The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Riggerjack wrote:I'm not trying to approach this from an economic perspective. I'm trying to understand the appeal of cities, so I am asking people who can articulate such things in terms I can understand.
Symphony orchestra.

User avatar
Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by Mister Imperceptible »

Riggerjack wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:12 am
I'm trying to understand the appeal of cities, so I am asking people who can articulate such things in terms I can understand.
A high concentration of beautiful women.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by Riggerjack »

Yes, we have one of those in Seattle. We tax people who have no interest in symphony, so the rich folks who go to symphonies, don't have to cover the costs.

This seems like an urban solution to commoners with recorded music. More expensive, more status signaling, more taxes.

The trifecta of urbanism. If only we could use it to raise the rent...

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

jacob" wrote:(*) Is a 9.9% plastic surgeon who makes $250k/year more or less productive than an apple picker who makes $8k/year? Does it make a difference if the plastic surgeon has a savings rate of 0% while the apple picker saves 50%?
What about the young second wife of the plastic surgeon who spends her mornings at the yoga studio, then has lunch and does a bit of shopping, before volunteering for a couple hours at the art museum? What about the heir to the estate of the scientific breeder who held intellectual property rights to variety of apple being picked?

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by Riggerjack »

A high concentration of beautiful women.
Eh. Women are everywhere, beauty is comparative, but in approximately equal distribution. If you need them grouped together like fish in a barrel, maybe that just says something about your approach... 8-)

User avatar
Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by Mister Imperceptible »

It’s a numbers game for most, Riggerjack.

I would also say that the the financially self-destructive tendencies in modern society owes a lot to women who want to live expensive and unsustainable lifestyles, and the men who run around catering to them.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y2I0JlwBaBs

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Riggerjack wrote:Yes, we have one of those in Seattle. We tax people who have no interest in symphony, so the rich folks who go to symphonies, don't have to cover the costs.

This seems like an urban solution to commoners with recorded music. More expensive, more status signaling, more taxes.
Whether or not a symphony orchestra is partially funded by taxes, it obviously requires a certain population to support, and even in a rural area, such as the county in which I resided when my children were young, the symphony will be found performing in whatever constitutes the city center of a largely rural area. The fact that most people most of the time listen to recorded music does not negate the fact that the music must first be composed and performed before it is recorded. Skilled individuals working in proximity are more likely to be inventive. Of course, access to books, the internet, etc. does allow people in rural locales greater level of ability to interact with creative others.

I don't think noting that an individual who performs in a large city orchestra is likely to be more skilled or gifted at art/craft than somebody who performs in a small town orchestra is simply a matter of "status signaling." More like just doing the math.

Anyways, my preference would be to spend roughly half my time in a lively city, and half my time in the country. IMO, the suburbs, whether working class or uber affluent, suck relative to both of these alternatives.

Jin+Guice
Posts: 1279
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by Jin+Guice »

+1 for citites.

Living in a higher population dense area is just a different way of life than living in a low population density area. I'm not sure we can capture the entire picture in a purely economic sense. Having a higher population density makes certain things (walking everywhere as well as meeting and talking to strangers frequently) easier. Lower population density areas make other things (growing your own food and being left alone) easier.

Is it also not possible that cities are both more consumptive and more productive than rural counterparts but the productivity increase is greater than the consumptive increase? This would seem to encapsulate both arguments, but it's just and off the cuff theory....

Jin+Guice
Posts: 1279
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by Jin+Guice »

@7w5:

-1 for suburbs...

In my experience the large city orchestra players are much better than the small town players. I think this is a combo of the extremely high competition for paid orchestra positions and the level at which leading orchestra players are expected to consistently perform. It's almost as stark as the difference between professional and amateur sports. Is this indicative of cities vs. rural populations in general or simply a quirk of the modern orchestra? Only the forums have the power to decide.

User avatar
Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by Mister Imperceptible »

If only the forums had the power to decide!

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Mister Imperceptible wrote:I would also say that the the financially self-destructive tendencies in modern society owes a lot to women who want to live expensive and unsustainable lifestyles, and the men who run around catering to them.
The author of "A Round-Heeled Woman: My Late Life Adventures in Sex and Romance", Jane Juska, notes that women who do not want to have sex with their husbands are the bedrock of middle-class society. Many years ago I belonged to a book group largely comprised of women who were older, wealthier, and more Republican than me. The frequency with which the conversation would take a turn towards "...and Bob just insisted that I order the granite counter-top." was rather irksome. A more positive take on the matter would be that, of course, females of any species with long period of infancy, will seek mates capable of providing economic support to nest. For instance, when I successfully seek men who will provide me with symphony tickets, so I can afford to tutor low-income children, I am being good at being a woman, and saving other people some tax dollars to boot!

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by jacob »

@Riggerjack - Other than being quantitatively larger (something I don't care for), the consumption in cities is also qualitatively different (something I care a lot for). This is because rarer institutions, businesses, interests, ... require a certain population density to support as noted by 7wb5.

There's an geographical law (I forget the name) describing how great the population density has to be before it makes sense to add a certain business or service. For example, you need a city of ~5000 people to have enough customers to run a storefront(*) jewelry business. It's bad business sense to run a jewelry business unless the foot traffic exceeds a certain number X. This is also why jewelry businesses are located downtown.

At the first level (other than nothing), you'll typically find a church/cemetery, a bar/hangout/hall, and a gas station or bus stop(+) Adding more people in, there might be a small supermarket and a mechanic on top of that. Adding yet more people, and now it makes sense to run a daycare center, expand the supermarket, and maybe there will be a baker as well. Moving up, you now have access to a doctor and maybe a dentist and a barber and the city is creating a small library and opening a post office.

(+) Which exactly describes the place, population 75-100, where I grew up.

And so on ...

So as the the city grows larger it becomes possible to produce and consume things of increasing complexity. This is what accounts for the GDP/capital scaling. There are jewelry jobs in a medium sized city. There are none in a small town.

(*) Internet acreage is similar but also different. The internet is definitely a game changer, but there's still many things that Amazon Prime hasn't solved yet.

Ahh.. but what about cars another solution to the distance problem? I grew up in the sticks and so the nearest school was 5km away; the nearest highschool 15km away, and the nearest university was 25km away. To translate that into American units, since this transport was done by school and regional bus respectively, the distances were 40mins, 100mins, and 120mins respectively. When I finally moved out and close to the university, I got an extra 2 hours worth of "productivity"/"consumption" per day.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by Riggerjack »

Is it also not possible that cities are both more consumptive and more productive than rural counterparts but the productivity increase is greater than the consumptive increase? This would seem to encapsulate both arguments, but it's just and off the cuff theory....
Thank you. This is what I am trying to get at.

User avatar
Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by Mister Imperceptible »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:40 am
For instance, when I successfully seek men who will provide me with symphony tickets, so I can afford to tutor low-income children, I am being good at being a woman, and saving other people some tax dollars to boot!
I have no problem with this, provided the man is not financing the ticket purchases with credit card debt only made possible by fractional reserve banking and an exploding money supply.

Most of the consumerism that occurs in pursuit of women is financed by debt. And then afterwards the couple held together by consumerism complains that they are broke, and vote ¡Ocasio!

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by Riggerjack »

There's an geographical law (I forget the name) describing how great the population density has to be before it makes sense to add a certain business or service. For example, you need a city of ~5000 people to have enough customers to run a storefront(*) jewelry business. It's bad business sense to run a jewelry business unless the foot traffic exceeds a certain number X. This is also why jewelry businesses are located downtown.


And handily, there is a plethora of jewelry stores in cities.

But more to the point, you are looking at old data gathered for old men, and published for other old men. I don't think you are looking at how network effects are changing us, or looking at where this leads. The emergent properties of population density are real. But they don't require physical population density anymore.

We needed cities. I'm not sure we still do, and I am certain that we won't.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by Riggerjack »

The fact that most people most of the time listen to recorded music does not negate the fact that the music must first be composed and performed before it is recorded.
You know, this is true of all music, but strangely, only symphonies need taxes, while everyone else uses subscriber support. What is wrong with symphonies that they can't provide services other musicians can?

More to the point, why should poor people have to carry the financial burden of supporting a symphony so the people who go, can have a cheaper social signal of superiority to the people forced to pay for their pleasures? How does your libertarian/commutarian mind resolve this?

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Mister Imperceptible wrote:I have no problem with this, provided the man is not financing the ticket purchases with credit card debt only made possible by fractional reserve banking and an exploding money supply.
Nah. If I am dating a guy with credit card debt, then he is probably a musician himself (sigh-weakness of mine, only partially eliminated by hard lessons learned through repeated experience.) That's one of the reasons I don't get why guys always complain about women wanting guys who have money. Obviously, women will have sex with talented musicians or athletes, even if they are only semi-professional and broke-azz. At least the money vector gives the guys without those skillz some kind of chance. Obviously, women who care enough about physical fitness and aesthetic matters to go to the trouble of exhibiting fitness and aesthetic in their own personal appearance will prefer to be in relationship with men who share those interests/values. I mean it's kind of stupid to think you are going to get a second date with a ballerina if you talk about the waste of tax dollars devoted to funding of the arts over dinner. Look in the mirror and observe your level of "pretty" (broadly defined) then recognize that if you want to date anybody who is "prettier" than you, you will have to pay for the difference in your levels of "pretty." No such thing as a free lunch.

Also it is definitely true that the women in cities (and surrounding affluent suburbs) are prettier on average than in rural areas (given similar age demographics.) Easily the case these days that 50% of what will make an individual more attractive can be purchased and will be more easily attained in city. Of course, there are frugal methods to avoid much of this expense also.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by Riggerjack »

This explains why urban people tend to be liberal: When there are people from different groups living right next door, one cannot insist on things like purity, authority, and loyalty without conflict. For example, I might belong to one group, but I live right next door to someone who belongs to a different group. Thus, I have to be considerate (fairness+care) of out-groups. At the same time I have to reduce the value of loyalty, authority, and purity as far as interacting with others are concerned lest I start a neighbor-feud or get into a bar-fight. Therefore urban morality is essentially the intersection in Venn diagram of the different moralities of the various groups. One thing all groups can maybe agree on is to treat other groups fairly. However, it would be very difficult for two different groups to agree on who to be loyal to or who is the authority.

Since population density in rural areas is low, there is no conflict with out-groups having different values. Therefore, values like loyalty or authority does not interfere with one's neighbors because they belong to the same group, not a different group.

Greene calls it a meta-morality (suggesting that liberals are more morally advanced than conservatives) but I think it's just an expression of humans living at higher densities and needing and habituating to overriding their tribal instincts because people are basically forced to get along when they live close to others. Humans tend to be 66/33 (conservatives/liberals) at low population density. As we move towards the city, once density exceeds 400 people/square mile, the ratio begins to change. 50/50 is reached at ~800 people/square mile after which people become predominantly liberal going towards 10/90. The higher the density, the more liberals there are. See first graph: http://davetroy.com/posts/the-real-repu ... on-density ... as the link notes: red state values are simply incompatible with density. Well, at least we have observed data and a possible theory for that claim.
This is what I wanted to talk about before I got distracted. It seems reasonable, but I have a different view.

Rural areas have practical, hands on tasks, with very short and defined feedback. Miss the nail, hammer your thumb, learn that lesson. It makes the lessons very short, sweet, and to the point. It even allows indirect transfer of knowledge. When Adam got drunk, went out to chop wood, planting an axe in his foot, everyone in town gets a chance to check their wood chopping station for safety. And everyone gets another reminder to separate booze and blades.

Contrast this with the tasks and lessons in the city. Tasks are team based, or group based. Whatever you are interacting with, it has people all around. The ability to handle the task is really a test of your ability to work with people. The feedback is loose, and often fails to connect at all with a lesson.

Where the lessons of the sticks are practical, the lessons of the city are social.

In politics, this looks like one group criticizing another for having impractical, unworkable plans.

The other group calling everyone not part of their in group closed minded racists, as that is the only way they could understand someone not joining their group. They must have some other, opposing group. Practicality of their plans means nothing, because it's not about practicality, it's about acceptance and openness and all the goodness groups can have. Including the righteous rage that outgroups provide.

I don't think either is wrong. This just seems to match the data.

User avatar
Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by Mister Imperceptible »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 12:02 pm
Look in the mirror and observe your level of "pretty" (broadly defined) then recognize that if you want to date anybody who is "prettier" than you, you will have to pay for the difference in your levels of "pretty." No such thing as a free lunch.
You are correct in saying that many are paying for the difference. They pay for things they cannot afford with money that does not even exist. They pay until they are ruined. And then they denounce capitalism as evil. Boo hoo!

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

Post by Riggerjack »

Since population density in rural areas is low, there is no conflict with out-groups having different values.
Clearly, you haven't heard of Shelbyville.https://youtu.be/bNsJSE82YmU

There is ALWAYS an outgroup.

Locked