I've been saying this comment across the 'stacks, but it bears repeating:
Something this election woke me up to is the fact that when NIMBY killed the old "urban growth machine" in the 70's, they also ended up killing several generations' worth of traditionally male construction jobs. Those young men then sat in their parents' basements playing video games and stewing with each other, which right-pilled them. Meanwhile, everyone's cost of living went up, because as we know from the Housing Theory Of Everything, housing is the core cost driver.
Liberals' and Democrats' only answer for these men was "go to college and get a laptop job". This was the wrong answer. Promising everyone healthcare and otherwise engaging in cost-disease socialism was a strategy that poll-tested well and was somewhat feasible in an era of low inflation and low interest rates, and while Republicans were still sane and played mostly fair in politics; but is no longer workable.
We need real abundance. Crushing NIMBY, crushing the consultants and nonprofits, delivering on abundance: THAT seems to me like the only way to convince young men that we actually give a shit about their prosperity, and that we can actually deliver on it.
100%. The "war on men" and dismissal of the working class has been a political (and I'd say social) disaster. Economic prosperity is in the interests of all Americans—that's the type of inclusivity an abundance agenda would deliver.
I find it a little unconvincing how “tough on crime” politics tackles root causes effectively. I get how pro-YIMBY policies can ameliorate homelessness and put more eyes on the street (I myself am a YIMBY), but how do DAs balance maintaining QOL with not feeding the draconian carceral state/prison-industrial complex? YIMBYs clearly shouldn’t be blind to that
This is a valid concern. I think part of it is in reducing the types of activities that are considered crimes. I'm reminded of Eric Garner, whose "crime" was selling individual cigarettes, an act that morally did not warrant police intervention, but legally did, and led to his untimely and unnecessary death. On the other hand, I think criminality related to, for example, but especially drugs is complex: there are tough questions about legalization, border security, homelessness policy, and mental health treatment that no city DA can be expected to solve themselves. Those questions involve all levels of government, but I'm not sure we're really taking them seriously at any level. Nevertheless, I think they have a duty to prosecute the law ("for the people") as it written.
I agree. But I also think, and I think it’s partly because so many of the pundits writing about this are male, urban education is an important part of the discussion. SF for example, experiments with “detracking” and extended school closures were unpopular and costly in particular for the working class.
This is no doubt a big part of it. When the pandemic broke out, I was managing a private Montessori school in SF; we managed to reopen six weeks after closure, in May 2020, while SF public schools stayed closed until September 2021 and used the time to debate whether school names were offensive. The closures were difficult even for well-off families in our school community who had older kids in public. I can't imagine what it was like for working class families or single parents, but I'm sure it didn't signal that the powers that be were working for them.
Good piece!
Thanks, Diana! 🙏
I've been saying this comment across the 'stacks, but it bears repeating:
Something this election woke me up to is the fact that when NIMBY killed the old "urban growth machine" in the 70's, they also ended up killing several generations' worth of traditionally male construction jobs. Those young men then sat in their parents' basements playing video games and stewing with each other, which right-pilled them. Meanwhile, everyone's cost of living went up, because as we know from the Housing Theory Of Everything, housing is the core cost driver.
Liberals' and Democrats' only answer for these men was "go to college and get a laptop job". This was the wrong answer. Promising everyone healthcare and otherwise engaging in cost-disease socialism was a strategy that poll-tested well and was somewhat feasible in an era of low inflation and low interest rates, and while Republicans were still sane and played mostly fair in politics; but is no longer workable.
We need real abundance. Crushing NIMBY, crushing the consultants and nonprofits, delivering on abundance: THAT seems to me like the only way to convince young men that we actually give a shit about their prosperity, and that we can actually deliver on it.
100%. The "war on men" and dismissal of the working class has been a political (and I'd say social) disaster. Economic prosperity is in the interests of all Americans—that's the type of inclusivity an abundance agenda would deliver.
I find it a little unconvincing how “tough on crime” politics tackles root causes effectively. I get how pro-YIMBY policies can ameliorate homelessness and put more eyes on the street (I myself am a YIMBY), but how do DAs balance maintaining QOL with not feeding the draconian carceral state/prison-industrial complex? YIMBYs clearly shouldn’t be blind to that
This is a valid concern. I think part of it is in reducing the types of activities that are considered crimes. I'm reminded of Eric Garner, whose "crime" was selling individual cigarettes, an act that morally did not warrant police intervention, but legally did, and led to his untimely and unnecessary death. On the other hand, I think criminality related to, for example, but especially drugs is complex: there are tough questions about legalization, border security, homelessness policy, and mental health treatment that no city DA can be expected to solve themselves. Those questions involve all levels of government, but I'm not sure we're really taking them seriously at any level. Nevertheless, I think they have a duty to prosecute the law ("for the people") as it written.
I agree. But I also think, and I think it’s partly because so many of the pundits writing about this are male, urban education is an important part of the discussion. SF for example, experiments with “detracking” and extended school closures were unpopular and costly in particular for the working class.
This is no doubt a big part of it. When the pandemic broke out, I was managing a private Montessori school in SF; we managed to reopen six weeks after closure, in May 2020, while SF public schools stayed closed until September 2021 and used the time to debate whether school names were offensive. The closures were difficult even for well-off families in our school community who had older kids in public. I can't imagine what it was like for working class families or single parents, but I'm sure it didn't signal that the powers that be were working for them.
Such a relief to agree with someone about something ha.
Haha! 😆