenges of the Great Depression, World War II and the Cold War, and to achieve the postwar prosperity. Whether we can follow such a trajectory again is largely up to our political and economic leaders. It will depend on all of us, rich and poor alike, recognizing the real dangers and acting to address them.
(Peter Turchin is vice president of the Evolution Institute and professor of biology and anthropology at the University of Connecticut. He is the author of "War and Peace and War: The Rise and Fall of Empires." His blog, Social Evolution Forum, and a February 2013 article in Aeon magazine, "Return of the Oppressed," discuss many issues addressed in this article.)
To contact the writer of this article: Peter Turchin at [email protected].
Interesting article Shelf :)
We must hunt Ide down before the revolution. It's him or us, folks.
I'll look in the Best Buy DVD section.
I think I'll side with Ide.
Maybe we'll have a great proletarian revolution to replace the upper class with elements of the current middle class. :)
Quote from: Malthus on November 21, 2013, 05:34:59 PM
We must hunt Ide down before the revolution. It's him or us, folks.
Or you could just retire and give him your job. You've got enough money already.
Eh, some discord would be worth it if we got a decent welfare state out of it -- that way the wannabe elites who didn't make it would at least get the consolation prize of not starving. I'm just not sure how we'd get there from here.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2013, 06:32:58 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 21, 2013, 06:15:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2013, 05:51:17 PM
I think I'll side with Ide.
How unfortunate. <_<
Why? His side wins these things. I'll purge him later.
:hmm: That's a damn good approach. I'll side with both of you.
11B4 doesn't have a side, so he can't win. Of course, he can still lose.
My Brownshits will deal with you.
Wait a minute, elite *fratricide*? I don't think that's what Ide's been calling for. :hmm:
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 21, 2013, 06:49:34 PM
My Brownshits will deal with you.
I fear it will require more then dirty laundry.
Poop.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2013, 06:45:34 PM
11B4 doesn't have a side, so he can't win. Of course, he can still lose.
I already stated my side. :P
See, lynchings have tapered off. That's good.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 21, 2013, 05:39:56 PM
I'll look in the Best Buy DVD section.
Too expensive. You're thinking like an Elite.
Anyway, while I applaud the dropping of the lawyer overproduction factoid, it's clear the author has no idea what's actually happening in legal education, and the idea that I (or most J.D.s) may be considered "elite" or ever had serious aspirations to the level of, say, a Malthus or garbon, is overstated. We simply wanted to join the middle class--or rejoin it, in my case, given my parents' standard of living.
DID NOT WORK OUT.
It's a mild but crucial mischaracterization. And this is the issue for many Millennials--not unreasonable greed on our parts as individuals, but a society that has no place for us at any level but the bottom (if that), alienated even from each other by our instability, economic languish, and the loss of confidence and mental health that comes from taking stock of our lives and failing to reconcile that inventory with our parents', school's, and society's empty promises.
It doesn't help that we lie to each other fucking constantly about how good we're doing in a socially pathological case of "fake it till you make it," and value the badges of middle class prosperity as much our parents did, even though for the most part we'll never have them.
I think you're being a bit disingenuous Log. People generally don't go to law school with the aspiration of making median salary.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2013, 08:45:24 PM
I think you're being a bit disingenuous Log. People generally don't go to law school with the aspiration of making median salary.
Median salary isn't the same as being middle class. I think most people go to law school with the aspiration of being upper middle class.
And there's a significant minority who go without even expecting that. They want, desperately, to work in criminal law or family law and they pay's shit.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 21, 2013, 07:20:46 PM
I already stated my side. :P
Between protecting the Elites and the inevitable Post-Antibioticalypse, you better have your riot and repel gear strapped on tight.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imfdb.org%2Fimages%2Fthumb%2F7%2F72%2FCPOTA_16.jpg%2F800px-CPOTA_16.jpg&hash=6ecf9b7b8ed8172d289b97d3944d3378f632ce07)
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2013, 09:20:29 PM
Median salary isn't the same as being middle class. I think most people go to law school with the aspiration of being upper middle class.
It's a good approximation. I agree about upper middle class, which incidentally is around where elite status begins. And it's certainly not the first rung on the middle class ladder that the Log was intimating.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2013, 09:25:03 PM
the Log
He's Log! He's Log! He's big, he's heavy, he's wood! He's Log! He's Log! He's better than bad; he's good!
Somebody's been sampling the malbec again tonight.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 21, 2013, 09:23:42 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 21, 2013, 07:20:46 PM
I already stated my side. :P
Between protecting the Elites and the inevitable Post-Antibioticalypse, you better have your riot and repel gear strapped on tight.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imfdb.org%2Fimages%2Fthumb%2F7%2F72%2FCPOTA_16.jpg%2F800px-CPOTA_16.jpg&hash=6ecf9b7b8ed8172d289b97d3944d3378f632ce07)
Remember,
"Front Toward Enemy"
Quote from: PDH on November 21, 2013, 09:27:12 PM
Somebody's been sampling the malbec again tonight.
No, just the Ren & Stimpy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2013, 09:20:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2013, 08:45:24 PM
I think you're being a bit disingenuous Log. People generally don't go to law school with the aspiration of making median salary.
And there's a significant minority who go without even expecting that. They want, desperately, to work in criminal law [...] and they pay's shit.
:cry:
But you get to meet so many interesting people.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 21, 2013, 09:57:26 PM
But you get to meet so many interesting people.
Indeed; the $16.50/hour is nice, but the endless jail phone calls are much nicer.
Capetano's a rara avis. He had no interest in law school but had no choice but to go once Harvard accepted him. Then he asked himself the question what the fuck am I going to do with this degree.
Unless of course this is all stuff he said in Teh Back Room, in which case I'm just guessing. :ph34r:
Quote from: fhdz on November 21, 2013, 09:50:52 PM
Quote from: PDH on November 21, 2013, 09:27:12 PM
Somebody's been sampling the malbec again tonight.
No, just the Ren & Stimpy.
Fire Dogs was the peak of Ren& Stimpy sadly
Quote from: Admiral YiCapetano's a rara avis. He had no interest in law school but had no choice but to go once Harvard accepted him. Then he asked himself the question what the fuck am I going to do with this degree.
Unless of course this is all stuff he said in Teh Back Room, in which case I'm just guessing. :ph34r:
That's only half-true. I did want to be a PD from the outset; you have to line up your first summer internship at the end of your first semester of law school, and I only applied to PD offices. Then took all the criminal law courses my 2nd year and did another PD internship. Then did the criminal defense workshop/clinic and represented people in Roxbury my 3rd year (while spending the whole year applying unsuccessfully for PD jobs).
No interest in being a lawyer generally? That's fair.
Just ossum.
Who thinks lawyers matter? Not most lawyers.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 21, 2013, 09:59:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 21, 2013, 09:57:26 PM
But you get to meet so many interesting people.
Indeed; the $16.50/hour is nice, but the endless jail phone calls are much nicer.
You know what I clearly need to do? Take and pass the bar so I can expand my earning potential. Jesus Herbert Christ.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2013, 05:24:43 PM
Posted mainly for the image. We're at the dangerous 'unemployed lawyer' phase
Can we have a link to the article?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2013, 08:45:24 PM
I think you're being a bit disingenuous Log. People generally don't go to law school with the aspiration of making median salary.
I think you may have, however unintentionally, made my point with greater vigor and brevity than I ever could. USA!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 22, 2013, 01:43:03 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2013, 05:24:43 PM
Posted mainly for the image. We're at the dangerous 'unemployed lawyer' phase
Can we have a link to the article?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22Complex+human+societies%2C+including+our+own%2C+are+fragile.+They+are+held+together+by+an+invisible+web+of+mutual+trust+and+social+cooperation.+This+web+can+fray+easily%2C+resulting+in+a+wave+of+political+instability%2C+internal+conflict+and%2C+sometimes%2C+outright+social+collapse.%22 (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22Complex+human+societies%2C+including+our+own%2C+are+fragile.+They+are+held+together+by+an+invisible+web+of+mutual+trust+and+social+cooperation.+This+web+can+fray+easily%2C+resulting+in+a+wave+of+political+instability%2C+internal+conflict+and%2C+sometimes%2C+outright+social+collapse.%22)
Quote from: Ideologue on November 22, 2013, 01:50:36 AM
I think you may have, however unintentionally, made my point with greater vigor and brevity than I ever could. USA!
I hate to tell you this, Ide, but that's no great accomplishment for the rest of us. :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 21, 2013, 10:03:43 PM
Quote from: fhdz on November 21, 2013, 09:50:52 PM
Quote from: PDH on November 21, 2013, 09:27:12 PM
Somebody's been sampling the malbec again tonight.
No, just the Ren & Stimpy.
Fire Dogs was the peak of Ren& Stimpy sadly
Me and my friends have watched Fire Dogs a lot. A lot.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 22, 2013, 01:50:36 AM
I think you may have, however unintentionally, made my point with greater vigor and brevity than I ever could. USA!
I don't follow. You claimed you went to law school because you wanted to be "just middle class." I think you went to law school with the intention of being much more than "just middle class."
So, are we gonna hunt Ide down, or what? :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2013, 01:57:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 22, 2013, 01:50:36 AM
I think you may have, however unintentionally, made my point with greater vigor and brevity than I ever could. USA!
I don't follow. You claimed you went to law school because you wanted to be "just middle class." I think you went to law school with the intention of being much more than "just middle class."
Your notion that median income means a middle class lifestyle such as enjoyed by our parents is hilariously out of date. In SC, a household of two people making $42k a year (God forbid with kids) are not middle class.
I make well over the median wage, and I ain't middle class such as is, or was, routinely understood. However, if you insist that things such as owning a modest home or a car less than ten years old are badges of an upper-class income, I'll concede the point as I don't wish to engage in a purely semantic argument. :P
Nigga, you don't even have furniture.
He gives too much of his income to the movie studios.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 22, 2013, 02:38:21 PM
Your notion that median income means a middle class lifestyle such as enjoyed by our parents is hilariously out of date. In SC, a household of two people making $42k a year (God forbid with kids) are not middle class.
I make well over the median wage, and I ain't middle class such as is, or was, routinely understood. However, if you insist that things such as owning a modest home or a car less than ten years old are badges of an upper-class income, I'll concede the point as I don't wish to engage in a purely semantic argument. :P
Fair enough. However none of this refutes my main point.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 22, 2013, 02:42:39 PM
He gives too much of his income to the movie studios.
Socialism in action, he's trying to make up for all of your illegal downloads down the years. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 22, 2013, 02:42:39 PM
He gives too much of his income to the movie studios.
I made a chair out of blu rays.
Actually, totaling it all up, I think it's certainly less than $4k over the past year, including owned movies, theater tickets, Netflix account, and the occasional recourse to paid individual rental. It's also decelerating in total dollars as I run out of shit that I MUST OWN NOW,* although individual purchases tend to be more as inhibitions toward things like Criterion discs fall (surely a sign of elite status).
*Being unemployed off-and-on for months has also not helped.
I only buy Disney Dvd's.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 22, 2013, 03:02:17 PM
I only buy Disney Dvd's.
We knew that, it's a given, you're unable to find a room in any of your houses without the presence of at least 1 sub-seven year old, therefore disney ever more. :P
I'm feeling sorta lazy today. So no.
Sub-Zeven... wins!
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 22, 2013, 03:09:22 PM
I'm feeling sorta lazy today. So no.
:cool:
Similarly.
By the way I wasn't being rude, just trying to channel the fathering numerous children meme, but in a can't be arsed, largely unfunny way.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 22, 2013, 02:38:21 PM
Your notion that median income means a middle class lifestyle such as enjoyed by our parents is hilariously out of date. In SC, a household of two people making $42k a year (God forbid with kids) are not middle class.
Median household income hasn't been as low as $42,000 in the US since the early 1970s.
QuoteI make well over the median wage, and I ain't middle class such as is, or was, routinely understood.
I don't think you ever understood middle class if you think that a single male making "well over" $43,000 and change a year isn't middle class. You really need to climb down from that ivory tower.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 22, 2013, 02:39:47 PM
Nigga, you don't even have furniture.
a futon counts, kinda.... :huh:
Quote from: 11B4V on November 22, 2013, 03:29:28 PM
a futon counts, kinda.... :huh:
Only if you have a frame.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 22, 2013, 03:29:28 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 22, 2013, 02:39:47 PM
Nigga, you don't even have furniture.
a futon counts, kinda.... :huh:
lol, yeah...like Yi said, or else it's just a big dog pillow.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2013, 03:31:28 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 22, 2013, 03:29:28 PM
a futon counts, kinda.... :huh:
Only if you have a frame.
If you only have the frame it would be hard to sleep
Quote from: grumbler on November 22, 2013, 03:28:07 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 22, 2013, 02:38:21 PM
Your notion that median income means a middle class lifestyle such as enjoyed by our parents is hilariously out of date. In SC, a household of two people making $42k a year (God forbid with kids) are not middle class.
Median household income hasn't been as low as $42,000 in the US since the early 1970s.
QuoteI make well over the median wage, and I ain't middle class such as is, or was, routinely understood.
I don't think you ever understood middle class if you think that a single male making "well over" $43,000 and change a year isn't middle class. You really need to climb down from that ivory tower.
1)I was referring to South Carolina, not the U.S., which is why I said South Carolina, not the U.S. (that said, it is apparently $44.5k for 2012)
2)"median wage" is not the same thing as "median household income."*
*I did happen to make more than the median household income last year and it was great. But you need stability and year-over-year income of that nature. This year, I fell to about $30k-$35k, which is reasonably poor (and very disruptive). One should also not forget the student loan tax, to the tune of about $4800 a year, depending on various factors, but which also impacts my effort to rejoin the middle class.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 22, 2013, 08:05:37 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 22, 2013, 03:28:07 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 22, 2013, 02:38:21 PM
Your notion that median income means a middle class lifestyle such as enjoyed by our parents is hilariously out of date. In SC, a household of two people making $42k a year (God forbid with kids) are not middle class.
Median household income hasn't been as low as $42,000 in the US since the early 1970s.
QuoteI make well over the median wage, and I ain't middle class such as is, or was, routinely understood.
I don't think you ever understood middle class if you think that a single male making "well over" $43,000 and change a year isn't middle class. You really need to climb down from that ivory tower.
1)I was referring to South Carolina, not the U.S., which is why I said South Carolina, not the U.S. (that said, it is apparently $44.5k for 2012)
2)"median wage" is not the same thing as "median household income."*
*I did happen to make more than the median household income last year and it was great. But you need stability and year-over-year income of that nature. This year, I fell to about $30k-$35k, which is reasonably poor (and very disruptive). One should also not forget the student loan tax, to the tune of about $4800 a year, depending on various factors, but which also impacts my effort to rejoin the middle class.
Quiet now, Grumbler has defined you, what do You know of your own life ?
edit:sorry, I was being ungenerous, I should have said he was being his usual tool of a self, slipping in an insult at the end.
I wonder what turned him into such a wanker, other than tugging too hard on his own dick. :hmm:
BAM! Outta nowhere, it's mongers!
Quote from: Ideologue on November 22, 2013, 08:05:37 PM
1)I was referring to South Carolina, not the U.S., which is why I said South Carolina, not the U.S. (that said, it is apparently $44.5k for 2012)
"Middle class" isn't defined by state, and SC's median household income and expenses aren't notably off the national average. Your argument that "a household of two people making $42k a year (God forbid with kids) are not middle class" is mere argument by assertion. It is easily refuted by noting your own observation that the median ("middle") household income is only $2500 more than "not middle" $42k. That's an absurd conclusion; it means that there is only a handful of middle class families in SC: those making $42,001 to $46,999 per year.
Quote2)"median wage" is not the same thing as "median household income."
Duh! That's why I used two measures, as you did! :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on November 22, 2013, 08:46:43 PM
BAM! Outta nowhere, it's mongers!
He rarely passes up the chance to engage in the
ad hom argument, does he? :hmm:
I do not accept your assertion that "median" means "middle class." Middle class is a term of art, g. It involves a certain lifestyle, and just because the dollar value at the mathematical middle of the income spectrum is incapable of purchasing that lifestyle, does not mean that you can redefine it to mean "cohabiting with someone that also makes $23,000 a year."
Quote from: Ideologue on November 22, 2013, 09:24:13 PM
I do not accept your assertion that "median" means "middle class." Middle class is a term of art, g. It involves a certain lifestyle, and just because the dollar value at the mathematical middle of the income spectrum is incapable of purchasing that lifestyle, does not mean that you can redefine it to mean "cohabiting with someone that also makes $23,000 a year."
So the median class isn't the middle class, because you have redefined middle class to mean something other than the class in the middle? Okay. It makes as much sense as most of the gibberish you spout, except that I thought you were trying to actually say something in this case, whereas your usual gibberish sounds to me like you are deliberately being amusing.
No sense continuing down the rathole of you just redefining things to avoid being wrong. I'm done.
I use the term "middle class" because the term "bourgeoisie" fell out of fashion in this country by around 1919. I know it's hard for you to catch up some times, but it has been almost a century.
Be done if you want, I have little interest in a semantic argument, but if you think you're bourgeois at $23,000 a year and splitting the fucking rent with the dishwasher at your restaurant, your approach is entirely indefensible.
Quote from: grumbler on November 22, 2013, 09:30:16 PM
I'm done.
Your fans lament.
Ide, there's no way median salary is not in the middle class. We're not the UK, where middle class is defined by occupation. If you earn an income smack dab in the middle then by definition you're in the middle class.
Seriously, let's apply this logic to the actual world of events:
Is the middle class threatened?
Premise 1: The middle class is defined as 25th-75th percentiles of income.
Premise 2: In the set of numbers we have, there are numerous entries in between the 25th-75th percentile.
Conclusion: The middle class is fine!
Fair enough.
Have you proposed an alternative defintion of middle class?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2013, 09:38:40 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 22, 2013, 09:30:16 PM
I'm done.
Your fans lament.
Ide, there's no way median salary is not in the middle class. We're not the UK, where middle class is defined by occupation. If you earn an income smack dab in the middle then by definition you're in the middle class.
I think that's really, really wrong.
Being middle class involves certain prerequisites. Outside of silly places like NYC or SF, one of those is home ownership, or at least ability to own a home. Another is ability to support a spouse and children if need be.
If you have redefined middle class to mean something less than that, then what you have done is simply declared that working poor people are middle class. And I don't blame you, really, because that's what American politicians--not just yours--have been doing for decades now.
If a pure mathematical definition is accepted, basically anyone who's employed is middle class. Fine, you can be right, but then you have to also accept that being "middle class" then is
practically meaningless.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2013, 09:43:31 PM
Fair enough.
Have you proposed an alternative defintion of middle class?
As noted above, ability to own a modest home, ability to own two used cars, ability to support a normal nuclear family on one income (support defined as feed and clothe), ability to support a modest hobby, and an expectation that you will retain those abilities for the foreseeable future.
I'm with Ide, class is mainly about lifestyle/quality of life.
I generally agree with Ide, except that the single-income is certainly not a prerequisite to the middle class anymore.
Yeah Sheilbh, that and values (which often correlates with quality of life and lifestyle).
And yeah Neil, I think the single-income family is in the purview of the upper middle class (your doctors and successful lawyers) and people in danger of dropping out of the middle class altogether. It's been that way for a while too.
My single income is certainly making me a bit anxious. I like the wife not working, but I am very concerned it means we are not saving nearly enough for retirement.
The idea that median income makes a person middle class seems weird. That's not how the term is used for instance when talking about the emergence of a middle class in developing countries etc etc etc. My impression is that normally middle class involves being between the working class and the upper class.
Quote from: The Brain on November 23, 2013, 02:35:30 AM
The idea that median income makes a person middle class seems weird. That's not how the term is used for instance when talking about the emergence of a middle class in developing countries etc etc etc. My impression is that normally middle class involves being between the working class and the upper class.
Yep. By grumbler's and Yi's original metric, Zimbabwe has a thriving
middle class.
Quote from: Jacob on November 22, 2013, 10:53:47 PM
Yeah Sheilbh, that and values (which often correlates with quality of life and lifestyle).
And yeah Neil, I think the single-income family is in the purview of the upper middle class (your doctors and successful lawyers) and people in danger of dropping out of the middle class altogether. It's been that way for a while too.
I think this may be a concession to the state of things that I have to make. The days of single income households are effectively over, for better or for (in fact) worse.
I'd very much like to see a return to it. Unfortunately, our biology (?) is a real stumbling block. No one wants to see women out of the workforce. However, once they enter, they depress wages (which may be good but is probably bad); men can't leave because few women wish to be sole breadwinners, and given our programming (or their, if you insist), will resist the idea. Since almost all men will still be under sexual pressure to get jobs, and most women will still want to work to have a measure of financial independence, the upshot is that single income middle class households are impossible due to wage stagnation in the lower orders; and only unreconstructed women who manage to marry into the upper orders will find themselves in single income households of any appreciable wealth.
I dunno, I don't wanna sound like a Drakken here. I don't know if this is a purely biological issue--with regret, I suspect it is--or a social one that can be overcome. A return to Rockwellian innocence is what I'm after. Though of course there are manifold serious problems inherent in the concept, which I am not at this moment prepared to address.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2013, 09:38:40 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 22, 2013, 09:30:16 PM
I'm done.
Your fans lament.
Ide, there's no way median salary is not in the middle class. We're not the UK, where middle class is defined by occupation. If you earn an income smack dab in the middle then by definition you're in the middle class.
So, if 99% of the people earn $0, and the other 1% earns $100,000,000, then everyone is at least a middle class, right?
Quote from: Ideologue on November 23, 2013, 02:37:59 AM
Yep. By grumbler's and Yi's original metric, Zimbabwe has a thriving middle class.
No, by my original metric Zimbabwe has a shit middle class.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 22, 2013, 09:46:14 PM
Being middle class involves certain prerequisites. Outside of silly places like NYC or SF, one of those is home ownership, or at least ability to own a home. Another is ability to support a spouse and children if need be.
I didn't know that Britain lacks a middle class (home ownership there is low).
Quote from: Ideologue on November 22, 2013, 09:48:58 PM
As noted above, ability to own a modest home, ability to own two used cars, ability to support a normal nuclear family on one income (support defined as feed and clothe), ability to support a modest hobby, and an expectation that you will retain those abilities for the foreseeable future.
So, no middle class until the invention of the automobile? :hmmm:
Generally, middle class has been defined as the ability to buy all the necessities of life, and still have enough left over to purchase some luxuries. That, I have certainly been able to do on a median income. So can you.
defining middle class simply as what being able to afford what you want to have but cannot now afford, so you can define yourself as being working-class, is just circular reasoning. What would you want with two cars, anyway?
Quote from: grumbler on November 23, 2013, 09:52:22 AM
Generally, middle class has been defined as the ability to buy all the necessities of life, and still have enough left over to purchase some luxuries. That, I have certainly been able to do on a median income. So can you.
That's how I always kind judged it. Enough to pay the bills, sock some away, and afford a toy or two.
I don't think Ide's come to grips with the fact that getting a law degree didn't immediately place him in the landed gentry. It's unfortunate. It may just take a while, Ide.
Quote
defining middle class simply as what being able to afford what you want to have but cannot now afford, so you can define yourself as being working-class, is just circular reasoning. What would you want with two cars, anyway?
I kinda liked having two cars; used the work car to keep the mileage off the play car.
I'm middle class. :)
Yeah, in the middle of 1% and .1%.
Fascist fuckstick.
Please. Online tests said I was a 2%er.
Do you check the box on your tax form for your declared income like Colbert does, the one marked "Let's just say we're comfortable"?
I don't watch Colbert. He isn't funny.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 23, 2013, 01:20:20 PM
I don't watch Colbert. He isn't funny any more.
He used to be funny, but appears now to take himself seriously, which is the death of comedy.
Quote from: grumbler on November 23, 2013, 09:52:22 AM
I didn't know that Britain lacks a middle class (home ownership there is low).
You might mean Germany, or when you were in Britain? But home ownership here is about the same as in the US in the high-60s.
It was one of Thatcher's successful revolutions: turning the UK into a 'property-owning democracy'.
It is increasingly out of reach, especially for people my age and especially in London and the South-East. But that's as much because we don't build enough houses as anything else.
Well, again, my understanding is that London is one of those places where property values preclude home ownership for all but true elites. If you own a home in London, you're a rich dude.
Why don't you build enough homes?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2013, 09:49:32 PM
Why don't you build enough homes?
The state used to build lots and no-one's come in to replace them:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2F2013-10%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr06%2F26%2F8%2Fenhanced-buzz-8317-1382789323-0.jpg&hash=74a2fd87105a9ab0fdbb1ce37ccc2b7eccb3f445)
Despite the fact that the population's growing faster than it has for decades. In London it's worse, because the city's doing better. It's as big as it's been since the thirties and will probably grow bigger than ever:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2F2013-10%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr02%2F26%2F8%2Fenhanced-buzz-3762-1382789580-0.jpg&hash=0f6d832a4184504e703c1e5f64ef89b4a161023b)
We have incredibly difficult planning laws that give a lot of power to people who already homeowners in an area. Who, as much as not wanting to spoil the village green, wouldn't want to see the value of their primary asset decline. In London there are too many restrictions on height, via a rather arcane way of there being certain spots around the city from which you must be able to see the dome of St Paul's. Ken Livingstone halved the number, but still.
All of which leads to this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2F2013-10%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr06%2F16%2F9%2Fenhanced-buzz-3028-1381928720-9.jpg&hash=edb71cfbec203de346434507d9af86a5729cc7d9)
See more from the wonderful Economist writer Daniel Knowles, through Buzzfeed here:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/dlknowles/britains-dysfunctional-property-market-in-gi-fm44
And, to a lesser extent, here:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/dlknowles/the-north-south-divide-fm44
We need to build more or do things to expand the economy outside of London. Or both! :w00t:
Unfortunately old people, who own all the houses, vote:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2F2013-10%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr03%2F16%2F6%2Fenhanced-buzz-17246-1381920735-0.jpg&hash=cdd2c62945c330b251c262c508a76d7aa407b5db)
:weep:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 23, 2013, 09:57:32 PM
In London there are too many restrictions on height, via a rather arcane way of there being certain spots around the city from which you must be able to see the dome of St Paul's.
Why? So Jesus rays can shine in?
Granted we used to have a similar rather silly law about being able to see the State Capital, I guess so Texan pride can warm your heart or something.
Prince Chuck the tampon hates skyscrapers also.
Quote from: Valmy on November 24, 2013, 10:49:20 PM
Why? So Jesus rays can shine in?
So the view of St Paul's isn't spoiled:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_view
QuoteIn Edinburgh, a 2005 skyline study compiled a list of almost 170 key views which will now be protected in the planning process.
:bleeding: My God. Hopefully that is less stupid than it sounds.
Whitehorse has a strict policy of no buildings over four stories.
It works well when you have a population density of 0.07 people per square kilometre.
Quote from: Barrister on November 25, 2013, 01:24:46 AM
Whitehorse has a strict policy of no buildings over four stories.
It works well when you have a population density of 0.07 people per square kilometre.
:lol:
Yeah, less well when you've got one of over 5000 per square km.
Given the restrictions on London sprawling (good) and London growing up (bad) the other sensible option would be to build new towns and expand the current new towns. But that's difficult too.
As ever, I'm with Lord Adoni in the FT:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f0d7b122-3d91-11e3-9928-00144feab7de.html#axzz2ldXvxP4R
QuoteRadical state action is the answer to Britain's housing crisis
By Andrew Adonis
The heart of Britain's housing and growth crisis is the failure to build anywhere near enough homes to meet the rise in population and households.
This is especially true in London, whose population has risen by nearly 2m in the past 20 years and is projected to rise by another 1m in little more than a decade. Boris Johnson, the city's mayor, has set himself an annual target of 40,000 new homes. But last year barely 18,000 were completed. Independent experts suggest the target ought to be about 60,000. This largely explains why the average house price in the capital is heading north of £500,000.
Nationally, the crisis is as severe as in the early 1950s, when Harold Macmillan, then housing minister, pledged to build 300,000 homes a year. Yet today's build rate is less than half that, and at its lowest level since the 1920s.
An acute analysis comes in a new book, Good Cities, Better Lives, by Sir Peter Hall. The eminent urban planner describes a double crisis. The first entails a collapse in the building of social housing by local authorities and registered social landlords in the late 1970s and 1980s, neither reversed thereafter nor replaced by a sustained rise in private building. The second was a collapse in private building after the 2008 crash. Before this, the number of completions peaked at 426,000 in 1968; it has never reached even half that figure in the past 25 years.
Reinforcing this was the state's withdrawal from a central role in planning new settlements. The postwar new towns, begun under Prime Minister Clement Attlee, were mostly a success. Those around London have a combined population of 1.5m. In employment and average earnings, they exceed the national average. Yet in 40 years no big urban development has been built except London Docklands – the vision of Michael Heseltine, a Conservative minister who resisted the "do nothing and leave it to the market" tide. He has been proved right.
Sir Peter, who advised Lord Heseltine, deserves attention. His message is that the state – national and local – must resume its responsibilities. It is not enough to exhort the market and fiddle with planning. The state must engage once more in building communities – including new towns, extensions to existing towns and cities, and a radically improved approach to transport investment linking infrastructure to new housing.
...
A serious problem in England is the weakness of local government – although London, which has had a mayoralty since 2000, is a partial exception. At present, even local authorities' borrowing against their own assets and income to build houses is tightly constrained. "Free the cities from the dead hand of the Treasury and fundamentally decentralise the structure of government," writes Sir Peter. Lord Heseltine, too, has been saying this for decades.
...
The writer is shadow infrastructure minister and was transport secretary in the last UK government
Too many potential archeological sites of Stone Age mud farmers dragging rocks for hundreds of kilometers for no reason whatsoever to expand London into the countryside.
Is the primary problem the over-centralization of the British Government? I mean this just does not make sense, this is a huge need and a great way to get people working and grow the economy.
Quote from: Valmy on November 25, 2013, 09:01:19 AM
Is the primary problem the over-centralization of the British Government? I mean this just does not make sense, this is a huge need and a great way to get people working and grow the economy.
Sort of.
The local authorities have huge say over planning decisions and most people don't want their area to be any more developed than it already is. So many local councils are reluctant to approve proposals for new homes. Lord Adonis also gives an example of Stevenage, a new town largely built in the 50s. The council there want expand and build 16 000 new houses which would be great for the local economy and it's also a London commuter town. But the rural councils around it are doing everything they can to stop it - central government could step in to help Stevenage. This reluctance is probably worse because the Tories heartland are precisely the sort of councils most likely to object to any new building. That's also true throughout the South of England.
On the other hand historically local government used to build a lot of houses - see the chart up there - and then rent them out. Thatcher sold people their council houses, which was generally good, but nothing's come in to replace the houses previously built by the state. Part of the problem for local government, as Adonis points out, is that the councils actually can't necessarily get back into building because of how tightly local council finances are controlled by the Treasury.
Basically local councils have a lot of power over planning problems. But that's fine because when that was passed the plan was that the state would build lots of houses anyway (though many were crappy). Then the councils ability to build houses were restricted as were their ability to raise money except from the Treasury. But the planning laws weren't liberalised at the same time and even the slightest hint of liberalising planning laws sends a big chunk of the media insane.
I like the sound of this, again from the Adonis article:
QuoteSir Peter hails the Dutch Vinex programme, through which central government achieved agreements with local authorities that generated 455,000 homes between 1996 and 2005. This followed the 1991 Vinex report, a national spatial strategy in the mould of the 1944 Abercrombie plan for postwar London, which gave rise to the new towns. The success of Vinex was not simply a function of state action. "The houses had to be in the right places," writes Sir Peter, "close to existing cities ... above all in the heart of the Randstad [the region incorporating Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht and The Hague], and also to minimise travel to cities and secure maximum use of public transport, walking and bicycles." The UK government promised a paper on new towns two years ago – Prime Minister David Cameron cited garden cities as a model – but it has not yet been published.
:mmm:
This Buzzfeed piece is very good on the reasons, if you've not had a look already:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/dlknowles/britains-dysfunctional-property-market-in-gi-fm44
Edit: On the other hand at least the green belt has worked:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2F2013-10%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr03%2F26%2F13%2Fenhanced-buzz-18750-1382809656-0.jpg&hash=6fc3a6ca788eb32501676c8e3718169e92d4c0ce)
Edit: Also the Buzzfeed piece talks about how small our houses are. Because there are so few being built any that actually gets built will sell. The other effect of that is that I think our houses are also kind of shitty. They're not just smaller but I think they're still awfully insulated compared to the rest of Europe which means despite having one of the lowest prices for domestic energy, we have some of the highest energy bills :bleeding:
Edit: The shortage has also led to the horrible trend of landlords converting living rooms into extra bedrooms so they can up the rent :bleeding:
Having said all of that if I had any money I'd be buying up student houses like a modern day Rachman :blush:
We have "green belt" issues that try to address sprawl as well, they're just incredibly localized and not at the national government level like England. Plenty of regions in America where all the well-off people (read: white) left the cities, built nice homes and schools in the countryside, then promptly passed lots of local laws to prevent anybody else (read: blacks) from following them out to their idyllic sylvan landscapes and golf courses. We're just so big, it's not really a problem anybody cares to do anything about.
QuoteOr we can spend the rest of our lives fighting economic gladiatorial combat, where the people with the most money get the houses and the people at the bottom get to live five to a room in a B&B in Leicester.
That's the way people in power like it. Good luck with that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 25, 2013, 09:39:38 AM
We have "green belt" issues that try to address sprawl as well, they're just incredibly localized and not at the national government level like England. Plenty of regions in America where all the well-off people (read: white) left the cities, built nice homes and schools in the countryside, then promptly passed lots of local laws to prevent anybody else (read: blacks) from following them out to their idyllic sylvan landscapes and golf courses. We're just so big, it's not really a problem anybody cares to do anything about.
Really? Interesting we have major black flight over here. It creates a funny cycle of white flight-black flight-urban decay-gentrification. For fun I checked the home prices in a neighborhood that 10 years ago was one of the poorest and oldest black neighborhoods in Austin. Price for a little run down shack? $550,000.00. Yep.
Quote from: Valmy on November 25, 2013, 09:48:43 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 25, 2013, 09:39:38 AM
We have "green belt" issues that try to address sprawl as well, they're just incredibly localized and not at the national government level like England. Plenty of regions in America where all the well-off people (read: white) left the cities, built nice homes and schools in the countryside, then promptly passed lots of local laws to prevent anybody else (read: blacks) from following them out to their idyllic sylvan landscapes and golf courses. We're just so big, it's not really a problem anybody cares to do anything about.
Really? Interesting we have major black flight over here. It creates a funny cycle of white flight-black flight-urban decay-gentrification. For fun I checked the home prices in a neighborhood that 10 years ago was one of the poorest and oldest black neighborhoods in Austin. Price for a little run down shack? $550,000.00. Yep.
Oh yeah, there's a massive demographic reversal in the east of the urban-suburban dynamic at work as well; we're seeing a return to the cities by white professionals and hipsters after so many minorities got a chance to get out of Dodge with the housing and mortgage boom of the 1990s. Hell, Baltimore City's population and tax base actually just
increased for the first time since the early 1950's, and they're building out shitty old neighborhoods that were once heavily minority, since they've already moved out to the suburbs.
But I wasn't referencing the suburbs when it comes to the "green belt" anti-sprawl stuff; I'm talking much farther out, where public transportation isn't allowed to go.
I like the commenters suggesting the problem is that Britain just has too many people and people need to stop having babies. In that case the easy solution is simply to do nothing because people will flee the country to find a place to live.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 25, 2013, 09:39:38 AM
Plenty of regions in America where all the well-off people (read: white) left the cities, built nice homes and schools in the countryside, then promptly passed lots of local laws to prevent anybody else (read: blacks) from following them out to their idyllic sylvan landscapes and golf courses.
[/quote]
Could you cite me some examples of these laws prohibiting black people from "following them out to their idyllic sylvan landscapes and golf courses."?
I am very interested in how that would work.
Small towns out here are generally right wing anarcho-liberal type of political culture so that would not fly out here. But I could certainly see East Coasters fighting to keep their idyllic landscapes intact.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2013, 05:24:43 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fimage%2FiTEsHgdRSawQ.jpg&hash=981e8469572812b73f05e00f9b235bc057bfb20f)
I think I brought this up before. The missing spite is related to the Second Great Awakening, the second spike is Abolition, the third spike is Prohibition and the fourth spike is civil rights. The other missing spike is the one of 1770, related to the First Great Awakening. I suggested in a post earlier that there is a three generation cycle of despair-idealism-radicalism-conflict-despair.
In a sense, the doughboys despaired, the greatest generation was idealistic and the boomers were radicalized. 70s-80s despair, 90s-00s idealism, 10s-20s radicalization?
Quote from: Berkut on November 25, 2013, 10:54:35 AM
Could you cite me some examples of these laws prohibiting black people from "following them out to their idyllic sylvan landscapes and golf courses."?
I am very interested in how that would work.
Scads of community zoning laws prevent Section 8 designations, subsidized housing vouchers and the construction of low-income housing. They work themselves in and out of the court system all the time. Exclusionary zoning practices is a long-standing, cherished American tradition.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 25, 2013, 09:24:32 AM
But the rural councils around it are doing everything they can to stop it - central government could step in to help Stevenage. This reluctance is probably worse because the Tories heartland are precisely the sort of councils most likely to object to any new building.
While true, it's not always quite as simple as "we don't want it here". The latest plan for my local town is generally opposed, but not just by the "not here" community. It's opposed because it on its own is an example of terrible planning, even compared to the previous plans.
My small town is built on a slope rising up out of the Ise Valley. The last two expansion plans have involved building houses at the top of the hill. The latest involves extending the town towards the Ise. The land in question is boggy already and basically beyond the point where the more locally planned developments of the Seventies and early Eighties stopped for good reason.
Concreting over a huge chunk of land where the water table's so high already is not a clever idea. It's even less clever when you remember the flooding issues that Northampton and other parts of the South of my County have had in the last decade. But because of the "we need more houses" mantra that's the vogue these days that's where they want to build them.
My town has no railway station (nor can it get one since it's on a 2 lane section of the Midland Main Line), few jobs (even before the last two rounds of expansion it was a commuter town), and limited leisure facilities (the leisure centre we had being closed down and replaced with a smaller facility in the new housing projects on top of the hill...the old one being in the same boggy area they now want to build houses on.) It's always puzzled me why they want to build more commuter houses while demonising car drivers.
As an aside and a sign that previous housing plans haven't been adequately thought out - ever since they built the new estates at the top of the hill the sewers at the other end of town lower down the slope have suffered overflow problems (presumably because sewers don't need expanding when a town does - OK, that's probably evidence-less paranoia, but since this is the same planning department that thinks a larger town needs a smaller leisure centre... :rolleyes:)
Suffice it to say that the new plans are not entirely opposed due to a kneejerk reaction against anything new.
Anyway, we need to end the "house is good" mantra and start building more flats. We need to look more into why there are so many empty homes in the country (at least the ones empty for more than six months, less than that is just part of the buying/moving merry-go-round.) As Shielbh said, we need to improve the houses that are built, and not just in terms of their energy efficiency; modern housing estates are terrible, with weirdly curved streets substituting for individuality and style - living as I do on a street where the houses have been built up over time and are all different styles a modern housing estate looks as soul-destroying to me as the flats built in the Fifties and Sixties were supposed to be.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 25, 2013, 11:30:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 25, 2013, 10:54:35 AM
Could you cite me some examples of these laws prohibiting black people from "following them out to their idyllic sylvan landscapes and golf courses."?
I am very interested in how that would work.
Scads of community zoning laws prevent Section 8 designations, subsidized housing vouchers and the construction of low-income housing. They work themselves in and out of the court system all the time. Exclusionary zoning practices is a long-standing, cherished American tradition.
Maybe people are just worried about crime?
Quote from: derspiess on November 25, 2013, 11:36:35 AM
Maybe people are just worried about crime?
Then perhaps they should pass zoning laws prohibiting teenagers.
Quote from: Agelastus on November 25, 2013, 11:36:12 AMSuffice it to say that the new plans are not entirely opposed due to a kneejerk reaction against anything new.
There's always an exception to prove the rule. And I've no doubt that 99% of the people who oppose new developments in their area do so for reasons that seem entirely sensible to them and sometimes, as in your case, they're right. But the cumulative effect is a shortage of homes and a growing population.
QuoteAs Shielbh said, we need to improve the houses that are built, and not just in terms of their energy efficiency; modern housing estates are terrible, with weirdly curved streets substituting for individuality and style - living as I do on a street where the houses have been built up over time and are all different styles a modern housing estate looks as soul-destroying to me as the flats built in the Fifties and Sixties were supposed to be.
I think the easiest way to improve the quality of new houses is to tilt the market back in favour of the buyer.
Here's a blogpost by Sir Peter Hall, mentioned by Lord Adonis above, on what should be done:
http://architizer.com/blog/sir-peter-hall/
A relevant bit given your town's situation:
QuoteAnd these places were not randomly scattered across the Dutch countryside: national guidelines and local masterplans put them next to established cities – with brilliant train or tram or bus links that connected them to those cities, and to the jobs and services they offered, in a very few minutes. When the Dutch Railways complained that they were being asked to build a new train station at Vathorst, years in advance of most of the passengers that would use it, the local planner-developers simply came back and said: we'll pay you to build it now, because we don't want everyone getting the habit of car dependence. Similarly, in Ypenburg they put in a new tram line from the city very early on, and for good measure followed it up with another line connecting in another direction to the university city of Delft.
The difference, compared with the way we've been doing things the last thirty years, is that in the Netherlands everything follows everything else in logical sequence. First, develop a nationwide strategy to determine where you're going to build the new homes – but only in consultation with local authorities, who fully share on the decision process. Then, ensure to build the transport links and basic facilities like shopping and schools. Then, masterplan neighborhoods to the highest standards, with bikeways far from traffic and with generous open park space everywhere. Then, and only then, invite the developer-builders in. Make deals with them, involving some element of compromise – the Dutch are good at that – but preserving the essential features of the plan. And the builders go along with it, because people like the result and buy their houses.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 25, 2013, 11:30:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 25, 2013, 10:54:35 AM
Could you cite me some examples of these laws prohibiting black people from "following them out to their idyllic sylvan landscapes and golf courses."?
I am very interested in how that would work.
Scads of community zoning laws prevent Section 8 designations, subsidized housing vouchers and the construction of low-income housing. They work themselves in and out of the court system all the time. Exclusionary zoning practices is a long-standing, cherished American tradition.
Ahhh, so in other words, no you cannot provide any such examples?
I suspected as much, but still, a little disappointment here.
Quote from: Berkut on November 25, 2013, 12:00:42 PM
Ahhh, so in other words, no you cannot provide any such examples?
I suspected as much, but still, a little disappointment here.
Racism: If You Don't Link It, It Doesn't Exist!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 25, 2013, 12:16:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 25, 2013, 12:00:42 PM
Ahhh, so in other words, no you cannot provide any such examples?
I suspected as much, but still, a little disappointment here.
Racism: If You Don't Link It, It Doesn't Exist!
Yeah better to just accept as truth the rantings of a man who cries racism 24/7. He's gotta be right at some point, right?
Quote from: garbon on November 25, 2013, 12:32:25 PM
Yeah better to just accept as truth the rantings of a man who cries racism 24/7. He's gotta be right at some point, right?
I just blame Ide.
Quote from: Agelastus on November 25, 2013, 11:36:12 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 25, 2013, 09:24:32 AM
But the rural councils around it are doing everything they can to stop it - central government could step in to help Stevenage. This reluctance is probably worse because the Tories heartland are precisely the sort of councils most likely to object to any new building.
While true, it's not always quite as simple as "we don't want it here". The latest plan for my local town is generally opposed, but not just by the "not here" community. It's opposed because it on its own is an example of terrible planning, even compared to the previous plans.
My small town is built on a slope rising up out of the Ise Valley. The last two expansion plans have involved building houses at the top of the hill. The latest involves extending the town towards the Ise. The land in question is boggy already and basically beyond the point where the more locally planned developments of the Seventies and early Eighties stopped for good reason.
Concreting over a huge chunk of land where the water table's so high already is not a clever idea. It's even less clever when you remember the flooding issues that Northampton and other parts of the South of my County have had in the last decade. But because of the "we need more houses" mantra that's the vogue these days that's where they want to build them.
My town has no railway station (nor can it get one since it's on a 2 lane section of the Midland Main Line), few jobs (even before the last two rounds of expansion it was a commuter town), and limited leisure facilities (the leisure centre we had being closed down and replaced with a smaller facility in the new housing projects on top of the hill...the old one being in the same boggy area they now want to build houses on.) It's always puzzled me why they want to build more commuter houses while demonising car drivers.
As an aside and a sign that previous housing plans haven't been adequately thought out - ever since they built the new estates at the top of the hill the sewers at the other end of town lower down the slope have suffered overflow problems (presumably because sewers don't need expanding when a town does - OK, that's probably evidence-less paranoia, but since this is the same planning department that thinks a larger town needs a smaller leisure centre... :rolleyes:)
Suffice it to say that the new plans are not entirely opposed due to a kneejerk reaction against anything new.
Anyway, we need to end the "house is good" mantra and start building more flats. We need to look more into why there are so many empty homes in the country (at least the ones empty for more than six months, less than that is just part of the buying/moving merry-go-round.) As Shielbh said, we need to improve the houses that are built, and not just in terms of their energy efficiency; modern housing estates are terrible, with weirdly curved streets substituting for individuality and style - living as I do on a street where the houses have been built up over time and are all different styles a modern housing estate looks as soul-destroying to me as the flats built in the Fifties and Sixties were supposed to be.
Ah, Desborough.
Quote from: mongers on November 25, 2013, 02:26:56 PM
Ah, Desborough.
Yep...up to about 11000 people now and STILL only two pubs...