= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Wikipedia articles from the future - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (86)
How did patriarchy collapse in Detroit, exactly? This is a city looted to the ground by corrupt bureaucrats run amok, a failed-state kind of phenomenon. I don't see gender politics playing any major role here.
I don't think that's what happened in Detroit either.
Really, what happened was that most of the auto jobs left, and much of the population with it. It's a city that's had a shrinking population for 4 decades now. That means a huge amount of abandoned houses, whole city blocks with only one or two people living on them. Because of that, you have a dramatically reduced tax revenue that's no longer able to cover the costs of adequate services, and you have all the social problems of abandoned housing (increased crime and fire risk) without the resources to deal with it. We've never had to deal with a shrinking city in the US before, and we really haven't figured out how to deal with it.
I do agree with you, though, that it clearly has nothing to do with "gender politics" or whatever bizzare explanation the person you're responding to was referencing.
I could half replaced Detroit with (parts of) say Chicago or LA. Detroit is just more dramatic since the dysfunction took over the whole city.
In general, cities like Chicago and LA have lower crime then they have in decades, have higher property values then they have in decades, and are contributing a great deal to the economy on a per capita basis. Cities in the US in general are doing quite well right now.
In the 1980's, people often argued that cities were "decaying" and all that; the opposite is true now, young people are moving back to cities in large numbers, probably because the high crime rate that drove people out of cities 30 years ago is now way down.
A (possibly) unintended side effect of the welfare system is that women are raising children without fathers.
Care to explain how the welfare system caused fatherless households?
Well the most direct method is that some of the early programs were specifically for single mothers, and one tends to get more of what one subsidizes. The less direct effect is that freed from the practical need for a provider women were free to indulge their hypergamic impulses.
I believe you are deeply incorrect about almost everything you've said in this thread regarding this subject. Can you direct me to any literature that supports anything you're saying?