6 ms·

This is not just a problem among "elites", every class in society down to the bottom rung shows the shame characteristics of the elite that Giridharadas lays ou

This is not just a problem among "elites", every class in society down to the bottom rung shows the shame characteristics of the elite that Giridharadas lays out. The clearest example you can see is with NIMBYs, especially those in liberal leaning cities. These are people who vote blue, champion diversity, and have generally progressive views. But when push comes to shove they circle the wagons to defend their interests just like the billionaires do. Take a look at your local school board meeting or a city council session where some new development is on the docket.

wycs 8y ago
Our revealed preferences often paint a bleak portrait.
electricslpnsld 8y ago
> These are people who vote blue, champion diversity, and have generally progressive views. But when push comes to shove they circle the wagons to defend their interests just like the billionaires do. My favorite example in the Bay Area is the San Francisco Sierra Club fighting to preserve a parking garage [1], which is, by and large, the exact opposite of environmental advocacy. [1] https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/the-sierra-club-fights-to-save-a-parking-garage/article_93ff9084-3be7-11e7-a3a8-17f11f24db6e.html https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/the-sierra-club-fi...
- mshenfield 8y ago
  The way environmental concerns have been corrupted into institutional delay levers is sad. "How Burrowing Owls Lead To Vomiting Anarchists" is one of the few (and best) explanation of the impacts of these kinds of tactics that I've read [0] [0] https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/
mshenfield 8y ago
> These are people who vote blue, champion diversity, and have generally progressive views. But when push comes to shove they circle the wagons to defend their interests A specific example in the city of Seattle - a neighborhood group sued to delay increasing housing density (read: make housing more affordable). While the suit called for an environmental study, you can easily read between the lines and see that homeowners in the area do not want change, and view increased density as a threat to the character of their neighborhoods. The lawsuit has already delayed a significant increase to the housing stock for the entire city by 2 years. [0] [0] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/queen-anne-group-again-challenges-plan-to-ease-restrictions-on-backyard-cottages-in-seattle/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/queen-ann...
- isoskeles 8y ago
  I don't agree with them, but increased density is absolutely a "threat" to the character of any neighborhood, not just something they "view" as such. Having more people live in a neighborhood changes everything about it, I don't understand why people neglect this point, like it isn't real or maybe doesn't count because everything NIMBYs say is invalid because we all want cheaper rent. But I am not saying you're doing this, it's just what I see when people talk about NIMBY. As a result of denser housing, rent should go down N%, but your quality of life (if you're not fooling yourself) will also go down slightly as you have to deal with the reality of living near more people. (Longer waits at local stores, more crowded sidewalks, etc. We can pretend this is a "good" thing and that humans are social creatures, but there is a point where it becomes less tolerable to most people.)
  - mshenfield 8y ago
    People in small neighborhoods tend to value the charm, convenience, and connection they have with their communities. I don't want to pretend things won't change, but those qualities can be preserved even as a neighborhood gets dense (Brooklyn might be a good example). Plus, there are additional benefits (transit, shops, services) that tend to come with density.
  - britch 8y ago
    You're absolutely right, it would change the character of the neighborhoods. But the argument you present is exposes the hypocrisy at the center of people in these neighborhoods and hits at some of what Giridharadas is getting at. I suspect many of the generalized Seattle NIMBY's champion affordable housing and decry gentrification, but when the rubber hits the road and they are asked to give up something (neighborhood charm) to actually do something about these problems (increase density to lower housing costs), they actively fight against it. "I like affordable housing as long as I can still live in the same neighborhood and don't have to give anything up."
    - illegalsmile 8y ago
      Would increased density actually lead to lower housing costs though? My initial thought is no, especially in a major city such as Seattle.
internet555 8y ago
This is why I think much of Christian thought is actually quite intelligent. (Summary by a very intellectually and spiritually deficient moron): I am pathetic, my desires are all almost certainly evil, I can probably not even think one good thought let alone have a good intention without divine help. God, please please please please have mercy and grant me some very much needed horror of self and conformity to your will and help me to not become a puffed up moron who is full of himself if one seemingly desirable thing happens to me, which is certainly what is going to happen unless the literal creator of the universe helps me to do it a little bit less. Of course none of the American Protestant Christians I know will like it if you say that since they seem to think Christianity is about being a millionaire who gives 30% to charity and doesn’t have premarital sex too much
- isoskeles 8y ago
  > horror of self Not being obtuse: what do you mean here?
  - polynomial 8y ago
    I would say it is a wish for spiritual insight into the nature of self-ishness, how it is a root cause of evil in the world, and presumably the related Christian tenet that it's not a 'fixable' problem without cultivating a divine relationship to the creator or source. But I would just be guessing.
    - goatlover 8y ago
      Then again, if everyone were selfish in a cat-like way that everyone else can fuck off, we wouldn't have wars, genocide, slavery, abuse of power, or terrorism. So there's something more to it than just being selfish. Something to do with our tribal, hierarchal tendencies where one alpha ape can convince the rest of us to do violence against those other groups, who get blamed for all our problems.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
goatlover 8y ago
It's almost as if democracy is about balancing competing self-interests. It's also easier be more enlightened, as long as it's not impacting one's own self-interest.
brookhaven_dude 8y ago
False comparison because billionaire has a lot more money compared to your typical middle-class NIMBY. Even if quite a bit of the billionaire's wealth vanishes, it won't impact his lifestyle much. Not so with NIMBY. (For the record, I don't like NIMBY's)
naravara 8y ago
>The clearest example you can see is with NIMBYs, especially those in liberal leaning cities. I don't think it's accurate to classify property owners in some of the world's most expensive real-estate markets as "the bottom rungs of society." And my experience with local city council and school board sessions aren't that different. It's usually the same sorts of people. They're not billionaires, but they're usually pretty materially comfortable. I'd categorize them as being "dream hoarder" types. (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/the-hoarding-of-the-american-dream/530481/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/the-hoa...)

wycs 8y ago

Our revealed preferences often paint a bleak portrait.

electricslpnsld 8y ago

> These are people who vote blue, champion diversity, and have generally progressive views. But when push comes to shove they circle the wagons to defend their interests just like the billionaires do. My favorite example in the Bay Area is the San Francisco Sierra Club fighting to preserve a parking garage [1], which is, by and large, the exact opposite of environmental advocacy. [1] https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/the-sierra-club-fights-to-save-a-parking-garage/article_93ff9084-3be7-11e7-a3a8-17f11f24db6e.html https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/the-sierra-club-fi...

mshenfield 8y ago
The way environmental concerns have been corrupted into institutional delay levers is sad. "How Burrowing Owls Lead To Vomiting Anarchists" is one of the few (and best) explanation of the impacts of these kinds of tactics that I've read [0] [0] https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/

mshenfield 8y ago

> These are people who vote blue, champion diversity, and have generally progressive views. But when push comes to shove they circle the wagons to defend their interests A specific example in the city of Seattle - a neighborhood group sued to delay increasing housing density (read: make housing more affordable). While the suit called for an environmental study, you can easily read between the lines and see that homeowners in the area do not want change, and view increased density as a threat to the character of their neighborhoods. The lawsuit has already delayed a significant increase to the housing stock for the entire city by 2 years. [0] [0] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/queen-anne-group-again-challenges-plan-to-ease-restrictions-on-backyard-cottages-in-seattle/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/queen-ann...

isoskeles 8y ago
I don't agree with them, but increased density is absolutely a "threat" to the character of any neighborhood, not just something they "view" as such. Having more people live in a neighborhood changes everything about it, I don't understand why people neglect this point, like it isn't real or maybe doesn't count because everything NIMBYs say is invalid because we all want cheaper rent. But I am not saying you're doing this, it's just what I see when people talk about NIMBY. As a result of denser housing, rent should go down N%, but your quality of life (if you're not fooling yourself) will also go down slightly as you have to deal with the reality of living near more people. (Longer waits at local stores, more crowded sidewalks, etc. We can pretend this is a "good" thing and that humans are social creatures, but there is a point where it becomes less tolerable to most people.)
- mshenfield 8y ago
  People in small neighborhoods tend to value the charm, convenience, and connection they have with their communities. I don't want to pretend things won't change, but those qualities can be preserved even as a neighborhood gets dense (Brooklyn might be a good example). Plus, there are additional benefits (transit, shops, services) that tend to come with density.
- britch 8y ago
  You're absolutely right, it would change the character of the neighborhoods. But the argument you present is exposes the hypocrisy at the center of people in these neighborhoods and hits at some of what Giridharadas is getting at. I suspect many of the generalized Seattle NIMBY's champion affordable housing and decry gentrification, but when the rubber hits the road and they are asked to give up something (neighborhood charm) to actually do something about these problems (increase density to lower housing costs), they actively fight against it. "I like affordable housing as long as I can still live in the same neighborhood and don't have to give anything up."
  - illegalsmile 8y ago
    Would increased density actually lead to lower housing costs though? My initial thought is no, especially in a major city such as Seattle.

internet555 8y ago

This is why I think much of Christian thought is actually quite intelligent. (Summary by a very intellectually and spiritually deficient moron): I am pathetic, my desires are all almost certainly evil, I can probably not even think one good thought let alone have a good intention without divine help. God, please please please please have mercy and grant me some very much needed horror of self and conformity to your will and help me to not become a puffed up moron who is full of himself if one seemingly desirable thing happens to me, which is certainly what is going to happen unless the literal creator of the universe helps me to do it a little bit less. Of course none of the American Protestant Christians I know will like it if you say that since they seem to think Christianity is about being a millionaire who gives 30% to charity and doesn’t have premarital sex too much

isoskeles 8y ago
> horror of self Not being obtuse: what do you mean here?
- polynomial 8y ago
  I would say it is a wish for spiritual insight into the nature of self-ishness, how it is a root cause of evil in the world, and presumably the related Christian tenet that it's not a 'fixable' problem without cultivating a divine relationship to the creator or source. But I would just be guessing.
  - goatlover 8y ago
    Then again, if everyone were selfish in a cat-like way that everyone else can fuck off, we wouldn't have wars, genocide, slavery, abuse of power, or terrorism. So there's something more to it than just being selfish. Something to do with our tribal, hierarchal tendencies where one alpha ape can convince the rest of us to do violence against those other groups, who get blamed for all our problems.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

goatlover 8y ago

It's almost as if democracy is about balancing competing self-interests. It's also easier be more enlightened, as long as it's not impacting one's own self-interest.

brookhaven_dude 8y ago

False comparison because billionaire has a lot more money compared to your typical middle-class NIMBY. Even if quite a bit of the billionaire's wealth vanishes, it won't impact his lifestyle much. Not so with NIMBY. (For the record, I don't like NIMBY's)

naravara 8y ago

>The clearest example you can see is with NIMBYs, especially those in liberal leaning cities. I don't think it's accurate to classify property owners in some of the world's most expensive real-estate markets as "the bottom rungs of society." And my experience with local city council and school board sessions aren't that different. It's usually the same sorts of people. They're not billionaires, but they're usually pretty materially comfortable. I'd categorize them as being "dream hoarder" types. (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/the-hoarding-of-the-american-dream/530481/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/the-hoa...)