3 ms·

> measures to allow the right mix of people to live in the city. So, human engineering, with totally good intentions. Can you define 'right mix of people' in a

> measures to allow the right mix of people to live in the city. So, human engineering, with totally good intentions. Can you define 'right mix of people' in a non-totalitarian way?

travmatt 8y ago
The people who work in that city shouldn’t be forced to commute 3 hours in and out?
- kofejnik 8y ago
  Nobody's forcing them, if their wages do not justify the commute time, they are totally free to stop commuting. Market pressure will do the rest.
  - travmatt 8y ago
    You’re completely missing the point, the market pressures are broken by restrictive zoning laws which artificially restrict supply. That’s why you have 6,580 people who are bidding on 95 affordably priced homes. The fact that you have 70 people applying per home is what we’d call a signal that those homes are in demand, the problem preventing more supply coming on line to meet that demand is the zoning laws, again.
    - xref 8y ago
      > 70 people applying per home is what we’d call a signal that those homes are in demand uh, well sure I mean there is probably a ton of demand for $100 4Runners too
      - travmatt 8y ago
        Car companies frequently introduce smaller and more affordable options when they notice strong sales in baseline models - Honda introduced the HRV because people wanted a cheaper CRV. The tone of your comment suggests you disbelieve my remark but then you made an analogy that supports my comment so I’m not really what point your point is? Unless your idea is that companies shouldn’t take steps to meet demand and instead try to artificially restrict supply?
        candiodari 8y ago
        That's one business model (e.g. Ferrari, Porsche, Lambourgini, Wedgewood, Breitling, ...), actually increasing supply is another (too many brands to name). I would argue that the brands that increase supply while lowering costs are the ones that do far more good in the world. But if you want to make money, certainly restricting supply can work. Of course pretending you're one of the restricting supply businesses while in fact increasing supply (ie. Apple) beats both business models by an incredible margin. And then there is the business model of enforcing your own position by having government goons (rules or actual goons) drive out the competition, which certainly restricts supply (Verizon/AT&T, Suez, Electrabel, Atos Worldline, Total, Shell, Exxon Mobil, Glencore, Gazprom, ING, AXA, BNP Paribas, ... and then there's this tiny little thing called "China") There's certainly a place for all of these.
wolco 8y ago
Enough people with the right skillsets to fill the roles society needs to function.
lovich 8y ago
Can you survive in a city with no one but bankers and tech people? No police, no resturaunts, no firefighters, no cleaners, app because the closest place they can afford is 4+ hours away? Are you going to take turns with your co-workers to clean the bathroom everyday, take out the trash, and clean the floors? Are you able to pull the long hours tech jobs require and still have time to cook food everyday? How would you even get that food if supermarkets can't keep employees around to stock the shelves? This is all the extreme end of the situation, and we're not there yet, but it's the path we're on in many cities with San Francisco being at the forefront. You can't have every worker specialize in to a narrow niche and then suddenly remove half of those niches from your society with no replacement and expect it to run smoothly
- ImSkeptical 8y ago
  No, I couldn't live in such a city. If there was nobody to take out the trash we would have to raise more money to increase salaries for garbage men, etc. Some of it, I could live with less of, and some I'd pay more for. Letting the economy balance itself seems a lot smarter than trying to control it and I think history provides many examples supporting this claim.
- kofejnik 8y ago
  Wow what a nice strawman you have here! All the horrors you've described in so much detail can and will be fixed very nicely by market pressure (if no one is there to clean the bathroom, suddenly janitors will be in high demand and command a nice salary, etc). Forcing 'the right mix of people' _reeks_ of totalitarian state. Who gets to decide? Are there going to be income/education quotas? Male vs female? Racial quotes?
  - lovich 8y ago
    Market pressures aren't fixing it, at least not fast enough to prevent a lot of pain to actual living humans. Yea in the long term it might be fixed, but in the here and now people are hurting. When I was out of college and stuck in retail I had to decide whether I was stealing food or medicine that week or going without, because those jobs don't pay enough to live. I am lucky enough to be talented enough at software to get a job doing it, but you can't expect everyone in the population to have those skills. Expecting market pressure to take care of everyone is condemning people to die. I agree that the market is more efficient, but that efficiency comes without any sort of humanity. There are people who have no talents that are worth enough in our current economic configuration to earn enough to live at market clearing wages. Should we just let them starve or go homeless because of it? I also agree that planning a 'right mix' of people does reek of totalitarianism, but the other choice isn't any better. I don't see how letting the rich choose who gets to live a decent life based on whose most useful to them is any less totalarian when our society is channeling more and more wealth everyday to a small group of people.

> measures to allow the right mix of people to live in the city. So, human engineering, with totally good intentions. Can you define 'right mix of people' in a non-totalitarian way?

travmatt 8y ago

The people who work in that city shouldn’t be forced to commute 3 hours in and out?

kofejnik 8y ago
Nobody's forcing them, if their wages do not justify the commute time, they are totally free to stop commuting. Market pressure will do the rest.
- travmatt 8y ago
  You’re completely missing the point, the market pressures are broken by restrictive zoning laws which artificially restrict supply. That’s why you have 6,580 people who are bidding on 95 affordably priced homes. The fact that you have 70 people applying per home is what we’d call a signal that those homes are in demand, the problem preventing more supply coming on line to meet that demand is the zoning laws, again.
  - xref 8y ago
    > 70 people applying per home is what we’d call a signal that those homes are in demand uh, well sure I mean there is probably a ton of demand for $100 4Runners too
    - travmatt 8y ago
      Car companies frequently introduce smaller and more affordable options when they notice strong sales in baseline models - Honda introduced the HRV because people wanted a cheaper CRV. The tone of your comment suggests you disbelieve my remark but then you made an analogy that supports my comment so I’m not really what point your point is? Unless your idea is that companies shouldn’t take steps to meet demand and instead try to artificially restrict supply?
      - candiodari 8y ago
        That's one business model (e.g. Ferrari, Porsche, Lambourgini, Wedgewood, Breitling, ...), actually increasing supply is another (too many brands to name). I would argue that the brands that increase supply while lowering costs are the ones that do far more good in the world. But if you want to make money, certainly restricting supply can work. Of course pretending you're one of the restricting supply businesses while in fact increasing supply (ie. Apple) beats both business models by an incredible margin. And then there is the business model of enforcing your own position by having government goons (rules or actual goons) drive out the competition, which certainly restricts supply (Verizon/AT&T, Suez, Electrabel, Atos Worldline, Total, Shell, Exxon Mobil, Glencore, Gazprom, ING, AXA, BNP Paribas, ... and then there's this tiny little thing called "China") There's certainly a place for all of these.

wolco 8y ago

Enough people with the right skillsets to fill the roles society needs to function.

lovich 8y ago

Can you survive in a city with no one but bankers and tech people? No police, no resturaunts, no firefighters, no cleaners, app because the closest place they can afford is 4+ hours away? Are you going to take turns with your co-workers to clean the bathroom everyday, take out the trash, and clean the floors? Are you able to pull the long hours tech jobs require and still have time to cook food everyday? How would you even get that food if supermarkets can't keep employees around to stock the shelves? This is all the extreme end of the situation, and we're not there yet, but it's the path we're on in many cities with San Francisco being at the forefront. You can't have every worker specialize in to a narrow niche and then suddenly remove half of those niches from your society with no replacement and expect it to run smoothly

ImSkeptical 8y ago
No, I couldn't live in such a city. If there was nobody to take out the trash we would have to raise more money to increase salaries for garbage men, etc. Some of it, I could live with less of, and some I'd pay more for. Letting the economy balance itself seems a lot smarter than trying to control it and I think history provides many examples supporting this claim.
kofejnik 8y ago
Wow what a nice strawman you have here! All the horrors you've described in so much detail can and will be fixed very nicely by market pressure (if no one is there to clean the bathroom, suddenly janitors will be in high demand and command a nice salary, etc). Forcing 'the right mix of people' _reeks_ of totalitarian state. Who gets to decide? Are there going to be income/education quotas? Male vs female? Racial quotes?
- lovich 8y ago
  Market pressures aren't fixing it, at least not fast enough to prevent a lot of pain to actual living humans. Yea in the long term it might be fixed, but in the here and now people are hurting. When I was out of college and stuck in retail I had to decide whether I was stealing food or medicine that week or going without, because those jobs don't pay enough to live. I am lucky enough to be talented enough at software to get a job doing it, but you can't expect everyone in the population to have those skills. Expecting market pressure to take care of everyone is condemning people to die. I agree that the market is more efficient, but that efficiency comes without any sort of humanity. There are people who have no talents that are worth enough in our current economic configuration to earn enough to live at market clearing wages. Should we just let them starve or go homeless because of it? I also agree that planning a 'right mix' of people does reek of totalitarianism, but the other choice isn't any better. I don't see how letting the rich choose who gets to live a decent life based on whose most useful to them is any less totalarian when our society is channeling more and more wealth everyday to a small group of people.