So, because same-sex marriage was just legalized in New York, the super-duper-special queer crowd is whining about how they don't feel edgy anymore. At least according to one insufferable New Yorker twit, he always suspected that the equal rights advocates really wanted all along to be super lame and live in the suburbs with their spouses and children and social approval and total lack of edginess (and hence, total lack of value). As he says, "But why would they hope for that?"
Ooh! I have an idea! Maybe...maybe -- wait for it! -- it's because not all gay people are the same! Not all of us are particularly edgy even! Some of us aren't superqueer Guggenheim-recipient theatre critics living in New York. Some of us admire our parents and our friends' parents with their stable, "boring" lives a lot more than we admire 50-year-olds who act like they're 20. Some of us think gay men have been talking over lesbians for years, ensuring that they're the ones who get to tell the rest of the world what gay people are like. Some of us don't care if our opinions guarantee we'd never get an A in a Gender Studies class. And some of us are really fucking sick of this conversation altogether.
Because, seriously -- even with same-sex marriage being legal, I can be all married and traditional and shit and you can still be super edgy. But if you, New Yorker twit, were to succeed in convincing everyone (wrongfully) that being gay is somehow inherently different from being straight, then we all have to be super fucking edgy, you see? And funnily enough, that's how it was for...most of history! Why is that fair?
I'm happy to say that your side is losing, New Yorker twit. I hope you can continue being way cooler than everyone else in the world, and I'll continue ruining your street cred by reading wedding blogs. If I earn any pomo merit badges someday from some poor unenlighted soul who doesn't realize that getting gay married is played out, I'll make sure to regift them to you.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
On personal finance and capitalism
As someone who spends a lot of time reading about personal finance, one of the most interesting things to me about the personal finance world is the relationship of personal finance to capitalism. (I know, heavy shit.) Honestly, personal finance is a hobby of a diverse set of people with fundamentally different worldviews -- thrifty, traditionalist Christians and Mormons, scary BIG CAPITALISM businessmen, saavy Stanford-graduate Google-generation businessmen, lefty Portland residents who grow their own food, and even hippies who want to tune in, turn on, and drop out. About the only thing they share is the desire for people (or at least some people) to achieve financial security and independence. Everything else -- motivations for doing so, political views, etc. -- is up in the air.
I've noticed that a lot of personal finance writing actually undermines traditional economic thinking. The authors of Your Money or Your Life suggest that you work until you have the money you need to maintain your (extremely frugal) lifestyle permanently, and then cease to work for pay. That may sound like "retirement", but they envision you doing this at 35 or 45, not 65. They ask you to calculate things like your "real hourly wage" -- the wage you make after you account for all the money you spend to be able to work -- and make a case for why volunteerism is superior to paid work. This is not traditional economic GDP-maximizing thinking. It's similar to feminist and leftist economic criticisms in that it points to other values and kinds of work that get left behind in the quest for constant economic growth. But it does this in the language of self-help. I find that fascinating.
I think a lot of current national trends -- DIY, urban farming, local food, knitting, Zipcar, the list goes on -- are reflective of this kind of reluctance to view economic growth as indicative of growth overall. And I think that's a great sign for the spirit and health of this country and the world -- because the voices of the libertarian economists have been drowning out those of everyone else for too long.
I've noticed that a lot of personal finance writing actually undermines traditional economic thinking. The authors of Your Money or Your Life suggest that you work until you have the money you need to maintain your (extremely frugal) lifestyle permanently, and then cease to work for pay. That may sound like "retirement", but they envision you doing this at 35 or 45, not 65. They ask you to calculate things like your "real hourly wage" -- the wage you make after you account for all the money you spend to be able to work -- and make a case for why volunteerism is superior to paid work. This is not traditional economic GDP-maximizing thinking. It's similar to feminist and leftist economic criticisms in that it points to other values and kinds of work that get left behind in the quest for constant economic growth. But it does this in the language of self-help. I find that fascinating.
I think a lot of current national trends -- DIY, urban farming, local food, knitting, Zipcar, the list goes on -- are reflective of this kind of reluctance to view economic growth as indicative of growth overall. And I think that's a great sign for the spirit and health of this country and the world -- because the voices of the libertarian economists have been drowning out those of everyone else for too long.
Talkin' transportation politics
I've spent some time in the last couple of days reading online debates between two general groups of people: urban, lefty west- and east-coasters who commute mainly through walking, biking, or taking public transit, and suburban or rural folks from the rest of the country who drive cars. There are A LOT of things going on in these discussions that have less to do with transportation than with larger conceptions of how an individual should live and relate to society and what kind of country this should be. Here are the main arguments (with maybe a bit of editorializing from me):
Urban Ursula: I ride my bike to work every day and take public transit if the roads are icy. I don't need or want a car and I love it! I feel connected to the other people in my city, I save money, it's better for the environment, and I get exercise! Suburban America is filled with fat, lazy, indebted slobs who are too ignorant to see that their car-commuting lifestyle is destroying the environment, ruining their health, and filling the country with culture-less towns that have no sense of community.
Suburban Sam: I live 40 miles away from my job in the city, and the only way to get there is to drive. I like my car, even though it's expensive, and I even like my commute sometimes. I hate being in the city -- there are too many people (including lots of weirdos), I hate having to jump through hoops to get around without a vehicle, and it's too expensive to live there. And I know my car is bad for the environment (and international politics), but I'm just one person, and maybe they'll even come out with an electric or solar-powered car one of these days.
Now, these are online discussions, so there are a lot of wingnuts dominating the debates (particularly on the biking/public transit side). I actually had no idea the politics of this had become so contentious. It seems to me that there are a lot of reasons to split the difference here:
As the Times article above alludes to, the US and the EU are really different -- shocking! -- and decentivizing vehicles makes a lot of sense there. They have more people in less space. The EU has a population density of 300 people per square mile, while US population density is just 87.4. Even though a lot of that low population density is accounted for by almostly-empty horror-movie states like Alaska, Wyoming, and Montana, the rest of the US is stil much less dense than Europe, even in major cities -- Los Angeles (pop. 3.8 million/), for example, is less than two-thirds as dense as Madrid (3.2 million) and more than twice its size. That's not even getting into the sprawling suburbs outside of cities like Los Angeles. Everything is more spread out here.
You might say: "But that's the problem! The car idealists took over the country, and that's why we have all of these highways and suburbs now!" True. A lot of what are now highways could have been trains. But surely not all of it. And to quote a wise thinker close to me, that ship has sailed. We live in a big-ass country with low population density in comparison to Europe and much of Asia. And we have lots of cars and highways and towns and cities that have been built around those things.
Which is where we come to a fundamental question: Would this setup -- the United States we have -- be okay to the bike advocates IF cars became much more sustainable in the next 20 years? If car technology advanced to the extent that cars were not the environmental problem they are now? I don't know enough about this kind of technology to know how likely this scenario is, but what if? Because while the environmental impact of cars is easy for Urban Ursula to point out as the reason not to drive cars, I suspect the other reasons might be even more important to her.
Fundamentally, Urban Ursula enjoys urban living, enjoys that it feels diverse and gritty and sophisticated to live in the city around people who share her values, and enjoys living what she sees as an inherently more authentic and enlightened and interconnected lifestyle.
Similarly, Suburban Sam likes HIS life -- the feeling of being around people who share his (more traditional) values, who he believes aren't snobbish or entitled, who he believes are educated but also practical and grounded. He doesn't like feeling crowded or slowed down by the chaos around him. And he wants convenience and familiarly more than he wants an urban adventure.
Ideally, I don't think either person should have to change their fundamental character. And frankly, I think most people (meaning, people not on the Internet) really are willing to split the difference here. Some combination of improving vehicle fuel efficiecy and technology, reducing driving, increasing options for public transit, walking, and biking -- all of those things are good things to do. It doesn't just have to be one or two of them. But fundamentally, a lot of the discussion isn't about the costs and benefits of various transportation policy options, but about what people and cities and this country should be like. I don't think it'd be fair for either side to lose that debate.
Because the real enemies are the oil companies and CHINA!!!!!???!!!, right?
Urban Ursula: I ride my bike to work every day and take public transit if the roads are icy. I don't need or want a car and I love it! I feel connected to the other people in my city, I save money, it's better for the environment, and I get exercise! Suburban America is filled with fat, lazy, indebted slobs who are too ignorant to see that their car-commuting lifestyle is destroying the environment, ruining their health, and filling the country with culture-less towns that have no sense of community.
Suburban Sam: I live 40 miles away from my job in the city, and the only way to get there is to drive. I like my car, even though it's expensive, and I even like my commute sometimes. I hate being in the city -- there are too many people (including lots of weirdos), I hate having to jump through hoops to get around without a vehicle, and it's too expensive to live there. And I know my car is bad for the environment (and international politics), but I'm just one person, and maybe they'll even come out with an electric or solar-powered car one of these days.
Now, these are online discussions, so there are a lot of wingnuts dominating the debates (particularly on the biking/public transit side). I actually had no idea the politics of this had become so contentious. It seems to me that there are a lot of reasons to split the difference here:
As the Times article above alludes to, the US and the EU are really different -- shocking! -- and decentivizing vehicles makes a lot of sense there. They have more people in less space. The EU has a population density of 300 people per square mile, while US population density is just 87.4. Even though a lot of that low population density is accounted for by almostly-empty horror-movie states like Alaska, Wyoming, and Montana, the rest of the US is stil much less dense than Europe, even in major cities -- Los Angeles (pop. 3.8 million/), for example, is less than two-thirds as dense as Madrid (3.2 million) and more than twice its size. That's not even getting into the sprawling suburbs outside of cities like Los Angeles. Everything is more spread out here.
You might say: "But that's the problem! The car idealists took over the country, and that's why we have all of these highways and suburbs now!" True. A lot of what are now highways could have been trains. But surely not all of it. And to quote a wise thinker close to me, that ship has sailed. We live in a big-ass country with low population density in comparison to Europe and much of Asia. And we have lots of cars and highways and towns and cities that have been built around those things.
Which is where we come to a fundamental question: Would this setup -- the United States we have -- be okay to the bike advocates IF cars became much more sustainable in the next 20 years? If car technology advanced to the extent that cars were not the environmental problem they are now? I don't know enough about this kind of technology to know how likely this scenario is, but what if? Because while the environmental impact of cars is easy for Urban Ursula to point out as the reason not to drive cars, I suspect the other reasons might be even more important to her.
Fundamentally, Urban Ursula enjoys urban living, enjoys that it feels diverse and gritty and sophisticated to live in the city around people who share her values, and enjoys living what she sees as an inherently more authentic and enlightened and interconnected lifestyle.
Similarly, Suburban Sam likes HIS life -- the feeling of being around people who share his (more traditional) values, who he believes aren't snobbish or entitled, who he believes are educated but also practical and grounded. He doesn't like feeling crowded or slowed down by the chaos around him. And he wants convenience and familiarly more than he wants an urban adventure.
Ideally, I don't think either person should have to change their fundamental character. And frankly, I think most people (meaning, people not on the Internet) really are willing to split the difference here. Some combination of improving vehicle fuel efficiecy and technology, reducing driving, increasing options for public transit, walking, and biking -- all of those things are good things to do. It doesn't just have to be one or two of them. But fundamentally, a lot of the discussion isn't about the costs and benefits of various transportation policy options, but about what people and cities and this country should be like. I don't think it'd be fair for either side to lose that debate.
Because the real enemies are the oil companies and CHINA!!!!!???!!!, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)