HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

https://wwe.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM Although not directly related.

⬐ jwilk

Fixed link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM

There's a talk[1] by Anand Ghiridharadas about his book[2] - ironically, given at Google - which has many excellent insights, among them that local news has been hollowed out and destroyed by Google and the bigger fish are struggling, leading to this race to the bottom for clicks.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winners_Take_All:_The_Elite_Ch...

"These new philanthropists bring to charity an “entrepreneurial disposition”, Hay and Muller wrote in a 2014 paper, yet one that they suggest has been “diverting attention and resources away from the failings of contemporary manifestations of capitalism”, and may also be serving as a substitute for public spending withdrawn by the state.

Essentially, what we are witnessing is the transfer of responsibility for public goods and services from democratic institutions to the wealthy, to be administered by an executive class. In the CEO society, the exercise of social responsibilities is no longer debated in terms of whether corporations should or shouldn’t be responsible for more than their own business interests. Instead, it is about how philanthropy can be used to reinforce a politico-economic system that enables such a small number of people to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth. Zuckerberg’s investment in solutions to the Bay Area housing crisis is an example of this broader trend." [1]

Although with your "in excruciating detail" it sounds like you've been presented with the evidence before, yet you are somehow unwilling to admit the failings of the system. This last part is meant as an observation and not as a negative value judgement.

This video with Anand Giridharadas is also great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM, as well as his book 'Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World'.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/24/the-trouble-wit...

Public schools work well throughout the majority of the developed world - the US seems to be a notable exception.

Anand Giridharadas addresses this in his infamous google-talk quite nicely I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM&t=623s (I'm linking this talk on HN way too often, but it just seems perfectly fitting so very often)

⬐ ZephyrBlu

That depends what you mean by "well".

> It's way nicer on our side, where we do win-win deals, and know to be happy, the people around us need to be happy.

If you would like this world-view to undergo some critical analysis, I strongly recommend Anand Giridharadas' take in "Winners take All" (condensed in this google-talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM).

He specifically addresses the negative points of the "win-win"-mentality, and in my opinion, makes a strong point that a society built on a "win-win" culture is bound to be doomed.

⬐ not1ofU

Thanks for posting this. About 20 minutes in, and he is talking about how to break google up, at google... nice. To the comment section (first comment):

"To those at Google watching this who don't know the story: Google initially decided, for the first time in its history, to not publish this video to its Talks at Google site here on YouTube after it was recorded. This presentation was given on the second week of September, note the publishing time lag. Giridharadas contacted Google to ask why, and his contact said "I'm not on that team anymore" and was blown off. He then leaked the story to a leading tech journalist, who started calling Google for comment because she was working on a story about why, for the first time ever, a Talks at Google video was not published. They published it the same week -- obviously reluctantly and under pressure. The only reason you're seeing this guys is because power is doing damage control. . Wake the f** up."

Anand Ghiridaradas' Book "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" is very insightful in that regard. He held a google talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM) about it that got a bit of notoriety since he apparently ruffled a few feathers there.

> And finally, the word “censorship”. This is an accusatory word used by people who think it relates to their non-existent “freedom of speech”. The first amendment applies to the agreement between the US government and its citizens. It does not apply to your relationship with YouTube. > YouTube is a corporation that has an entirely separate agreement with its users, which does not include freedom of speech. Therefore, it’s not censorship — by definition.

The first amendment and freedom of speech are not synonyms, quite obviously because there can be freedom of speech outside of the jurisdiction of the US government; and similarly, Youtube is a trans-national corporation with more than just US citizens using it.

Even if it were wholly within US jurisdiction and Youtube only served US citizens, the first amendment is still not a synonym for freedom of speech. The word censor comes from a Latin word for a governmental position in ancient Rome but it does not follow that all censorship is therefore only possible or enacted by government. Not only is there no supporting logic for that, it's not evident in practice. Companies like Twitter[1], Facebook[2] and Google[3] remove things from their platforms for political convenience (or, as Anand Giridharadas points out[4], for any convenience):

> When you look at the ways in which the winners of our age give back, help out, make a difference, they are often designed to protect the system - above all - that the winners stand on top of.

As ever, I suggest getting a copy of On Liberty[0] by J.S. Mill, where he goes over both the tyranny of government and the tyranny of non-governmental actors, with regards to speech.

[0] https://www.bartleby.com/130/

[1] https://nypost.com/2020/12/15/facebook-twitter-donated-to-bi...

[2] https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-sup...

[3] https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/tulsi-gabbard-lawsuit...

[4] https://youtu.be/d_zt3kGW1NM?t=179

I don't think Anand Giridharadas will be invited back at Google Talks.

https://youtu.be/d_zt3kGW1NM?t=2900

⬐ caleb-allen

Thanks for the link, really enjoyed those questions. I'll watch the rest later.

⬐ carapace

I didn't watch the whole thing (yet) but the part that you link to is spot on: If the Google top brass or the rank-and-file wanted to give the service workers a better break they could do it overnight, it just costs money, and not enough people care or notice.

The first comment on the video has some context (if you take it at face value):

> Google initially decided, for the first time in its history, to not publish this video to its Talks at Google site here on YouTube after it was recorded. This presentation was given on the second week of September, note the publishing time lag. Giridharadas contacted Google to ask why, and his contact said "I'm not on that team anymore" and was blown off. He then leaked the story to a leading tech journalist, who started calling Google for comment because she was working on a story about why, for the first time ever, a Talks at Google video was not published. They published it the same week

⬐ CydeWeys

For what it's worth, Talks at Google talks are often enough not posted online. This definitely wouldn't have been the first, or unprecedented. For example, I saw an in-person Talks at Google with Doug Stanhope where he said a lot of offensive shit, swore a lot, and made the audience feel uncomfortable. That one was never posted online.

⬐ AndrewKemendo

If you could find that, I would absolutely love to see it. Doug is my favorite stand up and that sounds hysterical.

⬐ dbuder

It must be found.

⬐ CydeWeys

It wasn't posted. There's nothing for me to find. It's not like I sat there recording it on my cell phone.

His talk at Google was great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM

⬐ pklee

great talk.. !!

VOC (Dutch East India Company) was more powerful than most nations at the time. I asked this question on Quora once and got interesting answers [0]. VOC was an incredible enterprise, and there are a few today too, imo, they exist as conglomerates (Samsung, P&G, Amazon), political entities (CIA, CPC), monopolies (Maersk, Google), syndicates (DeBeers [1], NeoAristocrats [2], BigPharma, BigBank, BigSugar, BigOil), and cults (ISIS). These select few have an immeasurable and uncontrolled sway over the globe-- its environment [3], its inhabitants [4], its future [5], its past [6], its present [7].

The greed unrelenting [8], the game rigged [9][10].

--

[0] https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-companies-that-are-power...

[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you...

[2] https://youtu.be/d_zt3kGW1NM

[3] https://theintercept.com/2015/08/11/dupont-chemistry-decepti...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure...

[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16208421

[6] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ICN066A

[7] http://money.com/money/3994949/wikipedia-paid-editors/

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-storage_trade

[9] https://www.amazon.com/dp/1593764278

[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers

edit: links

⬐ chewz

> VOC (Dutch East India Company) was more powerful than most nations at the time

This is simply not true. VOC at the beggining was extremly profitable but never had that much of military muscle. They were able to hold to some important trading posts but never been able or interested to expand their holdings.

Also in their most valuable possesion (Banda Islands and in Java/Sumatra) they had been challenged by small British force. As a result VOC have swaped Riu Island for New Amsterdam/New York.

Latter attempts at military expansion made VOC bancrupt. British India Company in comparision had been doing way better in this regard financing their private armies via taxing Indian subjects and profitable drug dealings. VOC simply lacked enough profit/tax base to keep up significant military presence.

⬐ ekianjo

How is P&G a conglomerate? Samsung and most large Japanese companies are conglomerates but P&G does not fit the bill at all.

⬐ anonymous5133

It was just the wrong word choice. OP is just talking about very large companies in general.

⬐ taffer

The comparison of GDP with revenue is a comparison of apples with oranges. The GDP is the sum of all values created in an economy, the turnover is just how much stuff was moved around. A better comparison would be GDP vs. value added. For example, Volkswagen has a turnover of 236 billion euros, but the value added is just 25 billion euros.

⬐ coldtea

>VOC was an incredible enterprise

It's easy to be incredible on the backs and dead bodies of slaves...

⬐ jacquesm

This should not be downvoted, it is historically accurate, the VOC imported 10's of thousands of slaves to do work that they were not prepared to pay for.

It's a nice example of there being a huge crime at the foundation of huge riches, the VOC was definitely not a clean company by any stretch of the imagination and to this day the names of those who were responsible for the worst atrocities are proudly on display in the streets of various Dutch cities. Nothing to be proud of.

⬐ ignoramous

> to this day the names of those who were responsible for the worst atrocities are proudly on display in the streets of various Dutch cities.

Last Week Tonight discussed this from US Civil War PoV: https://youtu.be/J5b_-TZwQ0I

⬐ coldtea

Yes, and not just the black slaves.

We should include the enslaved countries (in Asia, Africa, etc), and whole nations made to work for them and their pockets. 2/3rds of the world were subjects to the East India companies and related colonizers...

⬐ 0db532a0

It wasn’t a crime at the time.

⬐ jacquesm

The fact that something is 'not a crime' does not mean it can not be obviously wrong.

⬐ 0db532a0

I don't agree. Why are you so sure that you know what is obviously right and obviously wrong? That is a viewpoint which is both arrogant, and also has no objective grounding to talk about.

⬐ jacquesm

Murder, slavery, child molestation... some things are obviously wrong. If you feel that you need a societal framework to determine whether those are wrong or not then there is an ethical issue.

⬐ 0db532a0

You might find it interesting to read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ego_and_Its_Own

⬐ speleding

Slaves were merchandise for the VOC but they did not import many slaves to do work [1]. They typically (ab)used the local population to do that. Still nothing to be proud of, but it is a different story than slaves that were brought to the Americas to work on plantations. Exploitation of the local people would certainly be unethical by today's standards, it wasn't unethical back then and it also wasn't a crime (although you probably meant the word "crime" figuratively).

[1]> the Dutch had only a relatively insignificant share in the Atlantic slave trade—never averaging much more than 5–6 per cent of the total. https://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/545

⬐ cromulent

It's an interesting discussion. Liverpool was a huge trading port and a powerful city for a long time, mostly built from the slave trade. No local slaves, but plenty of people who became rich from slavery.

"Overall, Liverpool ships transported half of the 3 million Africans carried across the Atlantic by British slavers."

http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ism/slavery/europe/liverp...

⬐ Ulaan

Seems like a very naive point of view.

At that time and place almost all societies had slaves or similar. The VOC was part of a cultural change in the world that ultimately led to the abolishment of slavery.

Slavery was certainly not the reason why they were successful.

⬐ Cthulhu_

I'm seeing a strong correlation with modern-day companies like Amazon - hugely profitable, wealthy company that exploit their hands-on workers in the warehouses.

The other correlation, for which both Amazon and the VOC deserve praise for, is their huge infrastructural reach and development. That is, the VOC helped mostly Europe access the products from the east-indies at the time, and made intercontinental trade a thing. In terms of scale it's probably still nothing compared to modern-day transport, but still.

⬐ kodz4

The VOC were indeed powerful, but the British East India Company was another level entirely.

And the reasons why are quite interesting. Here's Niall Ferguson's explanation -

Formally, the directors of the East India Company (EIC) in London controlled a substantial part of the trade between India and western Europe.

In reality, as the records of over 4,500 voyages by Company traders show, ship’s captains often made illicit side trips, buying and selling on their own account. By the late eighteenth century the number of ports in the resulting trade network was more than a hundred, ranging from open emporia such as Madras to regulated markets such as Canton (Guangzhou). In effect, private trading provided the weak links that knitted together otherwise disconnected regional clusters. This network had a life of its own that the Company’s directors in London simply did not control. Indeed, that was one of the keys to the success of the EIC: it was more a network than a hierarchy. Significantly, its Dutch rival banned private trade by its employees. This may explain why it ended up being superseded.

⬐ tradesincrease

This is not Ferguson's research. He reports on this research in his book -- though the citation is not very prominent. It is from a book by Erikson, Between Monopoly and Free Trade, and an article by Erikson and Bearman, Malfeasance and the Foundation of Global Trade

For those interested, he held a Talk at Google about this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM

I thought it rather interesting that he was able to hold this kind of talk at Google - after all, his audience there probably consists of people that are probably part of the "winners" he is talking about.

> But a system of philanthropy is inherently biased insofar as since donors can and do choose charitable causes that match their own preferences.

Anand Giridharadas goes pretty deeply into that idea in this talk that he did at Google. I highly recommend watching it, I thought it was elucidating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM

I want to read his book "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" but I haven't gotten to it yet.

One of the best explanations why "philanthropy" and "novel (disrupting), win-win solutions" for systemic problems is highly anti-democratic (and inciting class warfare) is Anand Giridharadas's recent talk[1] at Google[2]. I strongly encourage everyone - especialy anyone employed at Google - to watch it.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM

[2] Google is the perfect venue for this talk.

⬐ opportune

I don't have time to watch this, can anyone summarize?

⬐ maxxxxx

I heard him on the radio and he pretty much says that a lot of philanthropy and change by the wealthy is done in a way that doesn't challenge their own position. Change is only welcome if doesn't threaten their wealth.

⬐ CharlesColeman

It's been a while since I've watched it, but my recollection is of his main point is that philanthropy by the winners (like the wealthy) pushes "win win" change that preserves or enhances the mechanisms that allowed those wealthy people to win in the first place. However, if we truly want to improve society for everybody, we may need solutions where the existing winners lose in some way. Philanthropy led by the winners carefully avoids that.

It's a really great talk, and I recommend you take the time to watch it. I can't do the argument justice.

⬐ UncleEntity

> However, if we truly want to improve society for everybody, we may need solutions where the existing winners lose in some way.

So, basically, the broken window fallacy?

I don't doubt that philanthropists act out of their own self interest (as do all rational humans) but forcing them to lose seems like just an extension of a zero-sum game argument where someone has to lose in order for them to win in their philanthropising (or whatever the proper word is).

⬐ JauntyHatAngle

Not that I necessarily agree with it (I'm on the fence) but doesn't sound like it.

Broken window fallacy is saying "if I destroy your stuff, I'm actually doing society a favour". So, damage to you = benefit to society, which is bunk.

This is saying, lets not be led by the nose by people who gain the most from what we are doing - because while it (arguably) helps society a bit, society could overall benefit a lot more from better balanced solutions that aren't stymied by those seeking to reinforce their wealth/power.

A wealthy person may "lose" if we tax them more, but that isn't breaking their window, that's balancing who gets what - which is what we do anyway, middle class already loses when a big company finds a tax loop-hole, to use a trite example.

⬐ repolfx

That argument is assuming government directed 'philanthropy' is more efficient, better directed or somehow less supporting of the status quo than private philanthropy. But private philanthropists got where they were by being good at management and effecting change in the world, whereas government employees did not, so it strikes me that it's likely to be the opposite - governments are less likely to do good things with the money, and more likely to support the status quo.

⬐ UncleEntity

> A wealthy person may "lose" if we tax them more, but that isn't breaking their window, that's balancing who gets what...

But this is after tax income that they're just spending however they wish. The same arguments were used in the recent article about the superyachts where people were saying society is broken because someone can actually earn enough money to buy one of those things.

I'd much rather have Bill Gates spending his wealth on whatever philanthropic projects he deems worthy than the city taxing me to renovate the baseball stadium down the street "for society".

⬐ kethinov

We all prefer win-win solutions, but not everything in life is like that. Sometimes in order to get justice for one group of people, an overly privileged group has to be knocked down a peg.

Just because Certain People Who Shall Remain Nameless™️ are promoting a toxic zero-sum attitude that unnecessarily divides us nowadays doesn't mean there aren't some things in life that truly are zero-sum.

At the moment, economic justice appears to be a pretty zero-sum proposition. Ending billionaires would end poverty. And there doesn't seem to be a way to end poverty without ending billionaires. (Or at least significantly reducing inequality.)

⬐ CharlesColeman

It's not about forcing them to lose, but dismissing all solutions where they don't win. That makes philanthropy more of an exercise in preserving the status quo than a real attempt at solving the problems that it purports to be.

⬐ kethinov

His book on the topic "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" is also a fantastic read.

> Just because some billionares use their money in good faith, how many of the >5.000.000$/year behave the same?

Also billionaire philanthropy probably wont tackle the problems or solutions that will help society but hurt billionaires.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM

I read this book and, to be honest, did not enjoy it very much. It consists largely of profiles of people involved in this sort of philanthrocapitalism. The main theme seems to be that the ultra-wealthy have coopted the work of social institutions in such a way as to undermine efforts for truly revolutionary change, that is change that might threaten them. The premise is interesting but the content is pretty boring. I got tired of reading about people whom the author believes to be mislead or malicious or otherwise on the wrong path. For those interested he gave a talk at Google in Cambridge that was pretty good. https://youtu.be/d_zt3kGW1NM

⬐ perfmode

It's a worthy topic, and a solid complement to Piketty's work.

Investigating and articulating the "apparatus of justification" is helpful.

> “win win” (company gets subsidy, area gets jobs)

Anand Giridharadas recently gave an a great talk[1] (at Google!) in which he explains how "win win" is a charade used to set the framing of the conversation.

Framing a plan (like a subsidy) as something that benefits everyone has good optics, but it implicitly creates a framing that only considers that plan. (it's either this plan or "you get nothing"). Without the restricted framing, the choice isn't a binary "subsidies or nothing"; there are many ways that money could be spent. (e.g. maybe going without that business and investing in education or infrastructure would provide a greater benefit).

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM

⬐ mistersquid

Giridharadas talk is explosive in terms of its ideas. From what I can tell, he's not pulling any punches even though he's been invited to speak on a Google campus (Boston).

At 29:03 Giridharadas challenges his audience to demand that Google (and other Silicon Valley companies) generate an annual political disclosure to its employees, the very people in his audience. [0]

As a side note, Giridharadas is very clear and measured in his articulation, and I found that speeding the video to 1.5 times normal rate to be a good delivery speed (YMMV).

What Giridharadas says prior to the timecode I referenced is also provocative and politically risky. I can't yet comment on his entire talk, but the quality of the first half the video is superb.

[0] https://youtu.be/d_zt3kGW1NM?t=1743

⬐ mark_l_watson

I totally agree, he brings up things that challenge my ‘priors’ and shifted my views - in a 1 hour talk. Excellent talk.

Two comments: I think it showed real fairness invited him to give a talk at Google; someone probably read his book and wanted to promote change within. The second comment is trivial: watching this talk reminds me that arguably the best perk when I worked at Google as a contractor was the invited talks (yes, even better than the food: I can buy my own food but hearing very interesting people talk in person is an experience more difficult to buy).

⬐ fouc

I agree about watching it at 1.5x speed. Even slightly faster would be nice. Definitely a lot of food for thought. The question & answer near the end was fantastic, I loved hearing the Googlers responding positively and talking about taking action.

⬐ pjc50

> generate an annual political disclosure to its employees

Even disclosing to their employees who they're giving money to as campaign contributions would be a start. At the moment they have to find this out from @pinboard: https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1053804655602528256

It's one thing to issue a statement supporting LGBT+ rights (cost: $0) but donating $5000 to a Republican candidate is a much more significant action in terms of making the world worse for trans people.

⬐ marknutter

They donate to Democratic candidates at roughly the same rate. Does that counterbalance the harm done to trans people?

⬐ None

None

⬐ pjc50

That raises more questions than it answers; are they donating to both sides of the same race, or just candidates in different locations? For what purpose? Is this kind of "guilt offset" valid, can you just buy off harm while continuing to do it?

⬐ dvtrn

Simpler possibility: they're donating to whatever candidate supports a piece of legislation favorable to them as an enterprise regardless of party affiliation because that's how rent seeking and regulatory capture works?

⬐ AnimalMuppet

Right - they're donating to help Google, not to help or harm trans people. They're a business, not an activist non-profit.

But I think it's more proactive than "donating to whatever candidate supports a piece of legislation favorable to them as an enterprise". I think it's more like "donating so that the candidate will support legislation (not just one piece!) favorable to Google as an enterprise". That is, I think it's more proactive than reactive. Google wants politicians to like Google before they're deciding which legislation to support.

⬐ dvtrn

That is, I think it's more proactive than reactive.

I'm definitely willing to concede that in many cases it's a little bit of column A, and a little bit of column B. Probably.

⬐ justicezyx

> issue a statement supporting

That statement needs multiple hours of writing from VP level approval etc. The cost is not 0.

⬐ fjsolwmv

Political donations are public record. Opensecrets.org

⬐ None

None

⬐ None

None

⬐ nradov

Most large companies spread their donations around to every major candidate or incumbent politician. They frequently bet on both sides of the race. This is just a matter of buying access so that they have a seat at the table and can possibly call in a favor later.

The only solution would be comprehensive campaign finance reform. And due to Supreme Court precedent that would probably require a Constitutional amendment (not likely to happen).

⬐ edraferi

Ezra Kline interviewed Anand Giridharadas for the Ezra Kline Show podcast back in September[0]. Very interesting.

Anand basically argued that the global elite spends a lot of time looking for ways to help the global impoverished, but fails to make an impact because they never consider solutions that would erode their own wealth/status.

[0] https://www.vox.com/2018/9/5/17821522/anand-giridharadas-win...

⬐ JacobJans

Progress is real.

https://www.gatesnotes.com/2017-Annual-Letter?WT.mc_id=02_14...

> the number of childhood deaths per year has been cut in half since 1990.

> Extreme poverty has been cut in half over the last 25 years.

> In 1988, when the global campaign was launched to end polio, there were 350,000 new cases each year.

> Last year, there were 37.

⬐ CPLX

Meanwhile suicides and death by opiates have skyrocketed across the actual country Gates lives in, exacerbated by the incredible increase in inequality that Gates actively helped create.

Things don’t happen in a vacuum. Some things are much better, some are much worse.

But Gates doesn’t have stats on the concentration of ownership of global resources in that post because it’s not a KPI for him.

⬐ JacobJans

You may want to read this year's letter: https://www.gatesnotes.com/2018-Annual-Letter#ALChapter1

⬐ fjsolwmv

What? Opiate abuse is caused by pharma companies and complicit doctors and hateful governments and law enforcement, not operating systems and office suites and xboxes.

⬐ felix_nagaand

Mental illness increases propensity for substance abuse. Gates, Bezos, et alls wealth accumulation increases mental illness by robbing opportunity from those displaced by their businesses accomplishments. Increase in mental illness leads to an increase in suicide, violence, and substance abuse.

⬐ mkirklions

Starvation and disease is not chosen.

Suicides and opiates are. (and if you are a maslow hierarchy fan, you will notice that life has gotten extremely good for these problems to exist)

Things are much much better, equating these is irresponsible.

EDIT: Lets not overthink the very obvious intention and meaning behind my comment.

⬐ Retric

It's not that simple.

Oopiates where prescribed in huge numbers knowing that many people would become addicted to them.

Disease vectors are often under peoples control. Do you hike in the woods and risk lime disease?

Poverty is often a little of everything. It's far easier to become poor than stop being poor, but it's not some inescapable prison.

⬐ yourbandsucks

Depends on if we're talking about US poverty or 3rd world poverty.

⬐ Retric

Many people have escaped 3rd world poverty. It generally means starting young and walking somewhere else, but poor at 16 is a different situation than poor at 60.

Further, there are huge differences between poor and extreme poverty. Reaching say 20$/day is a vast step up for many people.

⬐ Retric

Little late to edit. But...

Millions of people have escaped 3rd world poverty. It’s vastly easier for you people who can often relocate to more prosperous areas and or gain more valuable skills. Further when you talk about poverty it’s critical to understand the vast difference in living on ~2$ a day and 20$ a day in the same areas. 20$ a day can mean the ability to invest in their and their child’s future. That jump in many ways is the first rung on the ladder of prosperity, but it it a very meaningful step up.

That said, it’s very easy for people to fall into poverty. War, famine, disease, accident, etc all push people down.

⬐ yourbandsucks

I heard you the first time, don't worry about the crowd :)

⬐ ada1981

Starvation and disease is chosen in the sense that the developed world chooses to ignore it.

I’d consider suicide and addiction more of a context than a “choice”.

⬐ monktastic1

> Starvation and disease is not chosen. Suicides and opiates are.

This confuses proximate and root causes. Someone may "choose" to pull the trigger and end their life, or choose to swallow one more blissful pill to avoid confronting their miserable existence, but they probably would not have knowingly chosen the circumstances that now leave them with that horrible choice.

⬐ ekianjo

> (suicides) have skyrocketed

You may want to revisit your statement. This kind of trend (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Ag...) is not what you call "skyrocketting". Of course every suicide is one too much, but let's go easy on the hyperbole.

⬐ EliRivers

Progress is real. Who is driving that progress? Is it the global elite in general, is it a handful of rich people who do actually make a difference, or are their efforts just noise and something else is driving the progress?

I genuinely don't know; hoping someone has the data.

⬐ hkmurakami

Wrt polio, that's a Rotary International led effort, which is a very dispersed organization with 1.2 million members around the world contributing time and money to various causes.

"Rotary, along with our partners, has reduced polio cases by 99.9 percent worldwide since our first project to vaccinate children in the Philippines in 1979. We are close to eradicating polio, but we need your help. Whether you have a few minutes or a few hours, here are some ways to make a global impact and protect children against polio forever."

https://my.rotary.org/en/take-action/end-polio

⬐ Cthulhu_

I'm thinking it's a mix of government action, organizations like the UN / UNESCO and the Red Cross, and both governments and donators that donate to said organizations so that they can do their work without needing to scrounge for money.

⬐ ekianjo

You must be kidding. These elements are minor contributors. By far and large the opening of the world to free markets is what has solved many of these issues. If what you claim was true, then we would have solved poverty 40 years ago already.

Just look at China and South-East Asia in general. They are coming out of poverty by becoming rich, not because someone is parachuting goods every day.

⬐ goatlover

> not because someone is parachuting goods every day.

Charity of that sort arguably undermines local economies and makes people dependent on future charity. That's why poverty is better addressed by supporting free markets.

⬐ ekianjo

Yes, we totally agree on that. Free markets give an incentive for individuals to work for themselves.

⬐ Retric

In 1990, more than 60% of people in East Asia were in extreme poverty. The dramatic shift had little to do with the UN/UNESCO or Red Cross and a lot to do with local governments not failing as hard as they did 50 years ago.

⬐ TangoTrotFox

Many of these large governmental or bureaucratic organizations suffer from extreme inefficiency and ineptitude. The Red Cross's complete failings in Haiti have been widely reported. NPR ran a particularly scathing report [1] on it that includes nothing short of quite forward allegations of fraud. The Red Cross, for their part, make claims about what they did and provide extremely high level claimed expenditures, but then refuse to provide specific details of programs and costs.

As the article mentions when you donate to the Red Cross first they immediately take a cut of that money for themselves. Then its distributed to other charities which then take an administrative cut. And then in carrying out the program there are more 'administrative' cuts. In one program NPR reviewed, administrative costs alone ate up 1/3rd of all donations. Later in the article the Red Cross, upon discovering NPR is investigating their efforts, sends an email to NPR suggesting that, 'NPR and ProPublica were "creating ill will in the community, which may give rise to a security incident.. We will hold you and your news organizations fully responsible."

When the Red Cross says things like it "provided homes" for more than 130,000 Haitians - they include among those 130,000 "people who went to a seminar on how to fix their own homes, people who received temporary rental assistance, and thousands of people who received temporary shelters — which start to disintegrate after three to five years." In total the Red Cross's half a billion dollars in Haiti ended up creating 6 permanent homes. And this sort of inaction is not an isolated incident.

[1] - https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-re...

⬐ fjsolwmv

Large corporations are inefficient also. People work all day sewing clothes but all the profits are siphoned off by foreign capitalists.

⬐ TangoTrotFox

I don't think there is any one-size-fits-all answer, but one major contributor is rarely given credit -- nuclear weapons. Bear with me, I'm serious. When you look back at our history war is nearly always the cause for the greatest suffering. It causes starvation, 'involuntary migration', and so many other things. Whatever has been built up in an area, it does a wonderful job of tearing down. Look at Libya for one of the most stark contemporary examples. Libya was steadily developing and seeing increased prosperity as a model of what Africa could become. Now, it's been reduced to neglected, unstable, and impoverished rubble since we 'freed' them.

And this didn't used to just be a story of Mideastern nations. This was the story of the world. The one thing that changed this was nukes. Mutually assured destruction is why the Cold War is now called the Cold War, and not World War 3. And it's why direct unrestrained confrontation between developed nations has really become a thing of the past. Countries like China would never have been able to develop if not for the peace and stability that nuclear weapons have enabled. We can even look to nations like India. It's surreal to imagine that until 1947 that entire nation was just a property of the British Empire. Even the notion of a British Empire is surreal! But now that they have gained their independence and are a nuclear nation, they are also gradually increasing in prosperity as Indian decisions are being made to put Indians first. And as a nuclear power their decisions, independence, and developments are all effectively guaranteed, at least until we develop technology that can effectively render nukes harmless.

Like so many things in life, some of the greatest progress comes not from directed efforts, but from paradoxical places you would never even imagine to look in the pursuit of your goal.

⬐ _emacsomancer_

Cherry-picking can generate support for any argument.

⬐ ada1981

As well as tasty pies and jams.

⬐ PeanutNore

I prefer the peach pickin' jams of the Allman Brothers Band

⬐ pron

Of course progress is real (even if sometimes exaggerated). But one of the things that annoy me most is that some people, ahemstevenpinkerahem, use it to shut up those who very often make it happen. Change is real, but it happens in large part due to whiners and their political action (who are then often rebutted with, yeah, that change we had a generation ago was necessary and important, but now you're going too far/just whining/we've "given" you enough).

⬐ andrepd

Let me fix that.

>Some progress is real.

Let me similarly point three cherry-picked stats that show the world is getting worse, to point out how flawed that reasoning is.

* The percentage of the population living under democracies has gone down since 2000.

* Wealth concentration and income inequality have risen since the 1970s.

* Suicides have gone up.

If there is one thing I realise is that only technological progress marches on. The rest of "progress" (social, political) almost never goes unequivocally "forwards", and is subject to setbacks and upturns and reversals of previously achieved progress.

⬐ kingraoul3

Thanks to the PRC!

⬐ jstewartmobile

Sometimes, dead is better.

Have you seen some of the industrial cities in India and China?

I think I'd rather check out at 30 in a world where I could actually breathe.

⬐ amanaplanacanal

There are cities in the west that used to be that bad too, but... you do you, I guess.

⬐ jstewartmobile

As an event, yes. As an everyday thing, no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_New_York_City_smog

And I have never seen this in the USA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmryr65iTwM

It is all so unnecessary. Meanwhile, our elites will not abide a blow to their quarterly earnings for anyone, so the formula is: make money polluting China, go live in Canada; make money polluting India, go live in the USA.

⬐ monktastic1

There is real progress, but it also matters what we measure. A good example[1] is India building hydroelectric dams, which often submerge fragile ecosystems and displace their agrarian societies of sometimes hundreds of thousands.

The villagers go from earning "nothing" to earning $1/day according to our money system. They have been "lifted out of poverty," despite now living in disgusting slums in a city as foreign to them as it would be to us. Their culture (and perhaps knowledge of regenerative agriculture) are lost forever. We don't measure the carbon sequestration capacity lost by the now-inundated land, or the huge amounts of methane that the swamped vegetation releases. We just know we created "green energy." The villagers' risk of dying in those slums from many awful diseases has thankfully plummeted, but their profound communal loss will likely manifest in the form of depression or anxiety -- which are on the rise globally. Could that rise be a symptom of our realizing that while the "numbers" get better and better, it's occurring at the cost of obliterating the planet in possibly irreparable ways?

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of good, too. But there's a lot that gets missed in choosing what and how we measure.

[1] This example is lifted largely from a favorite author, Charles Eisenstein, from his new book "Climate: A New Story." You can read up on the Tehri dam. If it breaks (and some seismologists think it's a real possibility), it will cause untold more devastation.

⬐ arendtio

I don't want to downplay the issues at hand, but when we talk about poverty and wealth, we should always be aware of the definition. AFAIK poverty is often defined as a relative ratio, leading to very different absolute conditions in different countries. For example, in the US or Europe, it is presumably something very different than in Africa.

For my taste, Anand Giridharadas mixes those things a bit too loosely. One moment he is talking about the elite that is fighting for a better future in Africa and the next minute he talks about how the funding of public schools in the US is organized.

Sure, his point is that the US elites are helping Africa because (it is cheaper and) it doesn't endanger the system of their wealth in the US, but I wonder if helping the people in Africa isn't more urgent than the ones in the developed part of the world.

That said, I like how he presents and explains his view to the audience at Google.

⬐ maxxxxx

That's pretty problematic. A major reason for the rise of nationalistic movements in the US and Europe is that a lot of middle class people feel left behind. If people realize that the elites of their countries prefer to invest somewhere else while letting their own countries decay we will see a lot more social upheaval and rightfully so.

⬐ arendtio

> we will see a lot more social upheaval and rightfully so.

No.

You either don't know what 'social upheaval' means in the minds of nationalists or I wonder why you would judge it as 'rightfully'. There is absolutely nothing rightful about killing people.

I don't know if that movement is just a based on feeling 'left behind', maybe as a symptom. I mean, there are serious issues connected to all of this. For example, there are companies in Europe which systematically conquer specific African industries (e.g., milk products), which is one of the reasons why the Africans migrate (no job -> no food -> certain death). The worst about it is that the same industries receive EU subsidies.

So the European people pay money which causes the Africans to come to Europe (great job). After all, stopping the European companies from doing that wouldn't solve the problem as the US or the Chinese would just see the opportunity, but I doubt that shutting down the own country is a proper solution to that problem either (and nationalists don't stop there).

⬐ maxxxxx

"You either don't know what 'social upheaval' means in the minds of nationalists or I wonder why you would judge it as 'rightfully'. There is absolutely nothing rightful about killing people.

"

Just study the rise of the Nazi party or the Russian revolution or even the Iranian revolution. Ordinary citizens started to feel that the country is not working for them anymore and looked for somebody to change that. Maybe they picked the wrong leaders to make those changes but the trigger was dissatisfaction with the current state. So if our current elite focuses on helping other countries while enjoying tax cuts for themselves but decaying infrastructure and wage stagnation at home there will at some point be a movement to change peacefully or forcefully.

⬐ arendtio

That is true but not the point.

You wrote '[...] rightfully so' which I have to object clearly.

⬐ maxxxxx

Are you saying the people living in a country have no right to try to change things when their elites fail them?

⬐ arendtio

No.

I am saying that what nationalists call 'social upheaval' is often against the law and therefore not rightful. So if you are using the established democratic processes (voting, demonstrating, etc.) to change the political situation that is okay. But if you do so forcefully, that is most likely not okay (depending on the law of the country you live in).

⬐ maxxxxx

History is full of situations where people decided that the current environment is not working for them and changed them through unlawful actions. Gandhi did it, the French revolution, the USA was created by unlawful means, the civil Rights movement Al were unlawful, a lot of unlawful stuff happened in East Germany before the wall fell.

This happens when the general population decides that their leadership is not working for them anymore.

⬐ arendtio

You don't seem dumb, but your argument is flawed.

You are taking 'true' situations out of context and rearrange them so that they serve your purpose. For example, yes, what happened in East Germany before the wall fell was unlawful, but the context is, that East Germany was an occupied country which changes the whole situation and is not applicable to the modern US. Instead, the criminal deeds of that Nazis were what lead to the situation in East Germany in the first place.

Similarly, India wasn't a free country either at Gandhi's time, and France wasn't a democracy at the time. So even if you might find a few situations where unlawful behavior changes the world for the better, it doesn't mean that it is an appropriate tool to solve conflicts in general.

I doubt that I will change your mind, but you should seriously consider looking to the world from multiple perspectives.

⬐ danans

> the next minute he talks about how the funding of public schools in the US is organized.

It's really not that different. The inequality in conditions between poor public schools and wealthier schools (public and private) is dangerous for the future of American productivity, causing gainful participation in the economy to become ever more correlated with prior socioeconomic privilege.

If that productivity growth runs out, and the relative conditions worsen for non-wealthy people in the US, there will be no more helping Africa, due to economic decline, or domestic political instability.

Basically, these aren't independent problems. Increasing inequality at home makes it harder to help people elsewhere. Spiraling poverty elsewhere results in conflicts in those places, and we eventually experience the effects of those conflicts one way or another.

⬐ arendtio

While I agree that there is a connection, those are extremely different issues. Not having food or water is entirely different from having a low-level education and being discriminated.

I don't think that the current system of funding public schools in the US is good. The opposite is the case. Yes, I do believe that education is a critical instrument to fight inequality and racism and that every human should have free access to high-quality education (which is not that difficult to achieve with modern technologies).

By the way, your argument is missing a decisive point: The help for Africa is done by the elite, not by the broad population. Therefore, even if the inequality in the US would rise, it would take a while before there would be 'no help for Africa' anymore (until it would be politically problematic).

⬐ danans

> Therefore, even if the inequality in the US would rise, it would take a while before there would be 'no help for Africa' anymore (until it would be politically problematic).

Given the speed of information dispersal, it might become politically problematic quickly, especially once a narrative is established.

However, due to the length of election cycles, it may not be an electoral issue as quickly.

⬐ qubax

> Anand basically argued that the global elite spends a lot of time looking for ways to help the global impoverished

I have a hard time believing this. The elite spend a lot of time looking for ways to help themselves. The elite spend a lot of time looking to enrich themselves. The elite didn't become the elite by being charitable or caring or thinking of others.

Also, I don't think this "nature" is just confined to the elite. Everyone is selfish.

> but fails to make an impact because they never consider solutions that would erode their own wealth/status.

People who love wealth and power don't want to diminish their wealth and power?

I basically agree with the guy but nothing he said is new or insightful.

⬐ mkirklions

You should hang out with wealthy people.

A large portion of our conversations(as a 10%er) is about how we can create products, services, or nonprofit organizations that help people.

This also seems to neglect that Exchange has both parties benefiting.

⬐ pdimitar

Assuming you are part of those people:

Have they seen ONE such project from start to end that made real difference? Like I don't know, here's something egotistic: help one family -- buy them a beach house, supply them with tech and some financial reserves, AND help them build a profitable consultancy so they don't hang on your neck until you die?

Something communal: or just build a well-funded school where they personally pay the fair wages of the teachers? For 10 years?

I've been hearing a lot about the wealthy thinking of how to help. IMO it always stops at thinking only. At this point I've come to think they want to feel good about themselves but not really make a difference.

⬐ mkirklions

Without a doubt, have you not seen the progress humanity has 'selfishly' experienced.

⬐ pdimitar

Sorry, didn't get you.

In any case, I've never seen somebody rich actually make a difference anywhere. I mean it's normal if they want to protect the sources of their wealth -- to an extent -- but there are many good deeds to be done that don't involve them sacrificing their wealth.

Hence I concluded the occasional charity tooting is just a feel-good factor for them.

⬐ ataturk

We are living in another "Gilded Age" whether we realize it or not.

And when populations hit a tipping point, the elite will start a big war to thin out a few hundred million people or maybe 3-4 billion this time.

It is the same as it ever was.

Google, Facebook, and all the other big tech companies could have helped liberate humanity--we were talking about privacy and open government in the late 1990s. It was all set to be implemented, then 9/11 happened and a new Iron Curtain fell on the US. All by design by those who can't allow the rabble to have any true freedom.

When I look at what Google and the others have become now, I just feel ill--this is a major power play where they are aiding and abetting outright tyranny in China and will happily aid and abet the same crimes in the West as long as it suits their goal of power consolidation. Worse, they are now aligned with the far left, which makes utterly no sense except from a "gaining total domination" mindset. It's sick. The left is not "for the people." Show me one historical example! That talk was always a false front for naked brutality.

Before you downvote me, realize what is at stake here. Read some damn history books and come to understand what happened to the Greeks and the Romans and why.

⬐ kenmicklas

I'm with you up until the left has never been "for the people", like wat?

⬐ maxxxxx

I think I agree with you but you shouldn't make this into a left/right issue. It has nothing to do with this. It has all to do with elites pursuing their own interests at the expense of most everybody else.

⬐ maxxxxx

"Anand basically argued that the global elite spends a lot of time looking for ways to help the global impoverished, but fails to make an impact because they never consider solutions that would erode their own wealth/status."

That explains why everybody is talking about philanthropy, LGBT, women's rights, diversity, racism and whatever instead of maybe paying their janitors and other low ranking staff a living wage.

⬐ yourbandsucks

Or, in between lamenting the state of politics, maybe taking a look at the polarization machine they've built with youtube recommendations, facebook/twitter feed, etc etc..

But that might impact revenue.

⬐ Viliam1234

It's okay if the top 0.1% own the whole planet as long as we make sure that all ethnic groups and sexual minorities are represented among them. /s

⬐ CM30

Yeah. Though it's just about how they avoid talking about liveable wages, but also how issues related to economic inequality in general seems to have quietly shuffled away by lots of politicians and political figures, or how so much political talk in general seems to be about 'social' issues now.

And I'd say the reason for this is twofold:

1. Making social issues the big topic of discussion means millionaires, celebrities and companies can pretend to be 'progressive' while not actually doing anything meaningful to make the world better or help people escape poverty.

2. Stuff like Occupy likely scared the hell out of those with power/property/whatever, which led to a mission to get people fighting among themselves rather than against those with actual power.

⬐ darpa_escapee

The wake of austerity spawned both Occupy here in the US and nationalist groups like Golden Dawn et al in Europe.

Today, nationalist groups and media in the US receive millions of dollars in support.

I can't help but think someone took a look over at how Europeans neutralized dissent and thought they had a good thing going.

⬐ Jedi72

"We do giving in ways that protect the opportunity to keep taking."

Although he meant it in terms of philathropy, this is the Google business model in one sentence.

⬐ titzer

s/Google/Tech/

ftfy

⬐ platz

What 'giving' exactly?

⬐ the_snooze

See: Facebook's Free Basics, where they offer "free" "Internet" to developing countries, limited to Facebook properties and a handful of non-competing websites like Wikipedia.

⬐ ctchocula

I heard this guy on "Your Call" which is produced by NPR yesterday. One of the things he said that really got my attention is that he said to get a seat at a TED talk, you need to pay $5000, which really limits the attendance at TED talks to the wealthy. Another thing was, the speaker is censored--he or she cannot use the word "inequality", but can only use the word "poverty". That just blows my mind. Inequality is one of the ways economics is changing with Thomas Piketty who points out how inequality has increased way more in United States than in Europe since the 1970s. To not be able to point to that as one of the problems facing the world and to claim you want to change the world is madness.

⬐ zawazzi

Isn't global inequality decreasing though? Isn't extreme poverty decreasing? https://ourworldindata.org/global-economic-inequality

People tend to only care about the inequality where they stand the most to gain. Most US citizens would benefit from wealth redistribution in US, but unhappy with a global redistribution since they would average down.

In some ways globalization is causing both increasing economic equality for labor and increasing inequality for capital providers.

⬐ woogiewonka

Ted started off great and has turned into a complete joke. Got the money? Come and talk. Have a controversial idea - sure, it's worth spreading. I've come to accept TED as entertainment more so than anything factual. If facts are there, they have to be checked.

⬐ dllthomas

https://www.ted.com/topics/inequality

I'm not saying there's no valid criticisms of TED, or even really endorsing it, but the claim you report clearly can't be strictly true - there are TED talks with "inequality" in the title.

⬐ ctchocula

I haven't watched the video myself, but he could be referencing Nick Hanauer, a venture capitalist from Seattle, whose speech at the TED University conference titled "Rich people don't create jobs" was deemed "too politically controversial" to post on their web site.

I clicked your link. Even though there is an article at the bottom with "inequality" in the title, I tried doing a search but couldn't find a single talk with "inequality" in the title. It is a possible tag, but cannot be found in the title.

Edit: Snopes says the story of "censorship" was disseminated by Nick Hanauer's PR team after TED decided not to promote the story: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/banned-ted-talk-nick-hanau...

⬐ tomasdore

On finding talks with "inequality" in the title: they do not show on the first page, but I found two by clicking 'See all 114 talks on Inequality' and then clicking on through the results pages; ie "A visual history of inequality in industrial America", and "How economic inequality harms societies", so two of that 114 search results.

⬐ frafart

Here's a podcast interview to the author of Winners Take All Anand Giridharadas about the damage philanthropists do to public education https://soundcloud.com/haveyouheardpodcast/win-win

⬐ ada1981

The current game being played is a race to acquire as many resources as nessesssry to live forever and escape planet earth.

This is will be a small subset of the species.

The planet is fruiting.

⬐ pl0x

What about hiring minorities in the US from HBCU's? I came here on an HB1 myself but they are so many talented diverse candidates that could be hired in the US.

⬐ None

None

⬐ eriken

Is posing guilt on an audience a good way to make them agree with you? I honestly want to go the other way in situations like these.

⬐ woogiewonka

I don't think he was trying to make them feel guilty, rather just pointing to the awkward fact that the situations and people he is talking about are the ones like those in the audience. I haven't read the book but I reckon he talks a lot about Google based on how many times he mentioned monopolies and anticompetitiveness.

⬐ Jesus3000

I like the concept! Kudos!

⬐ baal666

The elites of HN are not interested...end of story

⬐ glitchc

Not an elite, but videos are hard to consume. An article is something I can read on the bus.

⬐ 40acres

This is not just a problem among "elites", every class in society down to the bottom rung shows the shame characteristics of the elite that Giridharadas lays out.

The clearest example you can see is with NIMBYs, especially those in liberal leaning cities. These are people who vote blue, champion diversity, and have generally progressive views. But when push comes to shove they circle the wagons to defend their interests just like the billionaires do. Take a look at your local school board meeting or a city council session where some new development is on the docket.

⬐ electricslpnsld

> These are people who vote blue, champion diversity, and have generally progressive views. But when push comes to shove they circle the wagons to defend their interests just like the billionaires do.

My favorite example in the Bay Area is the San Francisco Sierra Club fighting to preserve a parking garage [1], which is, by and large, the exact opposite of environmental advocacy.

[1] https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/the-sierra-club-fi...

⬐ mshenfield

The way environmental concerns have been corrupted into institutional delay levers is sad.

"How Burrowing Owls Lead To Vomiting Anarchists" is one of the few (and best) explanation of the impacts of these kinds of tactics that I've read [0]

[0] https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/

⬐ mshenfield

> These are people who vote blue, champion diversity, and have generally progressive views. But when push comes to shove they circle the wagons to defend their interests

A specific example in the city of Seattle - a neighborhood group sued to delay increasing housing density (read: make housing more affordable). While the suit called for an environmental study, you can easily read between the lines and see that homeowners in the area do not want change, and view increased density as a threat to the character of their neighborhoods. The lawsuit has already delayed a significant increase to the housing stock for the entire city by 2 years. [0]

[0] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/queen-ann...

⬐ bb2018

When I was little I remember my parents getting us hyped up to go around the neighborhood to get signatures for a town vote which would protect the area due to wetlands. We were middle class and Democrat - but certainly not rich and not environmentalists. I cannot remember my parents ever saying anything about wetlands after that. It's clear it was all motivated by property issues, but I didn't realize that until years later.

⬐ poulsbohemian

I suspect there are many people in Seattle who recognize the need for more housing and more affordable housing, given the number of neighborhoods that are tipping over the million dollar mark. That said, where I get flustered is the number of new housing units with inadequate parking or where perfectly good houses are being torn down. Case in point: corner of Market and Phinney. Cute, well-maintained craftsman with a land-use sign in front of it indicating it will be torn down and replaced with a multi-plex unit with only two parking spots. It's likely already an $800K house in that neighborhood, but due to pure greed will become a 5x $800K property for someone. And therein lies an unfortunate twist on the Seattle market: at the moment, supply and demand are not in balance, so even as supply increases, housing still isn't affordable for many.

I have no problem with creating greater density. I have no problem with incentivizing public transportation. But, when you tear down perfectly charming houses in already very crowded neighborhoods, it's just annoying on so many levels.

⬐ lotsofpulp

How do you reconcile being "flustered" that housing density is being increased, and at the same time acknowledging the need for much more housing? And you claim have no problem with greater density and incentivizing public transportation, but still want to use up valuable space for parking?

⬐ poulsbohemian

Because I'd rather that density increase by replacing dilapidated buildings or ones that are actually in need of improvement rather than perfectly good ones. I don't know how to actually enforce that in any way, but it's a nuance that is one reason why it sticks in people's craw to see new housing units built.

Regarding parking - the problem is, you put up a new space, but only provide parking for maybe 10% of the occupancy (which matches my casual observation of numerous land-use billboards). Ok - the problem is, there isn't enough public transportation for the other 90% of people. So we're creating a problem where we still have way too many cars, people, etc, we're just kicking the problem off into the distance.

Or maybe said another way -- it's a perverse incentive, because it lets the land developer off the hook while creating greater strain on streets, parking, IE: it's adding density but not actually planning ahead to accommodate that density.

⬐ danans

> Because I'd rather that density increase by replacing dilapidated buildings or ones that are actually in need of improvement.

People looking for housing in dense cities value location and access. Sometimes that means a house gets replaced.

Dilapidated buildings are replaced with housing all the time, but only when the land they occupy is desirable for housing due to its desirable location. Just think of all the old centrally located decaying warehouses converted into condos in your city of choice.

The alternative, building in areas people don't want to live, isn't going to happen soon. It was tried, most recently in the years before 2008.

⬐ losteric

Do you want to live in LA? Because that's how you get LA traffic.

People own cars for convenience. If they have to pay $$$ for garage parking or deal with limited street parking, many of those people will stop owning a car.

Sure, then public transportation sucks... but that's also good! When enough people depend on an inconvenient publicly funded service, that service magically improves after a couple election cycles. Then more people use it, creating support for further improvements, etc.

But that's not all!

More people on the sidewalks creates opportunities for small businesses to bring services closer to where people live (reducing demand without diminishing support for public transportation). Those businesses tend to pay workers better, which enables some to move into the city instead of driving from cheaper areas.

The end result, a decade or two down the line, is a vibrant urban community. A region where the idea of even 10% parking spaces is absurd because friends and family, work and pleasure, everything can be accessed with some walking and public transportation...

-

Our car culture is a social addiction. Cars seem convenient in an environment shaped around cars... but if we step back and question the environment, the alternatives are much more attractive.

⬐ danans

> but due to pure greed will become a 5x $800K property for someone.

When you put 5 units where there was 1, the value generally doesn't multiply like that. The individual units aren't worth the same as the single original, assuming the same time frame, comparable features and condition. And going from 1 to 5 units seems like a pretty incremental change - it's not like a house being converted to a high-rise building.

> But, when you tear down perfectly charming houses

Given that the project fits local zoning laws, I don't see what the relevance of the existing house's "charm" is. Unless the house is of local historical or cultural importance - which planning commissions consider - it's nobody's right to prevent its replacement on the basis of such a perception.

If opinions on the charm are important, one should advocate their planning commission to establish aesthetic guidelines.

⬐ poulsbohemian

>When you put 5 units where there was 1, the value generally doesn't multiply like that

But it does in Seattle. Have you looked at any of those new units they've put in through Phinney ridge and Ballard? That's exactly how it works - tear out one, put up X, and sell at a multiple of what the original would have gained.

⬐ None

None

⬐ losteric

I have seen $K single-family homes get replaced by $K condos in SF, but only because the original home was uninhabitable (ie property value discounted to offset demolition/construction) while the new condos were legitimately luxurious...

⬐ moorhosj

Maybe it's as simple as wanting less development to maintain and increase the value of their currently owned property.

⬐ isoskeles

I don't agree with them, but increased density is absolutely a "threat" to the character of any neighborhood, not just something they "view" as such. Having more people live in a neighborhood changes everything about it, I don't understand why people neglect this point, like it isn't real or maybe doesn't count because everything NIMBYs say is invalid because we all want cheaper rent. But I am not saying you're doing this, it's just what I see when people talk about NIMBY.

As a result of denser housing, rent should go down N%, but your quality of life (if you're not fooling yourself) will also go down slightly as you have to deal with the reality of living near more people. (Longer waits at local stores, more crowded sidewalks, etc. We can pretend this is a "good" thing and that humans are social creatures, but there is a point where it becomes less tolerable to most people.)

⬐ mshenfield

People in small neighborhoods tend to value the charm, convenience, and connection they have with their communities. I don't want to pretend things won't change, but those qualities can be preserved even as a neighborhood gets dense (Brooklyn might be a good example). Plus, there are additional benefits (transit, shops, services) that tend to come with density.

⬐ britch

You're absolutely right, it would change the character of the neighborhoods. But the argument you present is exposes the hypocrisy at the center of people in these neighborhoods and hits at some of what Giridharadas is getting at.

I suspect many of the generalized Seattle NIMBY's champion affordable housing and decry gentrification, but when the rubber hits the road and they are asked to give up something (neighborhood charm) to actually do something about these problems (increase density to lower housing costs), they actively fight against it.

"I like affordable housing as long as I can still live in the same neighborhood and don't have to give anything up."

⬐ illegalsmile

Would increased density actually lead to lower housing costs though? My initial thought is no, especially in a major city such as Seattle.

⬐ losteric

Why would supply and demand not apply to Seattle?

⬐ Silfen

Increasing the supply of housing should lower prices, yes. In nearly every neighborhood, single family, detached homes are the most expensive form of housing.

There is an effect where improving the consumption benefits of the city may draw new migration from other parts of the country, but it is generally accepted that this effect is much smaller than the effect of increased competition between landlords and developers.

If you think that housing somehow operates differently from a normal market - increasing supply will not change the price - it is incumbent on you to explain why you think this might be true.

⬐ kspaans

Possibly what the grandparent was thinking of is land values. If a neighbourhood is rezoned to allow more density, one would be able to build a duplex or low-rise condo/apartment building where there used to be a single family home. This makes the underlying land more valuable, while probably also making the per-square-foot cost of housing go down. I also suspect as more SFHs get turned into more dense housing, the scarcity of SFHs would make their value jump up as well. One thing that could counteract this would be if property value assessments rose enough such that it became very expensive to own a SFH on land zoned for density, which would encourage most owners to turn them into more dense housing. Though possible one house in a 'hood of low-rise buildings would be less desirable and would only be sold as a teardown. Either way I figure more density would overall be a windfall for landowners (read: homeowners) even as housing prices drop.

⬐ burger_moon

Don't forget they also only like it as long as the value of their properties continues to raise. Can't be going underwater on your mortgage from buying in a bubble in the name of cultural diversity or fighting poverty.

⬐ internet555

This is why I think much of Christian thought is actually quite intelligent.

(Summary by a very intellectually and spiritually deficient moron): I am pathetic, my desires are all almost certainly evil, I can probably not even think one good thought let alone have a good intention without divine help. God, please please please please have mercy and grant me some very much needed horror of self and conformity to your will and help me to not become a puffed up moron who is full of himself if one seemingly desirable thing happens to me, which is certainly what is going to happen unless the literal creator of the universe helps me to do it a little bit less.

Of course none of the American Protestant Christians I know will like it if you say that since they seem to think Christianity is about being a millionaire who gives 30% to charity and doesn’t have premarital sex too much

⬐ SOMMS

Yes. This exactly.

⬐ isoskeles

> horror of self

Not being obtuse: what do you mean here?

⬐ davidhperry

> Not being obtuse: what do you mean here?

I think internet555 was trying to suggest something about the duality of man, sir.

⬐ internet555

That’s what all my posts are about

⬐ polynomial

I would say it is a wish for spiritual insight into the nature of self-ishness, how it is a root cause of evil in the world, and presumably the related Christian tenet that it's not a 'fixable' problem without cultivating a divine relationship to the creator or source.

But I would just be guessing.

⬐ goatlover

Then again, if everyone were selfish in a cat-like way that everyone else can fuck off, we wouldn't have wars, genocide, slavery, abuse of power, or terrorism. So there's something more to it than just being selfish. Something to do with our tribal, hierarchal tendencies where one alpha ape can convince the rest of us to do violence against those other groups, who get blamed for all our problems.

⬐ None

None

⬐ clairity

to help make sense of this apparent contradiction, i'd suggest separating christianity the religion from the underlying philosophy of jesus.

most people generally admire jesus's moral philosophy, but non-religious folks (e.g., humanists) find the various religions and sub-sects to be distasteful because, while there are some good people within, those organizations largely exist to concentrate and perpetuate power (which religious leaders would argue helps them with their mission of salvation).

⬐ danans

> grant me ... conformity to your will

The "your will" is the part that gets interpreted, either by the individual, often with the help of an outside institution, to serve whatever objective they seek.

Perhaps that objective is a good one, or maybe it's horrifying. Such a professed humility to a God's will could also just be serving as a cover for whatever else the person is doing. History is replete with examples of that.

But at that point, you are back to where we started: needing to understand and judge the intent of people and the institutions that they take guidance from.

EDIT: wording clarification

⬐ goatlover

It's almost as if democracy is about balancing competing self-interests. It's also easier be more enlightened, as long as it's not impacting one's own self-interest.

⬐ brookhaven_dude

False comparison because billionaire has a lot more money compared to your typical middle-class NIMBY. Even if quite a bit of the billionaire's wealth vanishes, it won't impact his lifestyle much. Not so with NIMBY.

(For the record, I don't like NIMBY's)

⬐ wycs

Our revealed preferences often paint a bleak portrait.

⬐ naravara

>The clearest example you can see is with NIMBYs, especially those in liberal leaning cities.

I don't think it's accurate to classify property owners in some of the world's most expensive real-estate markets as "the bottom rungs of society."

And my experience with local city council and school board sessions aren't that different. It's usually the same sorts of people. They're not billionaires, but they're usually pretty materially comfortable. I'd categorize them as being "dream hoarder" types. (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/the-hoa...)

⬐ tobr

Relevant context from Anand in this Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/AnandWrites/status/1053670769056600065

Short story: He was invited to speak at Google, and decided that he wanted to say that Google is a monopoly that maybe should be broken up. Someone at Google was not very happy with the talk, and only after several weeks when a reporter started to ask about it, the talk went up on the YouTube channel.

⬐ kopo

Not the first time someone has bought it up on a Google stage Tim Wu, Yuval Harari, Clay Shirky...