6 ms·

which is simply that people are acting in their own self-interests. And yes, this includes the folks who believe they have an unalienable right to live in the B

which is simply that people are acting in their own self-interests. And yes, this includes the folks who believe they have an unalienable right to live in the Bay area. It's not actually in people's self interest. A society that creates severe divisions courts social unrest. Perceptions of relative status are directly linked to social unrest and lawlessness. This is operating in people at a level below consciousness, and the evolutionary roots of it probably predate human language. Of course, no one has an "unalienable right to live in the Bay area." This is technically correct. However, it's still pretty crappy if the Bay Area prices-out everyone except for techies living there. Just because you can buy it, doesn't mean you should. Just because you can keep it for yourself, doesn't mean you necessarily should.

jelliclesfarm 8y ago
I think your understanding of the concept of ownership and market forces is tenuous.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  I think your understanding of the concept of ownership and market forces is tenuous. This statement is basically proof that you really don't understand where I'm coming from. (Which is exacerbated by your quaint and highly inaccurate ideas about urban geography.) Property rights are indeed fundamental. Resisting market forces is as wise as resisting the tide -- do it at your peril, or if you have considerable resources and know what you're doing. (So usually, no!) That said, market forces don't dictate morality, laws of physics, and fundamentals of human psychology. There are other things out there to be concerned about. An overly narrow focus on the market and what money entitles you to may well cause you to miss important implications. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/09/martin-shkrelis-legacy-shaping-the-drug-pricing-debate.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/09/martin-shkrelis-legacy-shapi... Society has to work together as a whole. All the different segments of society have to be accorded a certain level of dignity. Otherwise, one endangers the civility and mutual trust necessary for economic transactions to happen reliably. Dividing society too much according to wealth, generational, and demographic lines creates more opportunities for groupthink and division. There is a point where "separate but equal" loses its luster, after all.
  - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
    I think society is fine. What is at peril is freedom to admit to be upwardly mobile. There is a desire to cut down those wanting to fly high. The ‘Tall Poppy’ syndrome. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome [..]The tall poppy syndrome describes aspects of a culture where people of high status are resented, attacked, cut down, strung up or criticised because they have been classified as superior to their peers. The term has been used in cultures of the English-speaking world.[..] [..]The concept originates from accounts in Herodotus' Histories (Book 5, 92f), Aristotle's Politics (1284a), and Livy's Ab Urbe Condita Libri, Book I. [Periander] had sent a herald to Thrasybulus and inquired in what way he would best and most safely govern his city. Thrasybulus led the man who had come from Periander outside the town, and entered into a sown field. As he walked through the wheat, continually asking why the messenger had come to him from Cypselus, he kept cutting off all the tallest ears of wheat which he could see, and throwing them away, until he had destroyed the best and richest part of the crop. Then, after passing through the place and speaking no word of counsel, he sent the herald away. When the herald returned to Cypselus, Periander desired to hear what counsel he brought, but the man said that Thrasybulus had given him none. The herald added that it was a strange man to whom he had been sent, a madman and a destroyer of his own possessions, telling Periander what he had seen Thrasybulus do. Periander, however, understood what had been done, and perceived that Thrasybulus had counselled him to slay those of his townsmen who were outstanding in influence or ability; with that he began to deal with his citizens in an evil manner. — Herodotus, The Histories, Book 5, 92-f[..]
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      What is at peril is freedom to admit to be upwardly mobile. No disagreement there either. The tall poppy syndrome describes aspects of a culture where people of high status are resented, attacked, cut down, strung up or criticised because they have been classified as superior to their peers. Don't merely rail against your haters, when there are ways of converting them into your allies. Does blame only flow in one direction here?
jelliclesfarm 8y ago
Exactly. Anyone can buy into Stockton. But many don’t and they chose Bay Area because they want to...see the key word? ‘Want’? You are saying that the vulnerable society’s ‘want’ is weighted more than the non vulnerable section of society. Why? I do this all the time. I call it the ‘Five Whys’ method. If you can answer five consecutive ‘Why’s ..issue will clarify.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Exactly. Anyone can buy into Stockton. (Tangential: One of the best musicians I know took great pains to move to SF, for artistic reasons. He took great pains to move away from Stockton. I think I'll ask him about your observation above.) You are saying that the vulnerable society’s ‘want’ is weighted more than the non vulnerable section of society. Incorrect. What I'm saying is that causing the de-facto division of society into separate castes is a recipe for social disaster. https://www.wired.com/story/how-silicon-valley-fuels-an-informal-caste-system/ https://www.wired.com/story/how-silicon-valley-fuels-an-info... In addition to markets, there are certain wired-in facts about human psychology. Perceived relative status, if the gap is too wide to let people feel dignified, directly causes social unrest. It's just not smart for the segment of society that controls resources to let that situation come about. That's just how people work. The psychological and social science research on this is clear. Why? I do this all the time. I call it the ‘Five Whys’ method. If you can answer five consecutive ‘Why’s ..issue will clarify. My hunch is that you've strawmanned your particular whys. Judging from other parts of this thread, I would probably agree with all of your answers and conclusions, yet I still come to a different conclusion.
  - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
    I don’t see a problem with a fragmented society. It makes for diversity. We should alleviate hardship but it’s not our social responsibility to form a homogeneous society on the basis of wealth. Dignity is not about living in the Bay Area. Those who live in Bay Area and in nice homes may even suffer indiginities at work that facilitated their status. The psychological and social study is actually not clear. We don’t have true poverty in this corner of our western world like in India or Bangladesh or in some places in Africa etc. So..yea..perspective. We have relative poverty. Cupertino folks are poorer than those in Atherton. Hayward is poorer than Cupertino. Visalia is poorer than Hayward. There will always be hierarchies. There are enough studies to back that tho’.. And hierarchies are important. They are the furnaces from where societies are tempered. Making assumptions is easy. None of us can be saviours of others. We can only be saviours of ourselves. It’s ok not to be a super hero in our story. We don’t even have to be hero’s. I would rather that we aspire not to be villains. But again..that pesky thing called free will. So there’s that..

jelliclesfarm 8y ago

I think your understanding of the concept of ownership and market forces is tenuous.

stcredzero 8y ago
I think your understanding of the concept of ownership and market forces is tenuous. This statement is basically proof that you really don't understand where I'm coming from. (Which is exacerbated by your quaint and highly inaccurate ideas about urban geography.) Property rights are indeed fundamental. Resisting market forces is as wise as resisting the tide -- do it at your peril, or if you have considerable resources and know what you're doing. (So usually, no!) That said, market forces don't dictate morality, laws of physics, and fundamentals of human psychology. There are other things out there to be concerned about. An overly narrow focus on the market and what money entitles you to may well cause you to miss important implications. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/09/martin-shkrelis-legacy-shaping-the-drug-pricing-debate.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/09/martin-shkrelis-legacy-shapi... Society has to work together as a whole. All the different segments of society have to be accorded a certain level of dignity. Otherwise, one endangers the civility and mutual trust necessary for economic transactions to happen reliably. Dividing society too much according to wealth, generational, and demographic lines creates more opportunities for groupthink and division. There is a point where "separate but equal" loses its luster, after all.
- jelliclesfarm 8y ago
  I think society is fine. What is at peril is freedom to admit to be upwardly mobile. There is a desire to cut down those wanting to fly high. The ‘Tall Poppy’ syndrome. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome [..]The tall poppy syndrome describes aspects of a culture where people of high status are resented, attacked, cut down, strung up or criticised because they have been classified as superior to their peers. The term has been used in cultures of the English-speaking world.[..] [..]The concept originates from accounts in Herodotus' Histories (Book 5, 92f), Aristotle's Politics (1284a), and Livy's Ab Urbe Condita Libri, Book I. [Periander] had sent a herald to Thrasybulus and inquired in what way he would best and most safely govern his city. Thrasybulus led the man who had come from Periander outside the town, and entered into a sown field. As he walked through the wheat, continually asking why the messenger had come to him from Cypselus, he kept cutting off all the tallest ears of wheat which he could see, and throwing them away, until he had destroyed the best and richest part of the crop. Then, after passing through the place and speaking no word of counsel, he sent the herald away. When the herald returned to Cypselus, Periander desired to hear what counsel he brought, but the man said that Thrasybulus had given him none. The herald added that it was a strange man to whom he had been sent, a madman and a destroyer of his own possessions, telling Periander what he had seen Thrasybulus do. Periander, however, understood what had been done, and perceived that Thrasybulus had counselled him to slay those of his townsmen who were outstanding in influence or ability; with that he began to deal with his citizens in an evil manner. — Herodotus, The Histories, Book 5, 92-f[..]
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    What is at peril is freedom to admit to be upwardly mobile. No disagreement there either. The tall poppy syndrome describes aspects of a culture where people of high status are resented, attacked, cut down, strung up or criticised because they have been classified as superior to their peers. Don't merely rail against your haters, when there are ways of converting them into your allies. Does blame only flow in one direction here?

jelliclesfarm 8y ago

Exactly. Anyone can buy into Stockton. But many don’t and they chose Bay Area because they want to...see the key word? ‘Want’? You are saying that the vulnerable society’s ‘want’ is weighted more than the non vulnerable section of society. Why? I do this all the time. I call it the ‘Five Whys’ method. If you can answer five consecutive ‘Why’s ..issue will clarify.

stcredzero 8y ago
Exactly. Anyone can buy into Stockton. (Tangential: One of the best musicians I know took great pains to move to SF, for artistic reasons. He took great pains to move away from Stockton. I think I'll ask him about your observation above.) You are saying that the vulnerable society’s ‘want’ is weighted more than the non vulnerable section of society. Incorrect. What I'm saying is that causing the de-facto division of society into separate castes is a recipe for social disaster. https://www.wired.com/story/how-silicon-valley-fuels-an-informal-caste-system/ https://www.wired.com/story/how-silicon-valley-fuels-an-info... In addition to markets, there are certain wired-in facts about human psychology. Perceived relative status, if the gap is too wide to let people feel dignified, directly causes social unrest. It's just not smart for the segment of society that controls resources to let that situation come about. That's just how people work. The psychological and social science research on this is clear. Why? I do this all the time. I call it the ‘Five Whys’ method. If you can answer five consecutive ‘Why’s ..issue will clarify. My hunch is that you've strawmanned your particular whys. Judging from other parts of this thread, I would probably agree with all of your answers and conclusions, yet I still come to a different conclusion.
- jelliclesfarm 8y ago
  I don’t see a problem with a fragmented society. It makes for diversity. We should alleviate hardship but it’s not our social responsibility to form a homogeneous society on the basis of wealth. Dignity is not about living in the Bay Area. Those who live in Bay Area and in nice homes may even suffer indiginities at work that facilitated their status. The psychological and social study is actually not clear. We don’t have true poverty in this corner of our western world like in India or Bangladesh or in some places in Africa etc. So..yea..perspective. We have relative poverty. Cupertino folks are poorer than those in Atherton. Hayward is poorer than Cupertino. Visalia is poorer than Hayward. There will always be hierarchies. There are enough studies to back that tho’.. And hierarchies are important. They are the furnaces from where societies are tempered. Making assumptions is easy. None of us can be saviours of others. We can only be saviours of ourselves. It’s ok not to be a super hero in our story. We don’t even have to be hero’s. I would rather that we aspire not to be villains. But again..that pesky thing called free will. So there’s that..