4 ms·

Because, for whatever reason, he likes owning a house. Which is doublespeak for him feeling entitled to live in a huge and inefficient property for no reason o

Because, for whatever reason, he likes owning a house. Which is doublespeak for him feeling entitled to live in a huge and inefficient property for no reason other than him liking it.

Slaul 10y ago
How is it wrong for him to want to live in a house because he likes it?
- AdrianB1 10y ago
  He is not. He is wrong when he wants the government to force companies to bring jobs to his front door ("influencing companies", if you like smooth talk). It is his choice to live in a good place OR next to a good job. It is not government's problem in any case.
gph 10y ago
That's not really doublespeak. And it doesn't have to be less efficient to own a house. Can't put solar panels on my apartment roof. Can't plant much of a garden to localize some of my consumption. If you were really eco-conscious you could probably get more gains out of owning your own house. Especially since most houses have already been built, whereas most of the new construction I see in my city (Baltimore) is going towards mixed-use condos/apartment towers for all the trendy folks wanting to live downtown. If they really cared about the environment and efficiency they'd be fixing-up the thousands of run-down homes.
- SilasX 10y ago
  >Can't put solar panels on my apartment roof. That's pretty small relative to the extra energy consumption from having to commute farther, and the land that you might live on could be used for solar power regardless of whether you live there.
  - gph 10y ago
    Guess I was thinking more of my situation than the OP's in Seattle. I can commute downtown Baltimore in about 30 mins (~8 miles) from my suburban house. Leaf does it on a single charge. Guess I would have to do the math, but I'd think the drop in electricity consumption, especially in the summer heat, is enough to offset my commute. It's definitely not typical since I'm in the minority of solar panel and electric car owners who are within commute range on a single charge. But there you have it. It's at least possible.
    - SilasX 10y ago
      The subthread OP (antisthenes) was referring to the global (system level) inefficiency of large-home far-out living, not the inefficiency for a household's budget (which is distorted by policy). For purposes of that calculation, it's double-counting to include the solar panel energy, because we can already put a solar panel at that location regardless of whether you live and commute from there; your choice to live there did not expand our solar energy capability, and you're still avoidably drawing down the supply of clean energy. Just to clarify: I'm not criticizing your decision, only justifying why it's not an argument against this being a systemic inefficiency.
      - gph 10y ago
        Sure, but I guess my point was that systematically we aren't building solar panels and creating the greatest possible efficiency of the overall system. You're kind of describing an ideal efficient system where we coordinated together perfectly. But that's not really how we as humans or a society work. If I moved out of my house into an apartment it's unlikely anyone will put up extra solar panels to offset the loss. My consumption would fall back onto the norm of the grid, which is mostly fossil fuels. But as an individual I can make choices which will create the greatest net efficiency. But I guess I'm really getting into the definition of efficiency. I suppose in my mind I'm considering clean energy as more efficient even though from an economic POV fossil fuels are still more efficient based on price (though probably not for long). So in conclusion, you're right. I'd just add the caveat that faced with the reality of a mostly uncoordinated system run by large groups of people with competing interests, you can possibly find higher efficiency (depending on how you look at it) from making your own intelligent individual decisions while living in a large home away from the city center.
vecinu 10y ago
I think there are a couple of forces at work here that aren't clear cut. Perhaps there are families out there that need more space, would like to be self-sufficient especially in emergency situations and feel happier outside of an urban center. I think if we build these types of communities/houses, we should have a way of sustaining them. This man wants to work and is not asking for a handout. This should be celebrated and the person should be given work to do to earn his keep.
- eru 10y ago
  It would be nice, if that person can find work. But I don't know what you mean by `should be given work'. I don't think we should force anyone to employ them.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
Well, it's doublespeak for not wanting to actually trade-off personal lifestyle factors. Of course, nobody ever wants to do that, but we generally regard it as a Mature Adult Thing to do it anyway.
eru 10y ago
That's fair enough, but then they shouldn't complain about their choice.

Because, for whatever reason, he likes owning a house. Which is doublespeak for him feeling entitled to live in a huge and inefficient property for no reason other than him liking it.

Slaul 10y ago

How is it wrong for him to want to live in a house because he likes it?

AdrianB1 10y ago
He is not. He is wrong when he wants the government to force companies to bring jobs to his front door ("influencing companies", if you like smooth talk). It is his choice to live in a good place OR next to a good job. It is not government's problem in any case.

gph 10y ago

That's not really doublespeak. And it doesn't have to be less efficient to own a house. Can't put solar panels on my apartment roof. Can't plant much of a garden to localize some of my consumption. If you were really eco-conscious you could probably get more gains out of owning your own house. Especially since most houses have already been built, whereas most of the new construction I see in my city (Baltimore) is going towards mixed-use condos/apartment towers for all the trendy folks wanting to live downtown. If they really cared about the environment and efficiency they'd be fixing-up the thousands of run-down homes.

SilasX 10y ago
>Can't put solar panels on my apartment roof. That's pretty small relative to the extra energy consumption from having to commute farther, and the land that you might live on could be used for solar power regardless of whether you live there.
- gph 10y ago
  Guess I was thinking more of my situation than the OP's in Seattle. I can commute downtown Baltimore in about 30 mins (~8 miles) from my suburban house. Leaf does it on a single charge. Guess I would have to do the math, but I'd think the drop in electricity consumption, especially in the summer heat, is enough to offset my commute. It's definitely not typical since I'm in the minority of solar panel and electric car owners who are within commute range on a single charge. But there you have it. It's at least possible.
  - SilasX 10y ago
    The subthread OP (antisthenes) was referring to the global (system level) inefficiency of large-home far-out living, not the inefficiency for a household's budget (which is distorted by policy). For purposes of that calculation, it's double-counting to include the solar panel energy, because we can already put a solar panel at that location regardless of whether you live and commute from there; your choice to live there did not expand our solar energy capability, and you're still avoidably drawing down the supply of clean energy. Just to clarify: I'm not criticizing your decision, only justifying why it's not an argument against this being a systemic inefficiency.
    - gph 10y ago
      Sure, but I guess my point was that systematically we aren't building solar panels and creating the greatest possible efficiency of the overall system. You're kind of describing an ideal efficient system where we coordinated together perfectly. But that's not really how we as humans or a society work. If I moved out of my house into an apartment it's unlikely anyone will put up extra solar panels to offset the loss. My consumption would fall back onto the norm of the grid, which is mostly fossil fuels. But as an individual I can make choices which will create the greatest net efficiency. But I guess I'm really getting into the definition of efficiency. I suppose in my mind I'm considering clean energy as more efficient even though from an economic POV fossil fuels are still more efficient based on price (though probably not for long). So in conclusion, you're right. I'd just add the caveat that faced with the reality of a mostly uncoordinated system run by large groups of people with competing interests, you can possibly find higher efficiency (depending on how you look at it) from making your own intelligent individual decisions while living in a large home away from the city center.

vecinu 10y ago

I think there are a couple of forces at work here that aren't clear cut. Perhaps there are families out there that need more space, would like to be self-sufficient especially in emergency situations and feel happier outside of an urban center. I think if we build these types of communities/houses, we should have a way of sustaining them. This man wants to work and is not asking for a handout. This should be celebrated and the person should be given work to do to earn his keep.

eru 10y ago
It would be nice, if that person can find work. But I don't know what you mean by `should be given work'. I don't think we should force anyone to employ them.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

Well, it's doublespeak for not wanting to actually trade-off personal lifestyle factors. Of course, nobody ever wants to do that, but we generally regard it as a Mature Adult Thing to do it anyway.

eru 10y ago

That's fair enough, but then they shouldn't complain about their choice.