5 ms·

It always frustrates me when people make false equivalences between techno-economic and socio-political tasks as though they are zero-sum. Let's take homelessn

It always frustrates me when people make false equivalences between techno-economic and socio-political tasks as though they are zero-sum. Let's take homelessness in California as an example. It's a problem that requires zero new technology and zero new expenditure to largely solve, but does require the social and political willpower to actually build more affordable housing to the point where cost of living is reasonable and temporary loss of a job doesn't force people onto the street. But Californians overwhelmingly don't want this. NIMBYs vote against new high-density housing all the time. Cities in California are actively fighting tooth and nail against Newsom's housing bills. How exactly would spending less money on scientific or exploration pursuits solve this? They are activities in entirely different worlds.

riskycodes 5y ago
This is an excellent point. I think the point that the article is trying to make is that people's motivations are divided and we can't expect to change them. If we can find ways to harness the products of scientific or exploration pursuits to help with the socio-political tasks, then the motivations of those seeking to solve techno-economic tasks can also help solve socio-political tasks.
drozycki 5y ago
Many Californians believe that the housing crisis is best solved with public housing. I suppose that this approach may be feasible if accompanied by massive disinvestment in techno-economic tasks, among other things.
VictorPath 5y ago
> Californians overwhelmingly don't want this From 1960 to 2010, Americans when polled if someone with pre-existing conditions should be able to get health insurance or government-funded care not only wanted that by a majority, but by an overwhelming majority. Nevertheless it was blocked for half a century in the legislature. There is a narrative that many of these things don't happen because Americans don't want them, but that is a false narrative. On the half century theme, the inflation-adjusted hourly wage in the US is below what it was 50 years ago. All productivity gains have gone to the rentiers, to the heirs. Why are the people doing the work and creating the wealth going to support something they see no benefit from?
- hhmc 5y ago
  The narrative is probably compounding further by pluralistic ignorance[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance
- qiskit 5y ago
  > From 1960 to 2010, Americans when polled if someone with pre-existing conditions should be able to get health insurance or government-funded care not only wanted that by a majority, but by an overwhelming majority. Nevertheless it was blocked for half a century in the legislature. But when polled if government should raise taxes, the overwhelming majority said no. You are leaving out the part that really matters. A perfect example is Trump voters supporting building the wall and Trump voters being against raising taxes to pay for the wall. How can you resolve such a contradiction? You can't. If you are a clever snake oil salesman like Trump, you lie and say "Mexico will pay for it". But that's not how the world works. People will always be noble and virtuous when nothing is at stake. It's like how elizabeth warren can support mass immigration but asked if she's willing to house a migrant family, she'll say no. It's like how politicians support war but find exemptions for their sons. Personally, I think universal basic income is the best shot. If the poor, homeless, uninsured, etc were getting a steady monthly check, the markets will find a way to provide housing, insurance, etc for them.
randomsilence 5y ago
What's the point of equilibrium? How many housing units will be needed to offer affordable housing to everybody who wants it?
- Gigachad 5y ago
  There is also a problem where it’s hard to actually change the price of housing. When the government builds its own housing, it lowers the market value which discourages private businesses from building since its no longer worth while. Although in the case of California, simply ceasing the practice of blocking private developments would be a huge benefit.
oh_sigh 5y ago
Affordable housing isn't the issue for most of the high profile homeless in San Francisco (ie the ones that defecate in the streets, steal cartloads from pharmacies, threaten you with a knife randomly, etc). But your point mostly holds true for them - we need the political willpower to involuntarily commit them until they are clean from their addictions and learn the skills to function in society.
BobbyJo 5y ago
A very common mistake I see people making is that it is always case that we can trade X for Y, where X and Y are any two random resources. This isn't always true, and the more indirection there is in the trade the less efficient the trade becomes. Every time you fight against an equilibrium you are losing total economic capacity, the size of the pie we all share. Trading rockets for housing and medicine is A LOT of indirection. We'd be giving up a lot of Rockets for a very modest increase in Medicine and Housing.

riskycodes 5y ago

This is an excellent point. I think the point that the article is trying to make is that people's motivations are divided and we can't expect to change them. If we can find ways to harness the products of scientific or exploration pursuits to help with the socio-political tasks, then the motivations of those seeking to solve techno-economic tasks can also help solve socio-political tasks.

drozycki 5y ago

Many Californians believe that the housing crisis is best solved with public housing. I suppose that this approach may be feasible if accompanied by massive disinvestment in techno-economic tasks, among other things.

VictorPath 5y ago

> Californians overwhelmingly don't want this From 1960 to 2010, Americans when polled if someone with pre-existing conditions should be able to get health insurance or government-funded care not only wanted that by a majority, but by an overwhelming majority. Nevertheless it was blocked for half a century in the legislature. There is a narrative that many of these things don't happen because Americans don't want them, but that is a false narrative. On the half century theme, the inflation-adjusted hourly wage in the US is below what it was 50 years ago. All productivity gains have gone to the rentiers, to the heirs. Why are the people doing the work and creating the wealth going to support something they see no benefit from?

hhmc 5y ago
The narrative is probably compounding further by pluralistic ignorance[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance
qiskit 5y ago
> From 1960 to 2010, Americans when polled if someone with pre-existing conditions should be able to get health insurance or government-funded care not only wanted that by a majority, but by an overwhelming majority. Nevertheless it was blocked for half a century in the legislature. But when polled if government should raise taxes, the overwhelming majority said no. You are leaving out the part that really matters. A perfect example is Trump voters supporting building the wall and Trump voters being against raising taxes to pay for the wall. How can you resolve such a contradiction? You can't. If you are a clever snake oil salesman like Trump, you lie and say "Mexico will pay for it". But that's not how the world works. People will always be noble and virtuous when nothing is at stake. It's like how elizabeth warren can support mass immigration but asked if she's willing to house a migrant family, she'll say no. It's like how politicians support war but find exemptions for their sons. Personally, I think universal basic income is the best shot. If the poor, homeless, uninsured, etc were getting a steady monthly check, the markets will find a way to provide housing, insurance, etc for them.

randomsilence 5y ago

What's the point of equilibrium? How many housing units will be needed to offer affordable housing to everybody who wants it?

Gigachad 5y ago
There is also a problem where it’s hard to actually change the price of housing. When the government builds its own housing, it lowers the market value which discourages private businesses from building since its no longer worth while. Although in the case of California, simply ceasing the practice of blocking private developments would be a huge benefit.

oh_sigh 5y ago

Affordable housing isn't the issue for most of the high profile homeless in San Francisco (ie the ones that defecate in the streets, steal cartloads from pharmacies, threaten you with a knife randomly, etc). But your point mostly holds true for them - we need the political willpower to involuntarily commit them until they are clean from their addictions and learn the skills to function in society.

BobbyJo 5y ago

A very common mistake I see people making is that it is always case that we can trade X for Y, where X and Y are any two random resources. This isn't always true, and the more indirection there is in the trade the less efficient the trade becomes. Every time you fight against an equilibrium you are losing total economic capacity, the size of the pie we all share. Trading rockets for housing and medicine is A LOT of indirection. We'd be giving up a lot of Rockets for a very modest increase in Medicine and Housing.