So the author describes an experience on the new York metro after missing a connection. The author is fristrated about how the homeless people have abused the metros. And like OP points out, the...
So the author describes an experience on the new York metro after missing a connection. The author is fristrated about how the homeless people have abused the metros. And like OP points out, the author blames a low trust high regulation society.
I think this part of the piece is particularly salient:
I’m also worried about the cultural forces that have got us here: that they allow the tolerably well-off to ignore the plight of those who are forced to depend on public services
But the author doesn't go into those forces. The author also implies that the tolerably well off are working professionals he identifies with, and those dependent are the commuters who need to work for the professionals but are priced out of living in the city. The author sets up a dualism between these two labour groups.
I think it is weird that those that "depend on public services" are implied to exclude the homeless people. I am also personally challenged by the use of the word "regulation" in this, because of how high regulation has been a bogeyman in libertarian and neoliberal politics; and by their logic deregulation a virtue implying smaller government. I think that the connotation of the word means that if the author actually wanted to build trust within American society, they should've been more careful with the word regulation and give definitional context rather than assume the audience understands the author's definition.
I disagree with the 2 tiered new York comment, it should at least be 4: professionals, labourers/ service workers, homeless, and capitalists-politicians. Describing it as 2 treats homeless people as not a part of society, and capitalists as not a cabal of power directing the experiences of the other groups.
Not in a conspiratorial way, mind. Just that capitalists tend to share motives and incentives, thus tend to support/oppose the same laws and enact the same behaviors like not letting homeless...
capitalists as not a cabal of power directing the experiences of the other groups.
Not in a conspiratorial way, mind. Just that capitalists tend to share motives and incentives, thus tend to support/oppose the same laws and enact the same behaviors like not letting homeless people use their bathrooms and calling the cops on loiterers.
I mostly agree with your point, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't do this intentionally, but I wanted to point out that the term 'cabal' is an antisemitic...
I mostly agree with your point, but
and capitalists as not a cabal of power directing the experiences of the other groups.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't do this intentionally, but I wanted to point out that the term 'cabal' is an antisemitic dog-whistle, and is often used to imply that 'the jews control everything' without outright stating it (https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/cabal). It's very possible to know/use the word without knowing this connotation, so I'm not saying that was your implication, but it's good to know the history behind the word at least.
This is some bizarre tone-policing. Sure, the etymology is Hebrew in origin, but it’s not pointedly antisemetic in how it developed and came into use. https://www.britannica.com/topic/cabal Just...
This is some bizarre tone-policing. Sure, the etymology is Hebrew in origin, but it’s not pointedly antisemetic in how it developed and came into use.
Just because some political groups have used it as a dog whistle doesn’t make it one outside the context of that group. Your assertion here is not based in fact.
Once you pointed it out, I immediately thought "oh, the etymology is related to kabbalah, isn't it." It's always interesting to learn of those connections that seem so obvious in hindsight.
Once you pointed it out, I immediately thought "oh, the etymology is related to kabbalah, isn't it." It's always interesting to learn of those connections that seem so obvious in hindsight.
Oh wow! Yes I didn't know that. I will be mindful of that word's connotation in the future. Thanks for the benefit of the doubt. Edit: That's pretty embarrassing considering that I was commenting...
Oh wow! Yes I didn't know that. I will be mindful of that word's connotation in the future. Thanks for the benefit of the doubt.
Edit: That's pretty embarrassing considering that I was commenting about the connotation of regulation, a much less hateful word.
Fascinating. I'd never heard this before either. Thanks for sharing. I guess the next closest word to what the commenter was trying to say, perhaps, would be cartel. But that has different...
Fascinating. I'd never heard this before either. Thanks for sharing.
I guess the next closest word to what the commenter was trying to say, perhaps, would be cartel. But that has different connotations to some extent.
While I do agree somewhat with this idea One thing he doesn't address is what makes the US so different than wealthier nations : poor social services and protections. We all know how awful the US...
While I do agree somewhat with this idea
regulations massively limit both bottom-up and top-down solutions, and if those solutions are expected to protect against all sorts of bad behaviour, you end up building the least to mitigate the worst — building things the majority doesn’t want, or doesn’t find useful.
One thing he doesn't address is what makes the US so different than wealthier nations : poor social services and protections. We all know how awful the US healthcare system is for those who aren't wealthy.. We've seen how if you're making an average income, housing was unaffordable in a study of 575 counties. We see how higher education, the method touted as a way to improve your station in life, is unaffordable yet free in many countries or heavily subsidized in places like Canada.
All of this has downward pressure on those trying to do the right thing. Even when you do the right thing, one bad health outcome means you get kicked to the bottom. We all know that healthcare costs are cited as a key contributor of 2/3s of people declaring bankruptcy. That doesn't even begin to scratch the fact that you have a party who have taken steps to build in baked in electoral advantages to essentially push minoritarian rule and push policies that directly hurt the poor.
So yea sure regulation can suck but low trust is the symptom not the cause. Why would I trust a system that stacks the cards against people?
As much as Matthew Yglesias is sometimes noxious, he hits the nail on the head in this essay about the need for egalitarian public services, paid for with appropriate taxation. If clean,...
As much as Matthew Yglesias is sometimes noxious, he hits the nail on the head in this essay about the need for egalitarian public services, paid for with appropriate taxation.
If clean, affordable, safe public transit is an egalitarian benefit open to everyone, regardless of their social status, then it's much harder for reactionaries to claim it's a special carveout for any particular minority or class. There's considerable research showing that universal entitlements remove barriers to economic mobility, improve social trust, diminish the stigma attached to using public benefits when needed, and cut administrative costs.
This is Chris Arnade who wrote a book I appreciated Dignity: Seeking Respect in back row America TLDR Low trust - high regulation society is the author's theory
So the author describes an experience on the new York metro after missing a connection. The author is fristrated about how the homeless people have abused the metros. And like OP points out, the author blames a low trust high regulation society.
I think this part of the piece is particularly salient:
But the author doesn't go into those forces. The author also implies that the tolerably well off are working professionals he identifies with, and those dependent are the commuters who need to work for the professionals but are priced out of living in the city. The author sets up a dualism between these two labour groups.
I think it is weird that those that "depend on public services" are implied to exclude the homeless people. I am also personally challenged by the use of the word "regulation" in this, because of how high regulation has been a bogeyman in libertarian and neoliberal politics; and by their logic deregulation a virtue implying smaller government. I think that the connotation of the word means that if the author actually wanted to build trust within American society, they should've been more careful with the word regulation and give definitional context rather than assume the audience understands the author's definition.
I disagree with the 2 tiered new York comment, it should at least be 4: professionals, labourers/ service workers, homeless, and capitalists-politicians. Describing it as 2 treats homeless people as not a part of society, and capitalists as not a cabal of power directing the experiences of the other groups.
Not in a conspiratorial way, mind. Just that capitalists tend to share motives and incentives, thus tend to support/oppose the same laws and enact the same behaviors like not letting homeless people use their bathrooms and calling the cops on loiterers.
As I said, I appreciated his book Dignity, which goes into some of this. Thanks for the response. We need strong debate and awareness.
I mostly agree with your point, but
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't do this intentionally, but I wanted to point out that the term 'cabal' is an antisemitic dog-whistle, and is often used to imply that 'the jews control everything' without outright stating it (https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/cabal). It's very possible to know/use the word without knowing this connotation, so I'm not saying that was your implication, but it's good to know the history behind the word at least.
This is some bizarre tone-policing. Sure, the etymology is Hebrew in origin, but it’s not pointedly antisemetic in how it developed and came into use.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/cabal
Just because some political groups have used it as a dog whistle doesn’t make it one outside the context of that group. Your assertion here is not based in fact.
Once you pointed it out, I immediately thought "oh, the etymology is related to kabbalah, isn't it." It's always interesting to learn of those connections that seem so obvious in hindsight.
Oh wow! Yes I didn't know that. I will be mindful of that word's connotation in the future. Thanks for the benefit of the doubt.
Edit: That's pretty embarrassing considering that I was commenting about the connotation of regulation, a much less hateful word.
Fascinating. I'd never heard this before either. Thanks for sharing.
I guess the next closest word to what the commenter was trying to say, perhaps, would be cartel. But that has different connotations to some extent.
While I do agree somewhat with this idea
One thing he doesn't address is what makes the US so different than wealthier nations : poor social services and protections. We all know how awful the US healthcare system is for those who aren't wealthy.. We've seen how if you're making an average income, housing was unaffordable in a study of 575 counties. We see how higher education, the method touted as a way to improve your station in life, is unaffordable yet free in many countries or heavily subsidized in places like Canada.
All of this has downward pressure on those trying to do the right thing. Even when you do the right thing, one bad health outcome means you get kicked to the bottom. We all know that healthcare costs are cited as a key contributor of 2/3s of people declaring bankruptcy. That doesn't even begin to scratch the fact that you have a party who have taken steps to build in baked in electoral advantages to essentially push minoritarian rule and push policies that directly hurt the poor.
So yea sure regulation can suck but low trust is the symptom not the cause. Why would I trust a system that stacks the cards against people?
As much as Matthew Yglesias is sometimes noxious, he hits the nail on the head in this essay about the need for egalitarian public services, paid for with appropriate taxation.
If clean, affordable, safe public transit is an egalitarian benefit open to everyone, regardless of their social status, then it's much harder for reactionaries to claim it's a special carveout for any particular minority or class. There's considerable research showing that universal entitlements remove barriers to economic mobility, improve social trust, diminish the stigma attached to using public benefits when needed, and cut administrative costs.
This is Chris Arnade who wrote a book I appreciated Dignity: Seeking Respect in back row America
TLDR Low trust - high regulation society is the author's theory