if you want to normalize the gini coefficient, then all welfare programs and benefits have to be scrapped. Minimum wages and rent controls have to be abolished. No more affordable housing quota by the state.
I would be for that.
Further, there is also nothing wrong with social unrest. We don’t live in a vacuum where everything is frozen. Social unrest leads to paradigm shifting changes in society. This is why things change and don’t stay the same for ‘thousands of years’.
Sure. The violent kind, no one should need in the USA in 2019.
Go attempt to protect society from social unrest is symptomatic of a saviour complex that is irresponsible and dangerous.
Keeping violence out of society is simply a good idea. You can't have commerce and markets without order. Giving people the opportunity for the pursuit of happiness is a good idea. Everything which is the "fabric of life" should be within the means of everyman and everywoman. I think this should be achievable in the free market. The organizations and forces which dominate society have a practical obligation to provide such things. Historically, it's a good way to make money. Also, the disappearance of true everyman/everywoman activities and goods seems to be associated with dying industries trying to hold on by raising prices.
I think you and I would agree that giving stuff away would create more problems than it would solve. That's not what I'm proposing here. Also, saviors are dangerous. The real ones wield power in a more concentrated form than is wise.
I just don’t understand your stance.
Markets aren't the be-all end-all. They're just a tool. Everyone in business should be biased towards getting ahead by creating delight and avoiding resentment. On one level, that's just good brand management. On another level, the dignity of all levels of society is necessary for a long lasting, healthy society. Powerful people all working together informally and voluntarily towards this end are the hallmark of the healthiest societies.
You say: ‘Principles are important’. True. But your principles are important only to you. I may define mine differently.
Making sure large swathes of the public don't feel put upon is something to keep in mind as well. Principles may not be important at all, to minds taken by instincts more deeply rooted than rationality. Like the status calculations of young men and women who decide they no longer have a stake in society.
We are not rational animals but we are all ‘rationalising’ creatures. I don’t see the relevance either bring to this discussion.
You seem to be biased towards prioritizing only principles, rationality, and markets. Those are great, but they don't cover everything.
1. No one is going to get violent because they can’t find housing in the Bay Area.
2. Violence is a very expensive endeavor for human beings. It extracts lives, property and depletes resources. Most human beings avoid violence unless they have nothing to lose. This is what happens in war torn areas.
3. People MOVE when resources become scarce. That’s why America is made of immigrants. From the time it was formed, people MOVED in from places that got too crowded or when resources became thin. Trying to cram everyone into one tiny desirable geographically area in California is exactly the opposite of what to do to avoid violence due to social unrest.
4. This is a land of opportunity. People TAKE opportunities. Spoon feeding and force feeding after the threat of malnutrition is not the same as offering a plentiful plate of food. There is ‘fabric of life’ beyond certain zip codes in California.
5. Asking property owners to give up quality of life and environment for higher density homes with minimal benefit to them is most definitely asking them to GIVE UP something.
6. There is dignity outside certain zip codes in California. This is bordering on nonsensical now. I fail to understand the import of your communication. We have a hot housing market where people below a certain earning potential are priced out. And there is theatrics all over. News flash: This happens everywhere in the world. Every single decade. Only in California is this about loss of dignity and potential for violence and obligation of retired old folks to give up their homes for high density while on fixed incomes because someone just out of college can’t afford a mortgage.
7. No. We can’t cram everyone who wants to live in the most desirable zip codes in California because that means they lose dignity.
8. And no. We can’t make everyone happy. We can’t make everyone feel not resentful. We can’t control how people feel about their entitlements or inadequacies or whatever. The best we can do is NOT enable it.
Bringing this to a conclusion. No. We are built out. Some of us want quality of life. Some of us don’t. Some of us can afford to live where we desire. Some of us can’t. And there is a whole lot of us in between the book end choices.
Sometimes it’s better NOT to act outside one’s sphere of influence. If you feel that more people need to move in a low density area, feel free to demolish your home and built multiple dwellings in it. Maybe you can evangelize your position and convince others. Be the change you want to see, but don’t expect others to be the change you are unable to create yourself. It doesn’t say so in the rulebook of life. It has only three things: Welcome. Live. Die. You can define that any way you want and find meaning in it for yourself only.
1. No one is going to get violent because they can’t find housing in the Bay Area.
More professors are radicalizing kids, and there are even examples of indoctrination of children at grade school levels documented. There are more campus
2. Violence is a very expensive endeavor for human beings.
There is an expansion of the amount of it committed by the Far Left in the US for the past several years. Before Christchurch, the Far Left had doubled the death toll of the Far right for the past two.
Trying to cram everyone into one tiny desirable geographically area in California is...
A part of how cities create wealth. The economic activity of SF would be expanded by taking up the difference in density between it and NYC.
5. Asking property owners to give up quality of life and environment for higher density homes with minimal benefit to them is most definitely asking them to GIVE UP something.
Is not asking them to give up quality of life. They could also move, by your same logic. Having more money, this would be far easier for them than for people working in restaurants and assistant professors and teachers.
Your "Asking property owners to give up quality of life" is actually rich and powerful people manipulating laws to stymie growth and market forces.
6. There is dignity outside certain zip codes in California.
Is there dignity in being forced to move away from one's home? It depends.
7. No. We can’t cram everyone who wants to live in the most desirable zip codes in California
We have historical precedents that indicate we can have about 30% more.
We can’t control how people feel about their entitlements or inadequacies or whatever.
We can avoid obvious rigged games and broken markets. Those things stick out like a sore thumb as something unfair.
I would be for that.
Further, there is also nothing wrong with social unrest. We don’t live in a vacuum where everything is frozen. Social unrest leads to paradigm shifting changes in society. This is why things change and don’t stay the same for ‘thousands of years’.
Sure. The violent kind, no one should need in the USA in 2019.
Go attempt to protect society from social unrest is symptomatic of a saviour complex that is irresponsible and dangerous.
Keeping violence out of society is simply a good idea. You can't have commerce and markets without order. Giving people the opportunity for the pursuit of happiness is a good idea. Everything which is the "fabric of life" should be within the means of everyman and everywoman. I think this should be achievable in the free market. The organizations and forces which dominate society have a practical obligation to provide such things. Historically, it's a good way to make money. Also, the disappearance of true everyman/everywoman activities and goods seems to be associated with dying industries trying to hold on by raising prices.
I think you and I would agree that giving stuff away would create more problems than it would solve. That's not what I'm proposing here. Also, saviors are dangerous. The real ones wield power in a more concentrated form than is wise.
I just don’t understand your stance.
Markets aren't the be-all end-all. They're just a tool. Everyone in business should be biased towards getting ahead by creating delight and avoiding resentment. On one level, that's just good brand management. On another level, the dignity of all levels of society is necessary for a long lasting, healthy society. Powerful people all working together informally and voluntarily towards this end are the hallmark of the healthiest societies.
You say: ‘Principles are important’. True. But your principles are important only to you. I may define mine differently.
Making sure large swathes of the public don't feel put upon is something to keep in mind as well. Principles may not be important at all, to minds taken by instincts more deeply rooted than rationality. Like the status calculations of young men and women who decide they no longer have a stake in society.
We are not rational animals but we are all ‘rationalising’ creatures. I don’t see the relevance either bring to this discussion.
You seem to be biased towards prioritizing only principles, rationality, and markets. Those are great, but they don't cover everything.