5 ms·

> that the only way to cater to American tastes I think that is the crux of many tragedies to come. Our tastes, standards, and expectations are unsustainable.

> that the only way to cater to American tastes I think that is the crux of many tragedies to come. Our tastes, standards, and expectations are unsustainable. Single family dwellings. Non-local foods out of season. Things will have to adjust.

gjsman-1000 3y ago
Sounds like a great idea to get reactionary leaders elected from people who don't want change. Change works much better with carrots than sticks.
- Pet_Ant 3y ago
  I'm not saying it as a campaign promise, I'm saying it as an uncomfortable truth for us who think about these things. How to sell it to the public is PR's job.
  - maxwell 3y ago
    Ah yes, what we need is a Leni Riefenstahl for climate propaganda.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  There's not always a happy option when you've ignored a problem for a hundred years. Sometimes the option is a self induced stick, or a way bigger stick from something else that you don't get to choose. It's rank entitlement to believe you personally should never have to change anything to make the world a better place. IMO this is a huge reason why the younger generations have been worthless at doing government things. The Bud Light and Dylan Mulvaney situation proved that average consumers can absolutely still affect big businesses in a way that leads to uncomfortable discussions with shareholders, you just have to be willing to settle for a different product. Meanwhile plenty of gay people and people who believe gay people deserve equal rights still buy a fucking chicken sandwhich from a fast food place that donates to organizations that explicitly exist to fight gay rights, rather than deprive themselves of, once again, a medium quality fried chicken sandwich that you can get from ten other establishments or literally any pub.
  - antisyzygy 3y ago
    You would be right if you didn't talk about the younger generations. They're more active and more socially responsible. They're voting more than the boomers did at a younger age. The older generations with their war chests won't let us lead and use their money to ensure things don't change.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      Gen Z is being active, and giving me hope that the lack of activity in the generations between boomer and gen Z were an anomaly. >The older generations with their war chests won't let us lead and use their money to ensure things don't change. That doesn't counter my claim though. I said that those "politically dead" generations couldn't even manage to stop eating chicken sandwiches from an organization donating to groups that actively campaign against you. That has nothing to do with the old people in congress. These generations explicitly are just terrible at organizing. They are apathetic.
      - antisyzygy 3y ago
        Gen Z, Millenials and Gen X outvoted the Boomers in 2018. Regarding organization, I have no idea. I would argue we're too busy with the increasing expectations from our jobs and we don't make as much money in terms of purchasing power as people used to. I'm old enough to remember snail mail being dominant tech for communication. Maybe a fax machine if it's time sensitive but it was more expensive back then so a lot still was mailed. I'm a "elder" millennial, pretty much the oldest you can be without being Gen X. That extra slowness from "the tech" at the time gave people excuses to slow down a bit, because they had to wait for replies or had to chip away at work differently. Research was a trip to the library if you didn't have the books. The internet didn't have high quality sources yet. If you weren't around your telephone then people couldn't reach you. Now with cell phones, the internet maturing, and the exponential growth entitlements by investors we're all worked to the bone. If you don't answer the bosses call at 4AM you get a shit performance review. Oh and in spite of record profits this quarter we can't give any raises because the investors want that money. I'm not sure about GenZ but us Millenials work really hard and have a lot less money to do anything with than our parents did. We're slightly better off than GenX though so I imagine GenX is having a harder time organizing. You need time off and money to be able to organize. Most folks I know my age haven't taken a vacation in years. We rarely take time off, and often work late or a few hours weekends. Plus we're often working in the cities because of how knowledge and service work eclipsed other kinds of jobs, and the commute takes up to 2 hours out of our day due to congestion and sub-par (compared to worldwide) transit systems.
stalfosknight 3y ago
That line is particularly frustrating to me because I'm an American who has never liked or wanted an SUV or crossover. I don't have anything against people who want those kinds of vehicles but I've always been more of a fun coupe kind of guy. There's already an endless array of electric SUVs and crossovers to choose from. Why can't there be other classes and sizes of vehicles for other needs and tastes?
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Because a big company cannot afford to cater to every little taste, because the shareholders will be upset that they didn't just get to pocket that money. If you want more variety, break up large companies. Hard to do when Toyota, Honda, etc aren't american companies though. I too hate large vehicles and prefer my tiny hatchback. It's fun, cheap, efficient, easy to drive, easy to park. Why would I ever get something gigantic? If I need to move something big, something that somehow doesn't fit in my car with the seats folded down (people have fit entire bedroom sets in there somehow) I can go rent a truck from home depot FFS.
  - antisyzygy 3y ago
    Investors have been spoiled rotten with hyperbolic growth for several decades. They feel entitled to very large returns. The executive leadership's job is to give it to them. Gone are the days of expecting a stable, life-long dividend. Now if you're not cutting labor costs to the bone and impoverishing your workers, applying shrinkflation strategies, or monopolizing markets and fixing prices, then you aren't able to satisfy your increasingly greedy investors.
    - WorldMaker 3y ago
      Investors have also been allowed to be the tail eating the head of the snake in the US. Since the earliest days of the American car industry many of the biggest, most vocal shareholders have been the car dealers. Ford v Dodge is such a fascinating tale of broken expectations: the Dodge brothers were some of the largest dealers of Ford at the time (before they founded their own car company), as well as some of the bigger shareholders in Ford, and in that court case created the modern notion of "fiduciary duty" to shareholders because they wanted higher dividends from Ford (presumably to help fund their eventual competitor). Ford v Dodge is a key court-case that still has so many terrible repercussions in modern America, and all because the biggest shareholders in Ford had a strange conflict of interest (that has never been fixed; dealers are still some of the biggest "activist" shareholders of both GM and Ford) and won the battle in the US courts to give themselves more power over company profits (than the company's board and interests like, you know, employees or customers). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
ar_lan 3y ago
> Single family dwellings. Is this... uncommon in the rest of the world? The rest of your comment I understand, and agree with, but a single family home seems pretty reasonable to me - or am I just out of touch? I know most folks in my neighborhood harbor multi-generations under a single roof, but they are also significantly Indian homes. I always thought that was more likely to be an Indian cultural attribute more-so than a global normality. Also - does this include apartments/condos? Where does the line get drawn? A small family residing in an 800 sq ft house surely is reasonable (well, surely to me, but I'm fascinated by this comment), but a McMansion is not necessary in any capacity.
- xboxnolifes 3y ago
  I interpret they mean single-family, detached house, with significant front and back yard, with the current sizes of suburban houses (2000+ sqft).

gjsman-1000 3y ago

Sounds like a great idea to get reactionary leaders elected from people who don't want change. Change works much better with carrots than sticks.

Pet_Ant 3y ago
I'm not saying it as a campaign promise, I'm saying it as an uncomfortable truth for us who think about these things. How to sell it to the public is PR's job.
- maxwell 3y ago
  Ah yes, what we need is a Leni Riefenstahl for climate propaganda.
mrguyorama 3y ago
There's not always a happy option when you've ignored a problem for a hundred years. Sometimes the option is a self induced stick, or a way bigger stick from something else that you don't get to choose. It's rank entitlement to believe you personally should never have to change anything to make the world a better place. IMO this is a huge reason why the younger generations have been worthless at doing government things. The Bud Light and Dylan Mulvaney situation proved that average consumers can absolutely still affect big businesses in a way that leads to uncomfortable discussions with shareholders, you just have to be willing to settle for a different product. Meanwhile plenty of gay people and people who believe gay people deserve equal rights still buy a fucking chicken sandwhich from a fast food place that donates to organizations that explicitly exist to fight gay rights, rather than deprive themselves of, once again, a medium quality fried chicken sandwich that you can get from ten other establishments or literally any pub.
- antisyzygy 3y ago
  You would be right if you didn't talk about the younger generations. They're more active and more socially responsible. They're voting more than the boomers did at a younger age. The older generations with their war chests won't let us lead and use their money to ensure things don't change.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Gen Z is being active, and giving me hope that the lack of activity in the generations between boomer and gen Z were an anomaly. >The older generations with their war chests won't let us lead and use their money to ensure things don't change. That doesn't counter my claim though. I said that those "politically dead" generations couldn't even manage to stop eating chicken sandwiches from an organization donating to groups that actively campaign against you. That has nothing to do with the old people in congress. These generations explicitly are just terrible at organizing. They are apathetic.
    - antisyzygy 3y ago
      Gen Z, Millenials and Gen X outvoted the Boomers in 2018. Regarding organization, I have no idea. I would argue we're too busy with the increasing expectations from our jobs and we don't make as much money in terms of purchasing power as people used to. I'm old enough to remember snail mail being dominant tech for communication. Maybe a fax machine if it's time sensitive but it was more expensive back then so a lot still was mailed. I'm a "elder" millennial, pretty much the oldest you can be without being Gen X. That extra slowness from "the tech" at the time gave people excuses to slow down a bit, because they had to wait for replies or had to chip away at work differently. Research was a trip to the library if you didn't have the books. The internet didn't have high quality sources yet. If you weren't around your telephone then people couldn't reach you. Now with cell phones, the internet maturing, and the exponential growth entitlements by investors we're all worked to the bone. If you don't answer the bosses call at 4AM you get a shit performance review. Oh and in spite of record profits this quarter we can't give any raises because the investors want that money. I'm not sure about GenZ but us Millenials work really hard and have a lot less money to do anything with than our parents did. We're slightly better off than GenX though so I imagine GenX is having a harder time organizing. You need time off and money to be able to organize. Most folks I know my age haven't taken a vacation in years. We rarely take time off, and often work late or a few hours weekends. Plus we're often working in the cities because of how knowledge and service work eclipsed other kinds of jobs, and the commute takes up to 2 hours out of our day due to congestion and sub-par (compared to worldwide) transit systems.

stalfosknight 3y ago

That line is particularly frustrating to me because I'm an American who has never liked or wanted an SUV or crossover. I don't have anything against people who want those kinds of vehicles but I've always been more of a fun coupe kind of guy. There's already an endless array of electric SUVs and crossovers to choose from. Why can't there be other classes and sizes of vehicles for other needs and tastes?

mrguyorama 3y ago
Because a big company cannot afford to cater to every little taste, because the shareholders will be upset that they didn't just get to pocket that money. If you want more variety, break up large companies. Hard to do when Toyota, Honda, etc aren't american companies though. I too hate large vehicles and prefer my tiny hatchback. It's fun, cheap, efficient, easy to drive, easy to park. Why would I ever get something gigantic? If I need to move something big, something that somehow doesn't fit in my car with the seats folded down (people have fit entire bedroom sets in there somehow) I can go rent a truck from home depot FFS.
- antisyzygy 3y ago
  Investors have been spoiled rotten with hyperbolic growth for several decades. They feel entitled to very large returns. The executive leadership's job is to give it to them. Gone are the days of expecting a stable, life-long dividend. Now if you're not cutting labor costs to the bone and impoverishing your workers, applying shrinkflation strategies, or monopolizing markets and fixing prices, then you aren't able to satisfy your increasingly greedy investors.
  - WorldMaker 3y ago
    Investors have also been allowed to be the tail eating the head of the snake in the US. Since the earliest days of the American car industry many of the biggest, most vocal shareholders have been the car dealers. Ford v Dodge is such a fascinating tale of broken expectations: the Dodge brothers were some of the largest dealers of Ford at the time (before they founded their own car company), as well as some of the bigger shareholders in Ford, and in that court case created the modern notion of "fiduciary duty" to shareholders because they wanted higher dividends from Ford (presumably to help fund their eventual competitor). Ford v Dodge is a key court-case that still has so many terrible repercussions in modern America, and all because the biggest shareholders in Ford had a strange conflict of interest (that has never been fixed; dealers are still some of the biggest "activist" shareholders of both GM and Ford) and won the battle in the US courts to give themselves more power over company profits (than the company's board and interests like, you know, employees or customers). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

ar_lan 3y ago

> Single family dwellings. Is this... uncommon in the rest of the world? The rest of your comment I understand, and agree with, but a single family home seems pretty reasonable to me - or am I just out of touch? I know most folks in my neighborhood harbor multi-generations under a single roof, but they are also significantly Indian homes. I always thought that was more likely to be an Indian cultural attribute more-so than a global normality. Also - does this include apartments/condos? Where does the line get drawn? A small family residing in an 800 sq ft house surely is reasonable (well, surely to me, but I'm fascinated by this comment), but a McMansion is not necessary in any capacity.

xboxnolifes 3y ago
I interpret they mean single-family, detached house, with significant front and back yard, with the current sizes of suburban houses (2000+ sqft).