5 ms·

Part of this problem is our societal failure to build enough housing to keep up with the increasing number of people, with a resulting increase in housing costs

Part of this problem is our societal failure to build enough housing to keep up with the increasing number of people, with a resulting increase in housing costs that has significantly outpaced the median wage. If you can't afford to live on your own, and can't afford housing where the jobs are located, then you're more likely to live with your parents and be unemployed.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
Adding to this, we've also abandoned the idea of building out in the middle of nowhere and linking it to a city center with a rail line. I'd gladly buy a cheap home in the boonies if I could take a train into work instead of driving.
- lazypenguin 5y ago
  That’s an interesting observation. I’ve always heard the argument that we need “more density” but I like this option as well.
  - danans 5y ago
    We do need density at the end of that rail line - dense towns connected to a dense metropolitan hub via a fast rail line. For example Ann Arbor to Detroit, Davis to Sacramento (neither of which have fast rail lines to connect them). What we've built instead for more than half a century is continuous radiating sprawl.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    There is no way the tax base of the boonies can support the initial and operating costs of a rail line. Therefore it is not an option, and why you do not see it anywhere. Even suburbs cannot afford all of their ongoing infrastructure obligations, and why you see many dilapidated areas. This is all becoming apparent now because birthrates have plummeted hence what used to be masked by economic growth due to sheer population growth no longer has the ability to be papered over with increased tax collections due to increased population.
- ccheney 5y ago
  Minneapolis has the Northstar Line[1] which essentially matches what you're describing here. Unfortunately, there's talk of shutting it down[2] due to low ridership stemming from the pandemic. [1] https://www.metrotransit.org/northstar https://www.metrotransit.org/northstar [2] https://outline.com/smYCML https://outline.com/smYCML (startribune.com paywall)
- CapmCrackaWaka 5y ago
  I personally believe this will be more common in the future, but I’m less convinced of a rail connection. I think with the increasing popularity of working from home, availability of utilities (satellite internet, solar power) in more rural places and the relative cost of rural land, people will start settling a few hours outside larger cities without having to sacrifice much in terms of quality of life.
- ArkanExplorer 5y ago
  Its going to be significantly more realistic to retrofit existing roads and highways with machine-readable signage and traffic lights (for example, why do cars have to read traffic lights with cameras, why can't the lights broadcast the status locally?) Then we can run autonomous vehicles (private and corporate) over the same infrastructure.
  - erhk 5y ago
    Oh good proprietary traffic signs
- Chris2048 5y ago
  Or planned cities without private land ownership? The city can sell short term leases, but allow the leases to expire when it's time to re-zone.
atweiden 5y ago
> Part of this problem is our societal failure to build enough housing to keep up with the increasing number of people. The issue is human overpopulation, not our society’s “failure” to destroy the fabric of closely knit communities. Humans are by far the least efficient life form on this planet, and what little enjoyment most humans get out of life mostly comes down to the integrity of their local communities: their safety, their health, their prosperity. Yet we’ve become so hyperfocused on economic growth that we’ve turned our larger society into a malignant tumor unto Earth, while ironically an increasingly high proportion of humans lead unhappy, unfulfilled lives. Why do so many people just accept the answer is more growth? Until we can master interstellar travel, we have to contend with finite physical resources.
- supertrope 5y ago
  Without economic growth we’d still be hunter gatherers. Growing crops allowed people to have excess food and support classes of people whose occupation was non-food related. The industrial revolution not only allowed for mass production but the Haber process by which fossil fuels are turned into fertilizer. Without it we would only be able to feed half the world.
  - atweiden 5y ago
    Technological advancement and human overpopulation are orthogonal concepts. It’s perfectly reasonable to believe the planet is heavily overpopulated with humans and also that technological advancement is desireable. There is very much not a direct relationship between absolute number of humans, and technological advancement. This is increasingly true as we inch closer to AGI.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      > There is very much not a direct relationship between absolute number of humans, and technological advancement. There very much absolutely is a direct and bidirectional link between the two. Technological advancement (esp fetilizers) has been crucial to the increase in the absolute number of humans to its current level. There is also good reason to think that there are direct effects in the opposite direction. There seems likely to be a minimum population that can support the degree of specialization needed for a given level of technological advancement. But while there absolutely is a direct relationship, I don't think that your core point is necessarily wrong. The minimum population required to maintain our current level of technology might well be one or more magnitudes less than our current population. Our current population may well be sufficient to achieve the level of technology required to become a space habitating species.
erhk 5y ago
Theres a ton of housing surplus if you dont want to build equity

BitwiseFool 5y ago

Adding to this, we've also abandoned the idea of building out in the middle of nowhere and linking it to a city center with a rail line. I'd gladly buy a cheap home in the boonies if I could take a train into work instead of driving.

lazypenguin 5y ago
That’s an interesting observation. I’ve always heard the argument that we need “more density” but I like this option as well.
- danans 5y ago
  We do need density at the end of that rail line - dense towns connected to a dense metropolitan hub via a fast rail line. For example Ann Arbor to Detroit, Davis to Sacramento (neither of which have fast rail lines to connect them). What we've built instead for more than half a century is continuous radiating sprawl.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  There is no way the tax base of the boonies can support the initial and operating costs of a rail line. Therefore it is not an option, and why you do not see it anywhere. Even suburbs cannot afford all of their ongoing infrastructure obligations, and why you see many dilapidated areas. This is all becoming apparent now because birthrates have plummeted hence what used to be masked by economic growth due to sheer population growth no longer has the ability to be papered over with increased tax collections due to increased population.
ccheney 5y ago
Minneapolis has the Northstar Line[1] which essentially matches what you're describing here. Unfortunately, there's talk of shutting it down[2] due to low ridership stemming from the pandemic. [1] https://www.metrotransit.org/northstar https://www.metrotransit.org/northstar [2] https://outline.com/smYCML https://outline.com/smYCML (startribune.com paywall)
CapmCrackaWaka 5y ago
I personally believe this will be more common in the future, but I’m less convinced of a rail connection. I think with the increasing popularity of working from home, availability of utilities (satellite internet, solar power) in more rural places and the relative cost of rural land, people will start settling a few hours outside larger cities without having to sacrifice much in terms of quality of life.
ArkanExplorer 5y ago
Its going to be significantly more realistic to retrofit existing roads and highways with machine-readable signage and traffic lights (for example, why do cars have to read traffic lights with cameras, why can't the lights broadcast the status locally?) Then we can run autonomous vehicles (private and corporate) over the same infrastructure.
- erhk 5y ago
  Oh good proprietary traffic signs
Chris2048 5y ago
Or planned cities without private land ownership? The city can sell short term leases, but allow the leases to expire when it's time to re-zone.

atweiden 5y ago

> Part of this problem is our societal failure to build enough housing to keep up with the increasing number of people. The issue is human overpopulation, not our society’s “failure” to destroy the fabric of closely knit communities. Humans are by far the least efficient life form on this planet, and what little enjoyment most humans get out of life mostly comes down to the integrity of their local communities: their safety, their health, their prosperity. Yet we’ve become so hyperfocused on economic growth that we’ve turned our larger society into a malignant tumor unto Earth, while ironically an increasingly high proportion of humans lead unhappy, unfulfilled lives. Why do so many people just accept the answer is more growth? Until we can master interstellar travel, we have to contend with finite physical resources.

supertrope 5y ago
Without economic growth we’d still be hunter gatherers. Growing crops allowed people to have excess food and support classes of people whose occupation was non-food related. The industrial revolution not only allowed for mass production but the Haber process by which fossil fuels are turned into fertilizer. Without it we would only be able to feed half the world.
- atweiden 5y ago
  Technological advancement and human overpopulation are orthogonal concepts. It’s perfectly reasonable to believe the planet is heavily overpopulated with humans and also that technological advancement is desireable. There is very much not a direct relationship between absolute number of humans, and technological advancement. This is increasingly true as we inch closer to AGI.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > There is very much not a direct relationship between absolute number of humans, and technological advancement. There very much absolutely is a direct and bidirectional link between the two. Technological advancement (esp fetilizers) has been crucial to the increase in the absolute number of humans to its current level. There is also good reason to think that there are direct effects in the opposite direction. There seems likely to be a minimum population that can support the degree of specialization needed for a given level of technological advancement. But while there absolutely is a direct relationship, I don't think that your core point is necessarily wrong. The minimum population required to maintain our current level of technology might well be one or more magnitudes less than our current population. Our current population may well be sufficient to achieve the level of technology required to become a space habitating species.

erhk 5y ago

Theres a ton of housing surplus if you dont want to build equity