29 votes

Why American cities are squalid

10 comments

  1. [8]
    sonufamitch
    Link
    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.

    38 votes
    1. vord
      Link Parent
      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.

      10 votes
    2. boxer_dogs_dance
      Link Parent
      As I said, I appreciated his book Dignity, which goes into some of this. Thanks for the response. We need strong debate and awareness.

      As I said, I appreciated his book Dignity, which goes into some of this. Thanks for the response. We need strong debate and awareness.

      5 votes
    3. [5]
      a_sharp_soprano_sax
      Link Parent
      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.

      6 votes
      1. FluffyKittens
        Link Parent
        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.

        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.

        16 votes
      2. MetaMoss
        Link Parent
        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.

        5 votes
      3. sonufamitch
        Link Parent
        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.

        4 votes
      4. davek804
        Link Parent
        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.

        4 votes
  2. patience_limited
    Link
    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.

    12 votes
  3. boxer_dogs_dance
    Link
    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

    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

    4 votes
  4. Comment removed by site admin
    Link