This is just more NIMBYism. Front yard signs that everyone is welcome but then flip out when immigrants arrive. People proclaiming they care for the poor, the homeless, yet become enraged if you dare to put a shelter within half a mile of their property. It's the same disingenuousness that American politics is rife with.
Americans seem very enthusiastic about telling everyone else what they should do about an issue, but as soon as it effects them in any way, it becomes Not In My Backyard or just "not my problem."
The article does touch on this. It's a more general issue of which NIMBY is only a part. In most usage, NIMBY is about building a tangible thing in a particular place. What the author is talking about applies even when there's no tangible thing and no particular place - e.g. taxes or regulations that affect what we do or how we do them. I think of it as people saying they want some change X while precluding all ways of doing X. Consider the example of helping the poor.
NIMBY: ...but I don't want to see or interact with them.
Almost NIMBY: ...but not by providing them with housing or transportation other things that cost money.
Not NIMBY (but still awful): ...but not by dealing with payday lenders and bank fees and punitive policing.
Do you want to use "NIMBY" as convenient shorthand for all of these? That's fine with me, and consistent with your name here, but it is a shift from how the term is currently used. The difference is worth thinking about, instead of "just"-ing it away.
Well, Derek Thompson at the Atlantic isn't one of them. He seems to feel that the resettlement payment should be large enough so the refugees can live in the fancy neighborhood. It's the unwashed Americans who can't move there.
This is a huge distortion of Derek Thompson's views. He has written extensively about what he calls an agenda of abundance. His solution to housing unaffordability is not to increase payments to either migrants or citizens. His solution is to tear down the restrictions that prevent substantive housing from being built. In this way, housing prices will be lowered for everyone.
> And most of these families not only don’t speak English, they often don’t even speak Spanish. They often speak a variety of indigenous languages common across rural Latin America.
That actually sounds super fascinating and like a unique opportunity to learn about pre-Coloumbian history. Do you know any of the language names? Did these children come from extremely remote villages that never adopted Spanish?
> If that suddenly happened at Spring Hill I guarantee you Trump would win Virginia in a landslide. Democrats like my parents—who are upset that the mixed income neighborhood where we live has some poor kids—would be chanting “build that wall.”
It's honestly really sad that anyone would see these children as a threat and not as an opportunity to learn more about the world and our history.
It depends on their upbringing. If they come from backgrounds with broken families and normalized violence they will generally be a threat to children that don't come from that background
Yes I taught middle school in Baltimore for a few years. The level of normalized violence is significantly higher than the middle class suburban school I went to.
Yes it's caused by parental neglect and poverty. Many poor urban schools are the highest funded but even then need significantly more resources than an affluent suburban school
Note that: (1) anywhere in Baltimore is far richer than the Bangladeshi village where my dad grew up; and (2) his village is nonetheless vastly safer and more peaceful.
What plagues Baltimore isn’t just poverty. (We lived there for a couple of years.) It’s a breakdown of the social hierarchy, and in particular the replacement of male authority with gangs.
Lol I just went down a rabbit hole about language. Idk which he is talking about but there are a few million people who speak Mayan languages in Guatemala still.
The same might be true about the south part of Mexico, like around Oaxaca, I'd fact check though before believing me.
Parents want what’s best for their own kids. A large population of impoverished non-English speaking refugees takes massive amounts of attention and resources from the school to cater to. That takes away attention and resources from the kids who are already there.
Also, studies confirm that kids are highly influenced by their peers. Rich Americans are highly skeptical of what values and behaviors their kids will pick up from poor people. In my country this is so well accepted that we don’t even bother to hide it. But I think rich Americans basically act consistent with that premise even if it’s taboo to say it out loud. It’s an important part of why people move to exclusive suburbs.
> A large population of impoverished non-English speaking refugees takes massive amounts of attention and resources from the school to cater to.
They also add value. As you can see by the very interesting reply about indigenous languages, there is significant cultural and historical value being dismissed by viewing non-English speaking poor people as a pure liability.
The value I'm talking about isn't educational value (although there is that too), it's cultural and social value. There's vast sums of money wasted on things far more malignant than supporting multiple languages for students.
Whose money? What obligation do these communities have to support those educational expenses? And of course the change in culture and they’re kids’ socialization isn’t something you can fix with money.
can you describe the cultural and social value and why or why not you think other countries like Israel, India, or Japan would benefit from having South American mestizo and indigenous peoples?
There are many extant indigeneous groups across Central and South America who still retain the use of their traditional languages, often alongside Spanish. Around Mexico/Guatemala these are often Mayan languages such as Tzotzil in the Mexican state of Chiapas, but other language famailies include the Choco languages (such as the languages of the Embera and Wounaan people, most of whom live in the Darién region of Panama). In South America you have groups like the Mapuche with their own languages, and in the Amazon alone there are over 3,000 recognised indigenous territories.
In many of the Caribbean regions of those countries (particularly Central America), Spanish might not be spoken at all, with most people instead speaking an English creole alongside an indigenous language such as Garifuna (e.g., see https://en.m.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Caribbean_Nicaragua ).
Then you get into the Caribbean where some islands speak Dutch or French (or creoles thereof), and of course Brazilians speak Portuguese rather than Spanish (though there is some mutual intelligibility there).
Also, it's worth stressing that in many of these areas, knowledge of a language does not mean the ability to read or write it.
> That actually sounds super fascinating and like a unique opportunity to learn about pre-Coloumbian history.
Not a lot. Most native people who did not adopt colonist languages have very little idea about their own history stretching any further than 100 years or so. This is because they mostly had no writing. Without writing, it is insanely hard to preserve anything more than living memory.
Exactly. These are the same people that have the "in this house <insert progressive proxy>" next to signs opposing new developments in their neighborhood
I respect the people who actually volunteer. I also can respect when people are honest about the limitations of their own compassion. However, both are costly (the first in terms of time and second in terms of social cost). Claiming to care for others, while doing nothing for them, is the most selfish approach.
It's (frankly) the difference between Democrats from 20 years ago versus today. Policy disagreements aside, I believed the rank and file Democrat legitimately wanted to help and cared about the poor. It's now become a wasteland of grifting and virtue signaling. People are up in arms about Trump and the populous revolution on the right, but damn it if the left doesn't need one and badly.
This is half devils-advocate, half serious, and half I'm curious to see where the discussion will go.
What if instead of using credit scores to decide who may live where, what if we instead used social credit scores to decide? Perhaps it is lazy of me not to elaborate on what exactly would go into that score but part of it is me not knowing either.
I can maybe try. What are the qualities we would want and not want in a neighbor?
A top priority I would think is we don't want someone who makes us feel unsafe, so there should be a penalty for such things as getting into fights and crime, perhaps petty crime especially.
On the other hand we do want someone that is friendly and helps take care of the commons, someone that helps clean up the street from litter and someone that arranges block parties to help people get to know each other.
There are also factors where people have strong preferences and compatibility is important, stuff like loud late night parties (it's reasonable to have neighborhoods both with and without) and communities where you have to have a perfectly manicured lawn (compare HOA).
The problem is that the people with power set up what data gets used in a credit score - and the people with power are the white homeowners who want HOAs to control their neighbors. When you ask "what are the qualities we would want..." you miss that the definition of "we" is why discrimination exists.
> and the people with power are the white homeowners who want HOAs to control their neighbors
While I'm sure this is fairly common, I was careful not to restrict my sibling reply to the GP to a single race. There are predominately black or hispanic communities out there (for example) with very similar preferences.
> What are the qualities we would want and not want in a neighbor?
Ah, but that's exactly the problem. There are a ton of places in this country where people would answer that as "people of the same race, with the same values as me".
How is wanting to live near people “with the same values as me” a problem? My kids will pick up values from the neighborhood kids. Why wouldn’t I want to live in a neighborhood where people share my values?
Heck, in my experience as a brown guy traveling in some pretty conservative parts of the country, even most of the “race” stuff boils down to “values and culture.”
> There are a ton of places in this country where people would answer that as "people of the same race, with the same values as me".
I agree about the "same values" part, but I think the "same race" part is more dubious.
I've witnessed first-hand conservative non-Hispanic white Americans getting along very well with conservative Hispanic Americans, and conservative Asian Americans – and while that is just anecdote, I'm not aware of any hard data to contradict it – most of the time, the shared outlook on political/religious/moral/etc issues ends up being much more significant than the racial/ethnic/linguistic differences. I don't have the same anecdotal experience to draw on when it comes to conservative African Americans, but I'd be surprised if it was greatly different in that case.
My impression is that in a lot of these discussions, when people say “race”, they really mean “class”: most middle class people don’t want to live right next door to the lower-lower class, and an ethnoracial majority lower-lower class person is really no more attractive a neighbour than a minority one; meanwhile, most of them (even most conservatives) would be perfectly happy to have an ethnoracial minority neighbour who is of a similar wealth, education and views/outlook/attitudes/politics/ideology/etc
> What if instead of using credit scores to decide who may live where, what if we instead used social credit scores to decide? Perhaps it is lazy of me not to elaborate on what exactly would go into that score but part of it is me not knowing either.
I mean, what would go into it is race, and after that, adherence to cultural norms (Christianity, conservatism, cisgender heterosexuality, immigrant status) and then gerrymandering. Even if that isn't what happens on paper, that's what would happen.
>I mean, what would go into it is race, and after that, adherence to cultural norms (Christianity, conservatism, cisgender heterosexuality, immigrant status) and then gerrymandering. Even if that isn't what happens on paper, that's what would happen.
Your average immigrant would peg the needle on that scale if not for the inclusion of race and immigrant status.
> What if instead of using credit scores to decide who may live where, what if we instead used social credit scores to decide? Perhaps it is lazy of me not to elaborate on what exactly would go into that score but part of it is me not knowing either.
We've done that, and current anti-discrimination in housing law is a direct response to and rejection of it, and also a good place to find a list of exactly what would go into it.
This article reads like meta-virtue signaling. The author criticizes his neighbours' yard signs, but he too lives in what is presumably a rich, homogeneous and exclusive neighbourhood - I've only ever seen those types of signs in those areas, rarely in a working-class neighbourhood. The author projects an image of a virtuous champion by calling out others for not doing enough, but as a beneficiary of exclusionary policies, how would he feel if his quality of life declined as a result of the values he champions in this article?
I agree with the general sentiment about "front-yard politics" (aka virtue signaling), but instead of facing the reasons why people tend to shy away from substantial action, the author advocates for doubling down on counter-productive (and discriminatory) programs that disfavour working-class people. I question the author's honesty. All those words don't strike me as much more convincing than a sign in one's front yard.
46 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 104 ms ] threadAmericans seem very enthusiastic about telling everyone else what they should do about an issue, but as soon as it effects them in any way, it becomes Not In My Backyard or just "not my problem."
NIMBY: ...but I don't want to see or interact with them.
Almost NIMBY: ...but not by providing them with housing or transportation other things that cost money.
Not NIMBY (but still awful): ...but not by dealing with payday lenders and bank fees and punitive policing.
Do you want to use "NIMBY" as convenient shorthand for all of these? That's fine with me, and consistent with your name here, but it is a shift from how the term is currently used. The difference is worth thinking about, instead of "just"-ing it away.
This is not even more literally NIMBY than most (which are "not in my neighborhood or I usually spend my time")
That actually sounds super fascinating and like a unique opportunity to learn about pre-Coloumbian history. Do you know any of the language names? Did these children come from extremely remote villages that never adopted Spanish?
> If that suddenly happened at Spring Hill I guarantee you Trump would win Virginia in a landslide. Democrats like my parents—who are upset that the mixed income neighborhood where we live has some poor kids—would be chanting “build that wall.”
It's honestly really sad that anyone would see these children as a threat and not as an opportunity to learn more about the world and our history.
There's a reason poor urban schools are so terrible
Do you have experience working with them?
Yes it's caused by parental neglect and poverty. Many poor urban schools are the highest funded but even then need significantly more resources than an affluent suburban school
What plagues Baltimore isn’t just poverty. (We lived there for a couple of years.) It’s a breakdown of the social hierarchy, and in particular the replacement of male authority with gangs.
The same might be true about the south part of Mexico, like around Oaxaca, I'd fact check though before believing me.
Also, studies confirm that kids are highly influenced by their peers. Rich Americans are highly skeptical of what values and behaviors their kids will pick up from poor people. In my country this is so well accepted that we don’t even bother to hide it. But I think rich Americans basically act consistent with that premise even if it’s taboo to say it out loud. It’s an important part of why people move to exclusive suburbs.
They also add value. As you can see by the very interesting reply about indigenous languages, there is significant cultural and historical value being dismissed by viewing non-English speaking poor people as a pure liability.
In many of the Caribbean regions of those countries (particularly Central America), Spanish might not be spoken at all, with most people instead speaking an English creole alongside an indigenous language such as Garifuna (e.g., see https://en.m.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Caribbean_Nicaragua ).
Then you get into the Caribbean where some islands speak Dutch or French (or creoles thereof), and of course Brazilians speak Portuguese rather than Spanish (though there is some mutual intelligibility there).
Also, it's worth stressing that in many of these areas, knowledge of a language does not mean the ability to read or write it.
Not a lot. Most native people who did not adopt colonist languages have very little idea about their own history stretching any further than 100 years or so. This is because they mostly had no writing. Without writing, it is insanely hard to preserve anything more than living memory.
It's (frankly) the difference between Democrats from 20 years ago versus today. Policy disagreements aside, I believed the rank and file Democrat legitimately wanted to help and cared about the poor. It's now become a wasteland of grifting and virtue signaling. People are up in arms about Trump and the populous revolution on the right, but damn it if the left doesn't need one and badly.
What if instead of using credit scores to decide who may live where, what if we instead used social credit scores to decide? Perhaps it is lazy of me not to elaborate on what exactly would go into that score but part of it is me not knowing either.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive_(Black_Mirror)
A top priority I would think is we don't want someone who makes us feel unsafe, so there should be a penalty for such things as getting into fights and crime, perhaps petty crime especially.
On the other hand we do want someone that is friendly and helps take care of the commons, someone that helps clean up the street from litter and someone that arranges block parties to help people get to know each other.
There are also factors where people have strong preferences and compatibility is important, stuff like loud late night parties (it's reasonable to have neighborhoods both with and without) and communities where you have to have a perfectly manicured lawn (compare HOA).
While I'm sure this is fairly common, I was careful not to restrict my sibling reply to the GP to a single race. There are predominately black or hispanic communities out there (for example) with very similar preferences.
Ah, but that's exactly the problem. There are a ton of places in this country where people would answer that as "people of the same race, with the same values as me".
Heck, in my experience as a brown guy traveling in some pretty conservative parts of the country, even most of the “race” stuff boils down to “values and culture.”
I agree about the "same values" part, but I think the "same race" part is more dubious.
I've witnessed first-hand conservative non-Hispanic white Americans getting along very well with conservative Hispanic Americans, and conservative Asian Americans – and while that is just anecdote, I'm not aware of any hard data to contradict it – most of the time, the shared outlook on political/religious/moral/etc issues ends up being much more significant than the racial/ethnic/linguistic differences. I don't have the same anecdotal experience to draw on when it comes to conservative African Americans, but I'd be surprised if it was greatly different in that case.
My impression is that in a lot of these discussions, when people say “race”, they really mean “class”: most middle class people don’t want to live right next door to the lower-lower class, and an ethnoracial majority lower-lower class person is really no more attractive a neighbour than a minority one; meanwhile, most of them (even most conservatives) would be perfectly happy to have an ethnoracial minority neighbour who is of a similar wealth, education and views/outlook/attitudes/politics/ideology/etc
I mean, what would go into it is race, and after that, adherence to cultural norms (Christianity, conservatism, cisgender heterosexuality, immigrant status) and then gerrymandering. Even if that isn't what happens on paper, that's what would happen.
Your average immigrant would peg the needle on that scale if not for the inclusion of race and immigrant status.
We've done that, and current anti-discrimination in housing law is a direct response to and rejection of it, and also a good place to find a list of exactly what would go into it.
I agree with the general sentiment about "front-yard politics" (aka virtue signaling), but instead of facing the reasons why people tend to shy away from substantial action, the author advocates for doubling down on counter-productive (and discriminatory) programs that disfavour working-class people. I question the author's honesty. All those words don't strike me as much more convincing than a sign in one's front yard.