Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

FUD is a staple of american politics. Sadly.

Just remind them that fearmongering is pointless. Short of an armed coup there is no way clinton can be president.

[Reelya]

Well say NY made a "rental tax", then prices would rise. To an extent this would be borne by people, but the fact is, the tax is sucking money out of the economy so the extra money to rent the apartments would have to come from elsewhere. Sure, people pay $300 a week to live in a closet, but if money's leaving the system then that's not sustainanble.

[Reelya]

Do you mean Real wealth, or monetary wealth? Because those are different things. Although I agree they are fairly correlated.

But yes, a transition period would be painful - but we're already in a painful transition period anyway, so that's kind of moot.  That's part of the thought experiment.

Well say NY made a "rental tax", then prices would rise. To an extent this would be borne by people, but the fact is, the tax is sucking money out of the economy so the extra money to rent the apartments would have to come from elsewhere. Sure, people pay $300 a week to live in a closet, but if money's leaving the system then that's not sustainanble.

Or if you went with my example, no new apartments could be built and there would be rules making creating new rentals more complex or costly, so you'd have the same money chasing ever-decreasing amounts of living space. At some point, that becomes unlivable for most people. Not everyone will put up with just a closet, and having just a closet to live in crimps your other spending choices. Can you fit the latest wide-screen TV in your closet?

[wierd]

If anything, NYC and SF, are trying to artificially drive down rental pricing with things like rent control laws, which interfere with market equilibrium.

Really, there really is an upper bound on how many people you an jam into a city.  NYC and pals are very close to that limit, which is why things like rent control are a thing.  Naturally, they dont want to admit or accept that fact. It ruins the narrative that they are healthy and strong urban centers with great growth potential.

[Powder Miner]

Enforcing a population density sounds like a genuinely awful thing to do. It amounts to indirectly attempting USSR-tier forced resettlement, basically.

[Shadowlord]

So news I got recently about Hillary apparently doxxing the electoral college to force them to become faithless voters so trump does not win.  Any truth to this or is this just something my coworkers blew out of proportion?

... They're public figures, selected in public, the names are available to the public. This is stupid.

[wierd]

Again, it would also massively multiply the needed budget to sustain essential infrastructure (like pipes, electrical power lines, phone lines, roads, et al.)

THe same number of people, just MUCH MUCH MORE needed infrastructure.

[Frumple]

[snip re density cap]

Though to add on to your bit, ree, from what I understand by most metrics you care to use -- particularly in way of pollution (noting well that there's more to that than just smog, though air quality is more likely to be a substantial problem in packed in areas, yes), resource efficiency, and so on -- cities are generally significantly better than more spread out stuff. We make pretty significant gains on economies of scale and logistics when we bunch folks up, by and large. Lot of the crap we've got out here is just kinda' inefficient. When you've got five towns scattered over the countryside that's five different sets of water lines, power lines, roadways, etc., so on, so forth. You have five towns worth of people bunched up in one spot, the lines et al might be bigger but you've got less of 'em and they don't have to cover as much ground, don't need as much effectively wasted space. Plus stuff like emergency service coverage, public transportation (or just a walkable city/region), etc., so forth, so on... urban generally makes that notably easier to implement and maintain. S'just a lot less space to cover, and a lot more people covered per space you travel, too.

If we were trying to optimize things on that front, we'd be pulling stuff in to metropolitan areas, not spreading stuff out from 'em. Think I've seen it stated, and pretty aptly, that rural living is effectively a luxury, at least from a societal/total population effect standpoint.

So news I got recently about Hillary apparently doxxing the electoral college to force them to become faithless voters so trump does not win.  Any truth to this or is this just something my coworkers blew out of proportion?

Some cursory searchin' ain't seeing anything about it. Closest is claims from sources that are dubious at best that some clinton supporters are doxxing/harassing electors, but how much that's actually a thing... *shrugs* Though yeah, what SL said, too.

[Shadowlord]

Hell, I found a list of all their names in 5 seconds of googling.

[wierd]

You dont even need to exercise that amount of effort. The electors would quickly be expelled from their cushy positions if they voted any way other than the prescribed one. Self-interest requires much more than just doxxing to be overcome in this case.

It would have to be "OMG! I KNOW WHERE YOU HID THE BODIES!" kind of revelations to get anywhere close to having that kind of leverage.

[McTraveller]

If we were trying to optimize things on that front, we'd be pulling stuff in to metropolitan areas, not spreading stuff out from 'em. Think I've seen it stated, and pretty aptly, that rural living is effectively a luxury, at least from a societal/total population effect standpoint.

I think I was thinking more along the lines of things like area-perimeter laws; where what is the optimal city size to manage the inflow/outflow of goods and waste management, coupled with things like "you can survive X kg of waste spread across 100 square miles, but not 100 square yards" effects in terms of traffic gridlock, etc.  And you don't even have to look stuff like that - one of the most difficult logistics issues with highly urban areas is just dealing with trash and sewage.

I agree that there are definitely some efficiencies of urbanization, but it's not all for free - but maybe it's just the current form of urbanization that grates against my sensibilities, not urbanization in general. I just have issues with walls of metal, glass, and concrete.

[Frumple]

Oh hey. Carson's apparently recused himself from consideration for a cabinet position.

The reason he gave for it is a bucket of hilarity, though. Cited inexperience in government making him inappropriate for a cabinet position, apparently.

... things like that make me wonder just how badly our social studies education stuff is failing on the governmental organization front.

And yeah, trash and sewage is an issue, but it'd likely be an even bigger one if the places were dispersed. Spreadin' folks out doesn't exactly make them consume less, heh, and the trash and sewage issues still exist, they're just scattered around. More or less same impact, basically, just less overtly visible.

[wierd]

THe only way to meet the basic needs of that many humans, in that small a footprint, is to build UPWARDS (or downwards, but that has other problems.)-- that means "walls of concrete, glass, and steel".

Even with those materials, there are fundamental limits on how tall you can build a tower. Ergo, there are limits to how large you can grow a city, and how many people you can pack inside.

[Reelya]

The mistake isn't building too tall - it's not building tall enough. At some point centrifugal forces take over and keep your tower upright. So there's another set of stable tower heights, you just have to work past the unstable middle-heights to get there.

Mind you, effective gravity at the top would be reversed.

[wierd]

requires unobtanium. There is no known material with the needed young modulus to survive the harmonic oscillations caused by air currents moving over the structure.