Why the push for greater urbanization?

[Gramsci]

But that's my point. By what measure do you think people are unprepared for these modern jobs? Where are these jobs you are talking about that are going unfilled?

I mean, I know many people would like to believe that everyone can be a white collar worker or something, but what's the evidence for it?

How many people do we honestly need working in "information systems" and can you show there aren't enough now, basically.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying everyone needs to be a techy.

I have actually supported the educational system my parents had in Germany, that had an appropriate mix of higher level white collar prep, but also gave due credit to blue collar jobs. My mom, being who she was, finished gymnasium while my father went the vocational route. I think such a system would be appropriate in the US, as well.

The BLS has readily available statistics regarding the entire information sector, and it is very much underemployed, especially when considering there is an average job outlook ranging anywhere from 18 to a whopping 33% (the latter being comparable to job growth among Physician's Assistants, which is telling).

Construction is a field that will steadily increase in demand as our economy continues to move forward, and plenty of other blue collar jobs are still highly in demand. That said, as a teacher I can tell you that we are NOT preparing kids. The high school in my county had a graduation rate of 96% (extremely high), of that roughly half went into the local community college, a bit under a quarter went to 4 year universities, and the remainder went straight into the workforce.

Of those that went into the local community colleges, 76% were put into remedial classes in mathematics (meaning roughly pre-algebra and Algebra I). ETA: Had to rummage around for the other numbers, 63% were put into remedial classes in English.

There is a problem.

[Dinsdale!]

Single family housing in the tract between the 10 and the Expo line, bounded by Fairfax/La Cienega and the 110 is probably the cheapest housing available in central LA, at 200-400,000 it's less than half most of the surrounding areas. Because this area is transit adjacent with easy access to both the 10 and light rail, I anticipate this is the next major area to be seriously gentrified. Especially with the boom and resurgance in flipping in the past year.

Heck, I've got my eye on the area as a place we should seriously consider if we wanted to buy a house. But we don't want to buy a house (what a waste of money better spent in investments), so we probably won't bite at that very tempting apple.

Oh definitely. I think Boyle Heights will gentrify rapidly very soon. Also incredible transit access and right on the edge of the new downtown art warehouse area. (And the other edge of that district is skid row...)

[lokisnow]

it'd be amazing to gentrify skid row, but there are too many homeless advocates that will prevent LA from bringing skid row along with the rest of the city.

[Shryke]

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying everyone needs to be a techy.

I have actually supported the educational system my parents had in Germany, that had an appropriate mix of higher level white collar prep, but also gave due credit to blue collar jobs. My mom, being who she was, finished gymnasium while my father went the vocational route. I think such a system would be appropriate in the US, as well.

The BLS has readily available statistics regarding the entire information sector, and it is very much underemployed, especially when considering there is an average job outlook ranging anywhere from 18 to a whopping 33% (the latter being comparable to job growth among Physician's Assistants, which is telling).

I can't find anything on underemployment, only growth, which doesn't actually address the issue.

Further, labour shortages should lead to higher wages, which they haven't.

I think this link is pretty on point, although it's slightly tangential:

http://www.epi.org/publication/pm195-stem-labor-shortages-microsoft-report-distorts/

[Spring Bass]

Just having

1. A set of flexible, at-least-good-enough colleges

2. Policies favoring technological innovation and tech entrepreneurship

3. Fiscal and Monetary Policies promoting greater demand and economic growth in the economy

generally go the longest way in ensuring that you get the appropriate education for workers in that economy. It's not like there were a ton of IT and computer grads* trained in advance of the tech boom - what happened was that the growing tech boom greatly increased the demand for people with those skills, colleges responded by offering that kind of training, and people went into it because the possibilities were there.

* I'm not saying they didn't exist, before anyone points that out. But they were less common, and if the economy wasn't strong they wouldn't have reached the numbers they did.

[The Progressive]

Nowaday, it's getting harder and harder to delineate between suburbs and small cities.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I think you missed the more important point here that the institutionalization of that lifestyle is supported by policy decisions that encourage wasteful resource spending.

Those highways and roads and such you speak of are paid for by the government and have to exist to support the suburban lifestyle.

So if we didn't have suburbanites, we wouldn't need roads connecting our cities?

I imagine the incremental costs of the additional exit are more than paid for by the additional gas taxes paid for by those commuters. The city dwellers who don't drive their own cars aren't paying the taxes that suburbanites who drive cars are.

[The Progressive]

it'd be amazing to gentrify skid row, but there are too many homeless advocates that will prevent LA from bringing skid row along with the rest of the city.

Well if skid row became gentrified, where do you think the homeless population will go?

[The Progressive]

Single family housing in the tract between the 10 and the Expo line, bounded by Fairfax/La Cienega and the 110 is probably the cheapest housing available in central LA, at 200-400,000 it's less than half most of the surrounding areas. Because this area is transit adjacent with easy access to both the 10 and light rail, I anticipate this is the next major area to be seriously gentrified. Especially with the boom and resurgance in flipping in the past year.

Heck, I've got my eye on the area as a place we should seriously consider if we wanted to buy a house. But we don't want to buy a house (what a waste of money better spent in investments), so we probably won't bite at that very tempting apple.

My buddy who owns a small construction firm are busy as hell with works around this area. He tells me that properties there are being gobbled up like crazy by oversea Chinese investors so if you want to dip your toes into the the pool, better do it fast before the inventory dry out.

[Shryke]

So if we didn't have suburbanites, we wouldn't need roads connecting our cities?

I imagine the incremental costs of the additional exit are more than paid for by the additional gas taxes paid for by those commuters. The city dwellers who don't drive their own cars aren't paying the taxes that suburbanites who drive cars are.

if we didn't have suburbs, we wouldn't have all those roads connecting the suburbs to the main cities or to each other or the extra traffic that requires more maintenance on the roads. Or deilvering sewers, power, etc to further locations. Plus, gas prices would be able to go higher while effecting fewer people (cheap gas is one of the necessities of North American suburban life)

And on and on like that.

Taxes anyone, suburbanite or otherwise, spends on those things is money not spent on other government services or elsewhere in the economy.

Since that point was already mentioned several times in this thread - and was never challenged (indeed by anyone, not seriously) - I didn't feel the need to bring it up.

Told ya :P

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

if we didn't have suburbs, we wouldn't have all those roads connecting the suburbs to the main cities or to each other or the extra traffic that requires more maintenance on the roads. Or deilvering sewers, power, etc to further locations. Plus, gas prices would be able to go higher while effecting fewer people (cheap gas is one of the necessities of North American suburban life)

And on and on like that.

Taxes anyone, suburbanite or otherwise, spends on those things is money not spent on other government services or elsewhere in the economy.

Hmm. In another context, I seem to recall you arguing that spending on infrastructure like roads and bridges was good for the economy, so gas taxes used to finance roads and bridges would be a good thing. Eh, nevermind.

Your objection now amounts not to subsidies, but to people spending their own money on liefstyle choices. Not surprising, really.

But hey, you've also managed to disprove your own argument that nobody is advocating policies to push people to living in cities. Knew I'd read it somewhere....

[Seli]

..

For some reason, that kind of lifestyle seems to really bother some folks, which has always struck me as oddly amusing. It's like they take it personally that other people live in the burbs.

It sounds like a really nice life.

But the risk of many people wanting suburban life, and sprawling the landscape with suburbia is ending up with say Sydney. And I don't think even the people living there say that is a good idea.

[Shryke]

Hmm. In another context, I seem to recall you arguing that spending on infrastructure like roads and bridges was good for the economy, so gas taxes used to finance roads and bridges would be a good thing. Eh, nevermind.

Broken Window Fallacy all up ins. Building a highway to nowhere is a waste of money.

Your objection now amounts not to subsidies, but to people spending their own money on liefstyle choices. Not surprising, really.

No, because they aren't spending their own money. They aren't building their own roads or their own powerlines.

But hey, you've also managed to disprove your own argument that nobody is advocating policies to push people to living in cities. Knew I'd read it somewhere....

I'm getting the impression you aren't reading very carefully since nowhere did I say anything like this.

[wolverine]

Little late to the party and here to interrupt your regularly scheduled argument, but:

We live on our 40 rural acres (hopefully soon to be 80) in a house we built ourselves. I don't think I could live in a town let alone a city ever again. I don't think we would ever consider our lives boring out here either.

I love living in the country. There are certainly some young people from around here that consider moving to a large city a big upgrade, but I don't think it is a very large portion.

[lokisnow]

My buddy who owns a small construction firm are busy as hell with works around this area. He tells me that properties there are being gobbled up like crazy by oversea Chinese investors so if you want to dip your toes into the the pool, better do it fast before the inventory dry out.

Nice, we need good chinese food in the area.

For those confused about the neighborhoods in question, pull up zillow and plug in 90019 and then compare to 90016 to see the potential price differential in adjacent zip codes--which is why I think 90016 will be gentrified, the delta is enormous, double your money or more.

[honeyed chicken]

Little late to the party and here to interrupt your regularly scheduled argument, but:

We live on our 40 rural acres (hopefully soon to be 80) in a house we built ourselves. I don't think I could live in a town let alone a city ever again. I don't think we would ever consider our lives boring out here either.

I love living in the country. There are certainly some young people from around here that consider moving to a large city a big upgrade, but I don't think it is a very large portion.

Interesting.

Most of the kids I know (through my daughter & including her) have moved to the city and so far prefer it.

From the sound of it I wouldn't count where you live as the 'burbs, though. Suburbs generally means tract housing, small lots and etc.

You have enough land to live on should you choose (the kind of place I grew up on - we had 90 acres (enough for our own baseball diamond) and brooks and hills - it was a great childhood. But I have friends who grew up in Brooklyn and loved that too.).

$%$%$%$%$%$%$$%$%$%$%%$%$%%$%$%$%$%$%%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$

ETA

I'm chucking this in here rather than start a new post right under the old one.

Heard a story on Marketplace on public radio tonight that dealt with this topic. A editor of Fortune magazine has written a book about the shrinking suburbs.

Here's the link if you want to see more:

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/life/big-book/suburbs-no-longer-american-dream

[blasted_saber]

Given your avatar, the city would probably throw you back anyway. :)

Seems to me guns are pretty popular in urban centres. So is coffee!

[KAH]

Jeff;

Personally, I do not have any misgivings against the car except for CO2 emissions - insofar cars did not emit CO2 anymore (directly or indirectly), I would not mind the car at all.

According to this IEA-report (using 2010 numbers), US road transport is responsible for ca one quarter of overall fuel-combusion-related CO2 emissions. I really doubt that ratio has increased the last couple of years - it is much more likely to have eased downwards.

As you are aware, I am a supporter of taxation of carbon emissions. Those taxes should be levied neutrally towards all forms of CO2 emissions for efficiency, not just transport...although, road transport is likely the sector with the greater potential for emissions reduction, relatively speaking.

When I hear of three-hour daily commutes, I'm thinking that suburbia is not sustainable...but of course, just as cities are not one and the same, I gather the suburbs are not exactly uniform either, despite their reputation. At the very least, there would be a good deal of variation with regards to how long the individual commute is. A carbon tax would give incentive to modify behaviour, certainly - but not necessarily make everyone move into the cities. Perhaps move closer to work, yes...or engage in carpooling, invest in a more fuel efficient car, or whatever seems the preferrable modification of you life, given altered conditions.

Of course, a carbon tax probably has few prospects in the US if there exists no politician willing to fight for it. If you sense that people are anti-car, there is probably some truth to that. A carbon tax is not forthcoming, so worried people look for other solutions, and politicians are always forthcoming with "solutions" in the name of "Doing Something". Anti-car policies will be pushed because when crude tools are the only things there to work with, that is what you use.

I think that you, Jeff, stalwart Republican as you are, have a duty to defend the car as the ultimate monument to Freedom and Rugged Individualism, by supporting higher (carbon) taxes! Push a comprehensive solution; be anti-emissions, not anti-car.

[Shryke]

I'm sure he can join George Will in calling commuter trains a communist plot.

[slim da reaper]

Indeed cities are actually HARDER to control. It's why you see basically all the recent revolutions and movements start in them. Riots and protests in cities are much harder to put down.

I'd put it this way, they think it makes control through domestification and mind control easier, but really they're places for abuse to build up on everyone; that government's employees taking abuse taking it out on other people (I wont say citizens as that's buying into the lie.)