10 ms·

Okay. I'm reading this: "Diamond also found that as cities increased their share of college graduates between 1980 and 2000, they also increased their bars, re

Okay. I'm reading this: "Diamond also found that as cities increased their share of college graduates between 1980 and 2000, they also increased their bars, restaurants, dry cleaners, museums and art galleries per capita. And they experienced larger decreases in pollution and property crime, suggesting that cities that attract college grads benefit from both the kind of amenities that consumers pay for and those that are more intangible." And my reaction is: yes, there is inequality, but what we're seeing here is that college graduates are improving their cities. Awesome! And I really dislike this 30,000-foot view of humanity: """ "When you have more college grads, all of these amenities seem to improve in your city," Diamond says. "But that may be at the expense of kicking out lower skilled workers to other cities." It also comes at the expense of other cities that may lose their college grads. What happens to Toledo and Baton Rouge without them? """ I'm not subservient to helping cities-- I'm going to cities because of my own interests, and I absolutely reject any guilt to bringing down those cities. I dislike this attitude that sees people as pawns that we should move around for political goals rather than as people who are just living their lives.

_delirium 12y ago
I don't think Diamond is asking you to make choices that improve society. He's attempting to analyze systemic changes in society accurately. And from that perspective, it is not only appropriate but absolutely required that you look at overall shifts, not just one city in isolation. The extent to which a particular city's improvement is "internal" vs. just zero-sum shifting at the expense of other cities, is pretty relevant to that. If college graduates vs. non-graduates are self-segregating and this explains a large part of the wealth changes in both directions (the places that get more graduates get richer, the places with fewer get poorer), then I think it is not really accurate to say that "college graduates are improving their cities", or at least it is not the whole story. It would be more accurate to analyze it as a migration, something like: college graduates are concentrating in some areas and not others, and wealth flows accordingly. Assuming, again, that systemic flows of educated people are the main causal factor in wealth changes, as Diamond claims.
- probablycorey 12y ago
  > He's attempting to analyze systemic changes in society accurately. s/He/She
  - pooper 12y ago
    We can probably replace many instances of (s)he or he/she with a singular they. As the Wikipedia article says[1], this is not a recent phenomenon. If using he in a gender-neutral way or in gender ambiguous situations is somehow not politically correct, we should use the word they to replace all instances of he/she or (s)he or he or she where the gender is not important. This is probably the case in over half of our usage of he/she or (s)he or he or she. Instead of: Barack Obama is the current president of the United States. He was born in 1961. Say: Barack Obama is the current president of the United States. They were born in 1961. Fight the madness of people getting mad over gender of pronouns with a greater degree of madness. It is the only way. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
    - graeme 12y ago
      I feel like you're making a good argument but have chosen a singularly poor example. Use of "they" is most justified when the gender is unknown. Barack Obama is a very known male. At some point, we may use "they" for everyone, even if known. But at present, it's not accepted even for cases when gender is unknown. It's likely better to argue for its usage in unknown cases first before making a case for its usage even when gender is known. The latter is a far more radical proposition. (I use "they" when gender is unknown".)
      - A_COMPUTER 12y ago
        Consider that like Chelsea Manning, at some point in the future Barack Obama may announce she has always been a woman. Also like Chelsea Manning, at that point you would be obligated to alter all past and present references to Barack Obama as "she," or else be guilty of a hateful and cruel misgendering slur. So as a matter of practicality it's probably easier just to use the singular-they in every case so you are being respectful. On the other hand, it still wouldn't be considerate to leave it at "they" if Barack Obama had clearly stated her preferred pronouns, so you might have to change it anyway so now I am not actually sure what advice to give.
rayiner 12y ago
I really dislike this idea that we should always elevate individual wants over the overall societal benefit of having integrated societies with low levels of inequality.
- oldmanjay 12y ago
  I similarly dislike the idea that someone else could, in any capacity, have the power to decide for me how I am going to live my life, even if their decisions are "morally correct" for some values of moral and correct.
  - dctoedt 12y ago
    > I similarly dislike the idea that someone else could, in any capacity, have the power to decide for me how I am going to live my life .... Except that your decisions about how to live your life are integrally bound up with the infrastructure provided by society as a whole. Individualism isn't exactly what it's cracked up to be.
    - vinceguidry 12y ago
      I don't understand this position. Individualism has given us everything we have as a modern society. Someone had to build the roads, someone had to build the manufacturing pipelines, someone had to build the distribution networks, someone had to build X, and that X was built by someone hoping to get rich doing so, and that someone did, deservedly. Capitalism is the only thing that's really capable of lifting people out of poverty. We need to work with people's selfish desires, not against them.
      - steveax 12y ago
        Rubbish. Individualism did not build the interstate highway system, or sewer systems or even the internet. Please put down Atlas Shrugged long enough to take a look around you.
        12y ago
RodericDay 12y ago
"I'm not subservient to helping cities-- I'm going to cities because of my own interests, and I absolutely reject any guilt to bringing down those cities." This dogma has penetrated very, very deep amongst techies. The invisible hand seems to be a drop-in replacement for any reflexion about morality for some.
- firstOrder 12y ago
  Dogma has penetrated very deep. If you read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", the invisible hand is something that intervenes in markets to prevent free trade among merchants from different nations. Nowadays, 99% of the time people use his term the exact opposite way. They say it is a hand that gently guides merchants from different nations to trade with one another within a free market, and that such thing. They have twisted his term to mean the exact opposite of how Smith intended it.
  - zo1 12y ago
    Perhaps the definition changed because the invisible hand he described isn't so invisible. It's usually government intervention / foreign trade policy, and it's anything but invisible!
  - baddox 12y ago
    > If you read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", the invisible hand is something that intervenes in markets to prevent free trade among merchants from different nations. I don't see how that's the opposite interpretation from the modern usage. It just seems like the modern usage is a generalization of Smith's usage. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith seems to be saying that an individual favoring domestic industry over foreign industry for purely personal gain tends to be good for domestic industry and society, and perhaps even for foreign industry. The generalized interpretation that people use today is that individuals seeking purely personal gain can result in a market that self-regulates and benefits society. What is the contradiction you're referring to? Also, in The Wealth of Nations, Smith does describe the more general concept of market self-regulation, though in that section he does not use the phrase "invisible hand." In his earlier book "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," Smith uses the phrase "invisible hand" to refer to the phenomenon that rich people tend to provide livelihoods to the people working for them, not out of altruism, but for personal gain, which is another special case of the general concept of market self-regulation. Disclaimer: I haven't actually read Smith straight through. I've just read various articles about Smith, and excerpts of his work. I might be missing a lot of context (and please inform me if that's the case), although my general impression of his usage of this phrase is in line with Wikipedia's summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand.
xorcist 12y ago
Why did you bring guilt into question? Each individual may have perfectly rational reasons for their behaviour. It can still be interesting to study side effects of their group behaviour. The gist of the article can easily be lost if you preoccupy yourself with rationalisations about your own feelings about it.
- zo1 12y ago
  "Why did you bring guilt into question? Each individual may have perfectly rational reasons for their behaviour. It can still be interesting to study side effects of their group behaviour." If only they kept it to just "study[ing] side effects of [..] group behaviour". However, all these meta and orbit-view studies' conclusions are used as justification for all sorts of orbital-level intervention that has real-world consequences on individual's behavior and possibly well-being. The gist, the implications of the article, and any possible government-level consequences need to be preoccupied over! This isn't just some nifty little article we're reading on the internet. This is your entire environment being slowly manipulated by agendas and "reasoned" responses to correct supposed "problems" such as statistical inequality. Be informed.
  - xorcist 12y ago
    So you do not wish to understand the issues involved because they might lead to "government-level consequences", including "orbital-level intervention". Yeah, good to know that college degree of yours wasn't wasted. I would have loved to stick around to here more about the statistical inequality as opposed to other kinds of inequality but I have to go. Best of luck to you.
    - autokad 12y ago
      no, but unless you push back the moment they start preaching the right and wrongness, then they will use it to implement government policy to push their ideals, probably at 'your' expense. you may not be able to see what the article is doing, but many of us know too well. I have literally heard urban planners cry foul to plans to fund schools with extra money with the idea that you would get a greater return back in taxes as the neighborhood improved because it would 'push out lower income people' and 'ruin otherwise beautifully economically mixed'.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
noonespecial 12y ago
So is it a zero-sum deal? If there is a certain "type" of person that makes cities better when they are present can we make more of this type? Or must we simply choose between moving them all to a few special extra-nice cities and scattering them out so that all cities are equally mediocre?
visarga 12y ago
> I dislike this attitude that sees people as pawns that we should move around for political goals rather than as people who are just living their lives. There were times, in my country, when they even dared to instruct women to make more children for the state (Eastern Europe, before 1989). It was their "patriotic duty" to make babies. Not to mention that university graduates were distributed by them to whatever city they wanted, at the end of the studies (married students were sent together though). Moving to another city was prohibited generally - for the same reason - they saw people as pawns to move around as they pleased.
- erichocean 12y ago
  Out of curiosity, did that "community first" attitude create stronger and more empowered individuals?
  - ajuc 12y ago
    It wasn't community first. It was state first. Communities as people in "the west" understand them would often be illegal behind Iron Curtain. For example if to big group of people met without a good reason - it was illegal assembly and the people could be jailed (depending how strict the militiants were). Owning a printing press (or even a writing machine if you weren't a journalist or a writer) was illegal too.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
benatkin 12y ago
The author is arguing that "improving their cities" is like "improving their school districts". Not entirely a positive thing to progressives.
rtpg 12y ago
>I dislike this attitude that sees people as pawns that we should move around for political goals rather than as people who are just living their lives. While in this case I do agree with your conclusion, the argument that people should just be able to live their lives is what gave the suburban sprawl, which makes it costlier to offer good services, etc.
kenjackson 12y ago
A lot of people do care about helping other people. It is fantastic that you are not one of them but I find it an odd, yet more common theme now, that they like to celebrate this characteristic of themselves..
coldtea 12y ago
>I'm not subservient to helping cities-- I'm going to cities because of my own interests, and I absolutely reject any guilt to bringing down those cities. That's the "for the community" view vs the "for the individual" view. When people start thinking in the second, more selfish, way, households, neighborhoods, cities and countries go downhill quickly. I think that, paradoxically, as most things in life, it's the "community first" attitude that creates stronger and more empowered individuals. The "self first" attitude, despite the widespread mistrust, fear, hate and selfishness, also results to loneliness, depression, less power (because when you're just by youself you can be crushed more easily by others, etc). >I dislike this attitude that sees people as pawns that we should move around for political goals rather than as people who are just living their lives. It's not "political goals". It's solidarity, duty, love, connection, ties, roots, caring for where you live, caring for the neighbor, all those things. It's easy to dismiss them as "chains".

_delirium 12y ago

I don't think Diamond is asking you to make choices that improve society. He's attempting to analyze systemic changes in society accurately. And from that perspective, it is not only appropriate but absolutely required that you look at overall shifts, not just one city in isolation. The extent to which a particular city's improvement is "internal" vs. just zero-sum shifting at the expense of other cities, is pretty relevant to that. If college graduates vs. non-graduates are self-segregating and this explains a large part of the wealth changes in both directions (the places that get more graduates get richer, the places with fewer get poorer), then I think it is not really accurate to say that "college graduates are improving their cities", or at least it is not the whole story. It would be more accurate to analyze it as a migration, something like: college graduates are concentrating in some areas and not others, and wealth flows accordingly. Assuming, again, that systemic flows of educated people are the main causal factor in wealth changes, as Diamond claims.

probablycorey 12y ago
> He's attempting to analyze systemic changes in society accurately. s/He/She
- pooper 12y ago
  We can probably replace many instances of (s)he or he/she with a singular they. As the Wikipedia article says[1], this is not a recent phenomenon. If using he in a gender-neutral way or in gender ambiguous situations is somehow not politically correct, we should use the word they to replace all instances of he/she or (s)he or he or she where the gender is not important. This is probably the case in over half of our usage of he/she or (s)he or he or she. Instead of: Barack Obama is the current president of the United States. He was born in 1961. Say: Barack Obama is the current president of the United States. They were born in 1961. Fight the madness of people getting mad over gender of pronouns with a greater degree of madness. It is the only way. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
  - graeme 12y ago
    I feel like you're making a good argument but have chosen a singularly poor example. Use of "they" is most justified when the gender is unknown. Barack Obama is a very known male. At some point, we may use "they" for everyone, even if known. But at present, it's not accepted even for cases when gender is unknown. It's likely better to argue for its usage in unknown cases first before making a case for its usage even when gender is known. The latter is a far more radical proposition. (I use "they" when gender is unknown".)
    - A_COMPUTER 12y ago
      Consider that like Chelsea Manning, at some point in the future Barack Obama may announce she has always been a woman. Also like Chelsea Manning, at that point you would be obligated to alter all past and present references to Barack Obama as "she," or else be guilty of a hateful and cruel misgendering slur. So as a matter of practicality it's probably easier just to use the singular-they in every case so you are being respectful. On the other hand, it still wouldn't be considerate to leave it at "they" if Barack Obama had clearly stated her preferred pronouns, so you might have to change it anyway so now I am not actually sure what advice to give.

rayiner 12y ago

I really dislike this idea that we should always elevate individual wants over the overall societal benefit of having integrated societies with low levels of inequality.

oldmanjay 12y ago
I similarly dislike the idea that someone else could, in any capacity, have the power to decide for me how I am going to live my life, even if their decisions are "morally correct" for some values of moral and correct.
- dctoedt 12y ago
  > I similarly dislike the idea that someone else could, in any capacity, have the power to decide for me how I am going to live my life .... Except that your decisions about how to live your life are integrally bound up with the infrastructure provided by society as a whole. Individualism isn't exactly what it's cracked up to be.
  - vinceguidry 12y ago
    I don't understand this position. Individualism has given us everything we have as a modern society. Someone had to build the roads, someone had to build the manufacturing pipelines, someone had to build the distribution networks, someone had to build X, and that X was built by someone hoping to get rich doing so, and that someone did, deservedly. Capitalism is the only thing that's really capable of lifting people out of poverty. We need to work with people's selfish desires, not against them.
    - steveax 12y ago
      Rubbish. Individualism did not build the interstate highway system, or sewer systems or even the internet. Please put down Atlas Shrugged long enough to take a look around you.
      - 12y ago

RodericDay 12y ago

"I'm not subservient to helping cities-- I'm going to cities because of my own interests, and I absolutely reject any guilt to bringing down those cities." This dogma has penetrated very, very deep amongst techies. The invisible hand seems to be a drop-in replacement for any reflexion about morality for some.

firstOrder 12y ago
Dogma has penetrated very deep. If you read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", the invisible hand is something that intervenes in markets to prevent free trade among merchants from different nations. Nowadays, 99% of the time people use his term the exact opposite way. They say it is a hand that gently guides merchants from different nations to trade with one another within a free market, and that such thing. They have twisted his term to mean the exact opposite of how Smith intended it.
- zo1 12y ago
  Perhaps the definition changed because the invisible hand he described isn't so invisible. It's usually government intervention / foreign trade policy, and it's anything but invisible!
- baddox 12y ago
  > If you read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", the invisible hand is something that intervenes in markets to prevent free trade among merchants from different nations. I don't see how that's the opposite interpretation from the modern usage. It just seems like the modern usage is a generalization of Smith's usage. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith seems to be saying that an individual favoring domestic industry over foreign industry for purely personal gain tends to be good for domestic industry and society, and perhaps even for foreign industry. The generalized interpretation that people use today is that individuals seeking purely personal gain can result in a market that self-regulates and benefits society. What is the contradiction you're referring to? Also, in The Wealth of Nations, Smith does describe the more general concept of market self-regulation, though in that section he does not use the phrase "invisible hand." In his earlier book "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," Smith uses the phrase "invisible hand" to refer to the phenomenon that rich people tend to provide livelihoods to the people working for them, not out of altruism, but for personal gain, which is another special case of the general concept of market self-regulation. Disclaimer: I haven't actually read Smith straight through. I've just read various articles about Smith, and excerpts of his work. I might be missing a lot of context (and please inform me if that's the case), although my general impression of his usage of this phrase is in line with Wikipedia's summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand.

xorcist 12y ago

Why did you bring guilt into question? Each individual may have perfectly rational reasons for their behaviour. It can still be interesting to study side effects of their group behaviour. The gist of the article can easily be lost if you preoccupy yourself with rationalisations about your own feelings about it.

zo1 12y ago
"Why did you bring guilt into question? Each individual may have perfectly rational reasons for their behaviour. It can still be interesting to study side effects of their group behaviour." If only they kept it to just "study[ing] side effects of [..] group behaviour". However, all these meta and orbit-view studies' conclusions are used as justification for all sorts of orbital-level intervention that has real-world consequences on individual's behavior and possibly well-being. The gist, the implications of the article, and any possible government-level consequences need to be preoccupied over! This isn't just some nifty little article we're reading on the internet. This is your entire environment being slowly manipulated by agendas and "reasoned" responses to correct supposed "problems" such as statistical inequality. Be informed.
- xorcist 12y ago
  So you do not wish to understand the issues involved because they might lead to "government-level consequences", including "orbital-level intervention". Yeah, good to know that college degree of yours wasn't wasted. I would have loved to stick around to here more about the statistical inequality as opposed to other kinds of inequality but I have to go. Best of luck to you.
  - autokad 12y ago
    no, but unless you push back the moment they start preaching the right and wrongness, then they will use it to implement government policy to push their ideals, probably at 'your' expense. you may not be able to see what the article is doing, but many of us know too well. I have literally heard urban planners cry foul to plans to fund schools with extra money with the idea that you would get a greater return back in taxes as the neighborhood improved because it would 'push out lower income people' and 'ruin otherwise beautifully economically mixed'.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

noonespecial 12y ago

So is it a zero-sum deal? If there is a certain "type" of person that makes cities better when they are present can we make more of this type? Or must we simply choose between moving them all to a few special extra-nice cities and scattering them out so that all cities are equally mediocre?

visarga 12y ago

> I dislike this attitude that sees people as pawns that we should move around for political goals rather than as people who are just living their lives. There were times, in my country, when they even dared to instruct women to make more children for the state (Eastern Europe, before 1989). It was their "patriotic duty" to make babies. Not to mention that university graduates were distributed by them to whatever city they wanted, at the end of the studies (married students were sent together though). Moving to another city was prohibited generally - for the same reason - they saw people as pawns to move around as they pleased.

erichocean 12y ago
Out of curiosity, did that "community first" attitude create stronger and more empowered individuals?
- ajuc 12y ago
  It wasn't community first. It was state first. Communities as people in "the west" understand them would often be illegal behind Iron Curtain. For example if to big group of people met without a good reason - it was illegal assembly and the people could be jailed (depending how strict the militiants were). Owning a printing press (or even a writing machine if you weren't a journalist or a writer) was illegal too.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

benatkin 12y ago

The author is arguing that "improving their cities" is like "improving their school districts". Not entirely a positive thing to progressives.

rtpg 12y ago

>I dislike this attitude that sees people as pawns that we should move around for political goals rather than as people who are just living their lives. While in this case I do agree with your conclusion, the argument that people should just be able to live their lives is what gave the suburban sprawl, which makes it costlier to offer good services, etc.

kenjackson 12y ago

A lot of people do care about helping other people. It is fantastic that you are not one of them but I find it an odd, yet more common theme now, that they like to celebrate this characteristic of themselves..

coldtea 12y ago

>I'm not subservient to helping cities-- I'm going to cities because of my own interests, and I absolutely reject any guilt to bringing down those cities. That's the "for the community" view vs the "for the individual" view. When people start thinking in the second, more selfish, way, households, neighborhoods, cities and countries go downhill quickly. I think that, paradoxically, as most things in life, it's the "community first" attitude that creates stronger and more empowered individuals. The "self first" attitude, despite the widespread mistrust, fear, hate and selfishness, also results to loneliness, depression, less power (because when you're just by youself you can be crushed more easily by others, etc). >I dislike this attitude that sees people as pawns that we should move around for political goals rather than as people who are just living their lives. It's not "political goals". It's solidarity, duty, love, connection, ties, roots, caring for where you live, caring for the neighbor, all those things. It's easy to dismiss them as "chains".