This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
There's a reason that safe and dense housing only exists in expensive areas: it has to be expensive to keep the undesirables out. You can have safe and affordable (in the country), you can have dense and affordable (the hood) or you can have dense and safe (Manhattan) but you can't have all three. The parent comment brought up St. Louis, well St. Louis has plenty of neighborhoods like the urbanists want with dense housing and walkable grid streets, check out Gravois Park or Dutchtown on street view. That's what a dense and affordable neighborhood looks like in the US.
Which ones? San Francisco is 40% white, 35% Asian, 5% black (a much lower proportion in the latter case than Paris, London and many other major European cities). It has extremely high median income. The reason it is a shithole has nothing to do with demographics, and everything to do with policy (regarding the homeless, mostly).
Enforce the law, and it’s entirely possible to have affordable, safe and dense housing. Inner cities (provided they’re safe, amenable and walkable) will always be expensive, but dense inner suburbs like in most Euro cities and NYC are totally feasible.
It's a shithole precisely because of demographics.
Childless PMC whites in San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland vote for shithole policies because they're the shithole demographic. Once you get out to Bay Area suburbs that are full of Indians and Chinese, the shithole factor declines to nearly nothing.
Quite a few of the most zealous supervisors and school board members in SF have been Asian, iirc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Back in the 1950s-80s 5-10% was often the tipping point for safety.
More options
Context Copy link
2 out of 3 for safe, affordable and dense is a best case scenario. You can have somewhere like San Francisco that manages to do worse than that and is overrun with petty crime despite high prices. I agree that enforcing the law would work but that's a hypothetical. If anything the voters have turned strongly against tough on crime policies compared to five years ago so I don't see any signs that it's about to change. In the world as it exists (in the US) if you want dense and safe housing you need to be ready to write a huge check.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There are plenty of areas in NYC that are dense* and safe middle class neighborhoods. Jackson Heights, Forest Hills, etc.
*Relative to most of the rest of the US.
A 1000 square foot apartment is over $800k in Jackson Heights so I think we have different definitions of middle class.
According to this, "Median household income in 2021 was $69,880[.]" The 2021 median income for the US as a whole was $70,784.
Per www.streeteasy.com there are currently 48 2-bed+ apts for sale in Jackson Heights. Fifteen are listed at under $400K. There are only two for more than $800K,
I see a few on Zillow in the $400k range but they don't list the square footage so I assume it's not suitable for a family. Found one that does list it as 850 square feet but it also has an $850 per month HOA fee.
My $800k was an overestimate but buying a place large enough for a family still seems insane for what you get, though doable if you're willing to part with more than half your take home on mortgage+ HOA fees.
I suggest you look at Streeteasy, which is the go-to site for NY real estate. I see a 1050 sq ft unit for 425K, five separate 1000 sq ft units in the $340 range; several others with no sq ft listed but with floor plans.
Well, we all know that NYC apts tend to be small. But that is the nature of the city. There are plenty of much more expensive places in more upscale areas that are no larger. It really says nothing about whether a particular area is middle class. As i noted, the median household income there is right at the US median.
Remember, most of the places you see are coops, and that means that the HOA fee includes property tax, insurance and, usually, heat and water. In some places it includes the electric bill, but I think that is rare. Plus, the HOA fee covers garbage and other standard city services fees.
I honestly don't understand how a household making 70k a year can afford a 340k apartment.
Since only about 65% of households own their homes, the median income of homeowners is presumably higher than the median income overall.
And it looks like median income in Pittsburgh (to choose an average city) is 54K, while the median home price is 275,000, or about 5x higher. About the same as 70k versus 340k.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link