Child Population Dwindles in San Francisco

[trumptman]

Half empty classrooms (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050524/ap_on_re_us/disappearing_kids)

For families choosing to stay in San Francisco, life remains a series of trade-offs. They can enjoy world-class museums, natural beauty and an energy they say they cannot find in the suburbs.

But most families need two or more incomes to keep their homes, and their children spend most of their days being cared for by others.

That sentence right there does the most to summarize this trend for me. People are going to continue to press for relaxed zoning and building restrictions, continue moving to the suburbs and exurbs because they do not want to have their children spend their entire day being raised by someone else.

My wife is a very smart college educated woman and yet we forgo her income because she has chosen to stay home with our children. Before we moved back to where I had grown up, we lived in Long Beach and enjoyed many things there. However the reality in Long Beach, and many more cities that are even more expensive, is that you basically both run to stand still. You can never get ahead because the city costs so much just to barely get by.

I love California, but many of my friends are having to engage in unhealthy lifestyles simply to get by or buy a home. I know of one friend who took one of those ridiculous interest-only home loans to buy the house and also get the school district he felt he needed for his children.

I wonder why people have not investigated moving away from water or the coasts more. I am astonished at the housing prices when you look in say, the interior of New York state versus the city. $300,000 which wouldn't even buy a 3 bedroom home on a 7,000 sq. ft lot in most of California will buy you a hundred acre farm in Kansas for example.

When will people investigate something different than running like a rat in a wheel?

Nick

[Kishan]

Originally posted by trumptman
Half empty classrooms (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050524/ap_on_re_us/disappearing_kids)



That sentence right there does the most to summarize this trend for me. People are going to continue to press for relaxed zoning and building restrictions, continue moving to the suburbs and exurbs because they do not want to have their children spend their entire day being raised by someone else.

My wife is a very smart college educated woman and yet we forgo her income because she has chosen to stay home with our children. Before we moved back to where I had grown up, we lived in Long Beach and enjoyed many things there. However the reality in Long Beach, and many more cities that are even more expensive, is that you basically both run to stand still. You can never get ahead because the city costs so much just to barely get by.

I love California, but many of my friends are having to engage in unhealthy lifestyles simply to get by or buy a home. I know of one friend who took one of those ridiculous interest-only home loans to buy the house and also get the school district he felt he needed for his children.

I wonder why people have not investigated moving away from water or the coasts more. I am astonished at the housing prices when you look in say, the interior of New York state versus the city. $300,000 which wouldn't even buy a 3 bedroom home on a 7,000 sq. ft lot in most of California will buy you a hundred acre farm in Kansas for example.

When will people investigate something different than running like a rat in a wheel?

Nick

I grew up in Minnesota, but now live in New York City. I spend most of my days around people who are either from NYC itself or from somewhere in California. My opinion is that, yes, the interior of the country offers much better quality of life for the same price, but it is the attitude of people from either of the coasts that stands in the way.

Whether it is a the NYC attitude that nothing exists West of the Hudson river until you reach California, or the Californian attitude that California is the "coolest" state, neither group would denigrate themselves to live anywhere else.

Of course this is a broad generalization and does not hold true for everyone, but after having this discussion with many people here, it is the only conclusion I can come to.

I for one cannot wait to get the hell out of this filthy, smelly, expensive city and move back to somewhere in the midwest. I guess people just really want to stay at home, wherever that is.

[Splinemodel]

If you want a scapegoat for urban degeneration and night-and-day cities, blame Eisenhower and the national highway system. Ultimately, I guess, you could blame Wilson for introducing the idea of mega-beauracracy after WWI, but it was surely the military-minded Eisenhower who was short-sighted enough to execute the plan.

America had the best rail system in the world, and it's sensible, because rail transit and rail construction is a much more natural project to undertake for large corporate entities. That is, it makes sense for a business to lay down tracks, run trains, etc. It does not make sense to build roads, and

So, as usual, unnatural government spending is the culprit.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Kishan
Whether it is a the NYC attitude that nothing exists West of the Hudson river until you reach California, or the Californian attitude that California is the "coolest" state, neither group would denigrate themselves to live anywhere else.

I have heard that some (many?) on the left and right coasts refer to the middle part as "fly over country".

Never heard this directly myself...just second hand.

[Kishan]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I have heard that some (many?) on the left and right coasts refer to the middle part as "fly over country".

Never heard this directly myself...just second hand.

Exactly right. It is this type of arrogant snobbery that makes me reluctant to live in either place, regardless of how much I agree with their politics.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
People are going to continue to press for relaxed zoning and building restrictions, continue moving to the suburbs and exurbs because they do not want to have their children spend their entire day being raised by someone else. As far as I can tell, people have absolutely no trouble letting their children be raised by someone else. Getting that mcmansion and two $40,000 SUVs is much more important.

I recently talked to an old friend, who lost his first child at birth and the second was 6 weeks premature. What did they do? At 3 months, they put him in day care 10 hours/day 5 days/week, and will forever after see him only on weekends and the occasional federal holiday. I couldn't believe it, but most people see it as a fait accompli.

[e1618978]

I used to drive to NYC quite often, to transport my neice to and from Columbia university. The thing that I kept on noticing was "why do all these poor and middle class people stay here? they could move to the south and their standard of living would double easily".

New York City and California are only good for the rich.

[Kishan]

Originally posted by e1618978
I used to drive to NYC quite often, to transport my neice to and from Columbia university. The thing that I kept on noticing was "why do all these poor and middle class people stay here? they could move to the south and their standard of living would double easily".

New York City and California are only good for the rich.

There is a steady supply of city jobs in NYC that does not exist anywhere else. The infrastructure is so massive that it requires a literal army of people to make it work. The sad part is that despite the oppressive taxes in NYC, the roads are still lousy, the subways and their stations are still filthy and can never seem to go a full month without some interuption in service, and there is no affordable housing for the people who actually make this city run.

[ColanderOfDeath]

People are going to continue to press for relaxed zoning and building restrictions, continue moving to the suburbs and exurbs because they do not want to have their children spend their entire day being raised by someone else.

The majorities of families even in suburbs and exurbs have both parents working. What's the percentage of household where both parents work for suburban Bay Area? I would imagine it is pretty high given such high housing costs. What's the difference in % within two parent families for SF and the burbs as far as both or one parent working?

I suspect that that is one factor but a strong one and not an overriding one. IMO most people want to get away from inner cities because they don't have to deal with the associated problems or what they view as problems. Parking, crime, homeless pandlers, dense housing etc. People want to be disconnected from everyone else where that they live so that they can have a nice big yard to play in instead of going to a park requiring them to actually walk somewhere and engage with other families. They want to avoid the urban blight which is pretty much universal. Avoid taking the BART with mean looking guys with tattoos instead of driving in a nice car. Don't have to worry about the neighbors upstairs making too much noise. They go because they don't want their kids in inner city schools. People are afraid of other people and want a nice cushion to seperate them.

I wonder why people have not investigated moving away from water or the coasts more.Well I think that does happen to an extent. People are moving out of the Midwest and NE and moving to Florida and the Southeast and to Texas and to the desert Southwest. One reason is hte cheap land. Of course once they go they run into the same concentric ring issues of flight over time. Weather too seems to be a likely issue given the facts.

I spend most of my days around people who are either from NYC itself or from somewhere in California. My opinion is that, yes, the interior of the country offers much better quality of life for the same price, but it is the attitude of people from either of the coasts that stands in the way.
Have you actually lived on the West Coast? If you think that people from the East Coast and West Coast have similar attitudes, well that is just flat out incorrect.

I for one cannot wait to get the hell out of this filthy, smelly, expensive city and move back to somewhere in the midwest. Yep, NYC is all of those things. It is also one of the liveliest cities on other earth with many great benefits that are not available in MN or plenty of other places. If you see at as only the things you said then you shouldn't have moved there.

There's more to life than how big your abode is or how much it costs. If those things are extemely important then you should be looking elsewhere. And there are reasons why people don't want to live in places like Minnesota or Kansas. If you've ever been there or lived there then you know what those reasons are.

[giant]

Originally posted by trumptman
People are going to ... continue moving to the suburbs and exurbs ...
I wonder why people have not investigated moving away from water or the coasts more.
But as you pointed out, they do.
I am astonished at the housing prices when you look in say, the interior of New York state versus the city. $300,000 which wouldn't even buy a 3 bedroom home on a 7,000 sq. ft lot in most of California will buy you a hundred acre farm in Kansas for example.
Well, you get what you pay for (maybe not in california, but apparently the demand is there). There's a lot more value in a home, neighborhood and metro area than simply square footage.

[Kishan]

Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
Have you actually lived on the West Coast? If you think that people from the East Coast and West Coast have similar attitudes, well that is just flat out incorrect.

Yep, NYC is all of those things. It is also one of the liveliest cities on other earth with many great benefits that are not available in MN or plenty of other places. If you see at as only the things you said then you shouldn't have moved there.

There's more to life than how big your abode is or how much it costs. If those things are extemely important then you should be looking elsewhere. And there are reasons why people don't want to live in places like Minnesota or Kansas. If you've ever been there or lived there then you know what those reasons are.

1. There is a distinct difference in the nature of the attitudes of East and West coasters. However, they share common ground in their dismissive disdain of the interior of the country.

2. NYC is indeed filthy, smelly and expensive. It is also the vibrant place that you describe. There is no contradiction and we do not disagree. Its a fantastic place to visit. Its can be a fun place to live when you are young and without children.

3. I currently live in (and am content with) a 14' x 14' studio apartment (which incidentally costs a ridiculous 1300 rent controlled dollars per month). Please don't confuse me with someone who places a great deal of significance on the size of my abode. My mixed feelings towards NYC stem from other reasons.

What I despise about this city is that I can't see the sky because of all the buildings, I can't walk out my front door and not be assaulted by the cacophony of horns, sirens, and mothers telling their little kids to "shut the fuck up or I will beat the shit out of you". I don't have access to clean recreational water, I come home with red eyes because the air is so choked with pollution... I would never bring my children up like this to be asthmatic city kids who have never seen anything but a completely man-made environment.

I'll take the trade-off of big for small city for the sake of my mental and phsyical health.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Splinemodel
If you want a scapegoat for urban degeneration and night-and-day cities, blame Eisenhower and the national highway system. Ultimately, I guess, you could blame Wilson for introducing the idea of mega-beauracracy after WWI, but it was surely the military-minded Eisenhower who was short-sighted enough to execute the plan.

America had the best rail system in the world, and it's sensible, because rail transit and rail construction is a much more natural project to undertake for large corporate entities. That is, it makes sense for a business to lay down tracks, run trains, etc. It does not make sense to build roads, and

So, as usual, unnatural government spending is the culprit.


I wouldn't go so far as the last statement. The highway system has also made the US the entity that it is today, providing rapid transport of good over long distances to specific locations. Trains are point to point, roads are far more free to go places that cannot possibly be serviced by trains.

The problem with American cities is the development of highways through the cities before public transit was developed. People wouldn't need a car if they had cheap access to a large area via a network of public trains etc. Without a need for a car, they would be less likely to see the suburbs as an option. etc etc etc...

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Kishan

I'll take the trade-off of big for small city for the sake of my mental and phsyical health.

Have you actually looked at the air pollution levels of rural america versus the large cities?

IIRC, most cities have better air quality than the rural parts of the country...

[trumptman]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Have you actually looked at the air pollution levels of rural america versus the large cities?

IIRC, most cities have better air quality than the rural parts of the country...

I'll be happy to get to the other posts in a bit, but what the hell are you talking about here?

Nick

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by trumptman
I'll be happy to get to the other posts in a bit, but what the hell are you talking about here?

Nick

Healthcare, health, air quality, is better in American cities than it is in rural America. That is all...

We built our industries in the rural parts of America and now, they are the most polluted areas of the country. Period.

[Splinemodel]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I wouldn't go so far as the last statement. The highway system has also made the US the entity that it is today, providing rapid transport of good over long distances to specific locations. Trains are point to point, roads are far more free to go places that cannot possibly be serviced by trains.

The problem with American cities is the development of highways through the cities before public transit was developed. People wouldn't need a car if they had cheap access to a large area via a network of public trains etc. Without a need for a car, they would be less likely to see the suburbs as an option. etc etc etc...

Roads are not evil. Don't get me wrong. The problem was the unnatural pace at which the Eisenhower administration planned construction of the National Highway System. . . "So we can move tanks in case of an invasion." Funny. . . These days everything is airlifted. . . even tanks.

Moving on, if highways were left to develop at their own pace, we would have seen a much more gradual -- and much more natural -- push towards the suburbs. When unrestricted highways just showed up all of the sudden in the 50's and 60's, it is what allowed suburbs to be artificially inexpensive, and what began to kill the American city.

[ColanderOfDeath]

However, they share common ground in their dismissive disdain of the interior of the country.
I've lived on both coast and the Midwest, or to be more precise: Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Texas, Michigan, Indiana, Arizona and Washington. To me people in general tend to look favorably on where they live over other places which is to be expected. Sometimes they are condescending about other places, but that also applies to Midwesterners or rural people talking about cities or the coasts too. IME I don't find any group to be particularly more biased against any other groups. I would say that New Yorkers by culture are much more brash and you would see that brashness manifest itself in that they would be more likely to rag on somewhere else to a stranger's face and in a more crude way. Whereas a person from MN might have the same negative attitude about NY but will only say as much if you talk to them for ten minutes in private and he'll bag on NYC in a different and less crude way. Underlying disdain is the same though. I haven't found that people are more smug in any one area [Edit: Except Texas. Texas is on another plane in regards to chest thumping] although certainly there are places or aspects of places [Detroit/ Washington DC for crime, Philly for insensitve rudeness, Mississippi for rednecky-ness etc] that people throughout the country tend to look down upon.

Please don't confuse me with someone who places a great deal of significance on the size of my abode.Sorry, not trying to say that you were saying that. That portion of my post was meant more for the general crowd or perhaps the thread originator more so than your comments but since there was no quote it was responding to or means of seperation I can see how it looked that way.

What I despise about this city is that I can't see the sky because of all the buildings, I can't walk out my front door and not be assaulted by the cacophony of horns, sirens, and mothers telling their little kids to "shut the fuck up or I will beat the shit out of you". I don't have access to clean recreational water, I come home with red eyes because the air is so choked with pollution... I would never bring my children up like this to be asthmatic city kids who have never seen anything but a completely man-made environment.

I think those are all legitimate complaints. Personally I wouldn't want to live in New York City for the long term either. But I guess then my point is why would you leave MN for NY in the first place? If your values are what you said they were and the lack of those those features nearby bothers you then New York is not the place for you to be. But perhaps you did not know that until you were in NYC.

For me, I don't think that I will ever live anywhere East of I-25 again. I love the mtns and the ocean and various outdoor activities available in the Western US and while the South, East and Midwest have nice areas, they pale in comparison to the Western third of the country. I find people on the West Coast overall to be much more laid back than East Coasters. I prefer the weather where I am now, mild winters and all but not too hot in the summer for here and some parts of the West which have those coastal climates. I like that the cities tend to be safer generally and less rundown, not that there are not problems, but it is better than older cities farther East including major Midwestern and Southern cities. I like the more modern tech bent. I prefer the more secular liberal/libertarian mix that you tend to find in the West in culture and politics over the mix of theological and fiscal conservatives you tend to find more frequently in middle America and the Sun Belt. To each his own of course. I just think that it is understandable to critique thse quality of life issues on the coasts as people have done but you also have to recognize supply and demand as giant said and that is indictative of the fact that there are many reasons why people want to live in places like NYC and SF which is a big reason why prices are so high there.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
To me people in general tend to look favorably on where they live over other places which is to be expected. Sometimes they are condescending about other places, but that applies to Midwesterners or rural people talking about cities or the coasts too. IME I don't find any group to be particularly more biased against any other groups. I think that's right. One of the memes that I hate the most out of the 2004 election is that those blue-staters are just too mean to the red staters, when all along the red-staters were at least as critical of the blue-staters.

But the quality of the stereotype is different: The coastal big-city people think of fly-over country as a bunch of dumb hicks, and the midwesterners think of the metropolitans as immoral elitists. They're probably both right.

[addabox]

Gaaahhhh....

I live in the Bay Area. I don't know anybody who thinks the rest of the country is populated by "dumb hicks", chiefly because most people in California come from the rest of the country, either recently or recently enough to have immediate family out there in the hinterlands.

We are all sort of bemused by the oft reported animosity of the good folken of the heartland towards our elitist arrogance. As I say, most of us come from the places that think so little of us, so at least we can claim some first hand experience of life in the rest of America (grew up in Alabama myself).

I wonder how many of the coast hating middle American standard bearers can say the same about where I live? So who's arrogant?

We do know that there are certain things, mostly culinary and cultural, that are not going to be as readily available in say, Omaha, as in SF. Can't beat being next to the Pacific Ocean for good sushi. Also, surf and redwoods: not so much on the plains.

The housing thing is just fucked-up and insane. It's gone way beyond any justifiable urban amenity differential and straight into speculative bubble crazy world. I suspect something very very bad is coming as interest rates continue to rise.

But it's so out of line freakish I don't know if it makes for much of a data point on the urban/suburban quality of life continuum.

Opened the paper the other morning to see a wages/cost of living survey that put my home town (Huntsville) second best and my adopted town (SF) second worst.

And yet this deplorable state of affairs has come on gradually, while I was making a life here, and at this point it would be very hard to just up and go. Most of the people I know (none of whom are particularly affluent) are in the same boat.

[Kishan]

Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath


I think those are all legitimate complaints. Personally I wouldn't want to live in New York City for the long term either. But I guess then my point is why would you leave MN for NY in the first place? If your values are what you said they were and the lack of those those features nearby bothers you then New York is not the place for you to be. But perhaps you did not know that until you were in NYC.



I am here to complete my third and fourth years of medical school. I sort of look at it as a forced exile ;) On the whole, living in NYC has been a good experience. For culture, for nightlife, and for highlighting those aspects of uber-urban living that are simply incompatible with the lifestyle I value.

Growing up in MN, I and a lot of my friends glamorized the coasts because we felt there was so much lacking in Minneapolis/St. Paul. But after living in NYC for close to a year now, its simply not true. There is nothing here in NYC that I enjoy that I can't find in any small, big city across the country.

[Kishan]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Have you actually looked at the air pollution levels of rural america versus the large cities?

IIRC, most cities have better air quality than the rural parts of the country...

I respectfully disagree:

NYC gets F for air quality by American Lung Association (http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/nyc-air0429,0,1451076.story)

Minnesota receives high grades for air quality (http://www.alamn.org/media/2005/04/mpr-minnesota-gets-high-grades-for-air.html)

I don't know if this translates into generalized trends of good air quality in small cities vs. big cities. I think it highlights that local efforts can indeed make a difference in the environmental quality.

[groverat]

There's actually not much wrong with children "being raised" in a more collective sense as opposed to a single-parent nest. At a certain point there can easily be "too much" time spent with children as "too little". And there is absolutely something to be said for a child being exposed to more culture than offered by White Corporate Christian Stripmallvilles. Like-minded people who all look alike and have the same attitudes and watch the same television shows and read the same Dr. Phil books and drive the same Hummers.

I find myself in the middle of these two attitudes. I want a nice backyard but I also want culture. I feel like I am no longer a human being when I see mile after mile of strip mall (no matter how new) full of chain businesses and megachurches. To me it's a soulless hyper-capitalist nightmare and it seeps deep within the home.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Kishan
I respectfully disagree:

NYC gets F for air quality by American Lung Association (http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/nyc-air0429,0,1451076.story)

Minnesota receives high grades for air quality (http://www.alamn.org/media/2005/04/mpr-minnesota-gets-high-grades-for-air.html)

I don't know if this translates into generalized trends of good air quality in small cities vs. big cities. I think it highlights that local efforts can indeed make a difference in the environmental quality.

Rural america is too big to pollute - you might find certain areas that are worse than the cities, but they will be few and far between.

Where I live has a lot of natural pollution - pine pollen and dust, held in place by high humidity in the summer. When you combine that with automobile exhaust, I would not be surprised if it is about the same here as Los Angeles.

[MarcUK]

c'mon you guys, it's an easy answer, trumpt is just trying to attach a negative connotation to a city largely known for its gay population.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
As far as I can tell, people have absolutely no trouble letting their children be raised by someone else. Getting that mcmansion and two $40,000 SUVs is much more important.

I recently talked to an old friend, who lost his first child at birth and the second was 6 weeks premature. What did they do? At 3 months, they put him in day care 10 hours/day 5 days/week, and will forever after see him only on weekends and the occasional federal holiday. I couldn't believe it, but most people see it as a fait accompli.

That is amazingly insane. If it weren't a personal anecdote, I would think it one of those pieces of news others claim are only created to enrage people.

I'll honestly have to forget you posted that or it may ruin my weekend.

You know I have railed against the McMansions and car payments. However part of this is still borne out by the higher costs of city living. People let themselves get on a slippery slope of reasoning. If she has to work, why not full time. If we both are working ourselves to death, then the toys are justified.

This is why people need to get back to the mentality that one full time income per family is enough to live on. It doesn't matter who earns it or how the division of labor occurs, 40 hours by adults out of the family per week is enough.

Nick

[pyr3]

Originally posted by trumptman
That is amazingly insane. If it weren't a personal anecdote, I would think it one of those pieces of news others claim are only created to enrage people.

I'll honestly have to forget you posted that or it may ruin my weekend.

You know I have railed against the McMansions and car payments. However part of this is still borne out by the higher costs of city living. People let themselves get on a slippery slope of reasoning. If she has to work, why not full time. If we both are working ourselves to death, then the toys are justified.

This is why people need to get back to the mentality that one full time income per family is enough to live on. It doesn't matter who earns it or how the division of labor occurs, 40 hours by adults out of the family per week is enough.

Nick

You're Anti-American! Just think of what that would do the the economy!

[trumptman]

Originally posted by addabox
The housing thing is just fucked-up and insane. It's gone way beyond any justifiable urban amenity differential and straight into speculative bubble crazy world. I suspect something very very bad is coming as interest rates continue to rise.

But it's so out of line freakish I don't know if it makes for much of a data point on the urban/suburban quality of life continuum.

Opened the paper the other morning to see a wages/cost of living survey that put my home town (Huntsville) second best and my adopted town (SF) second worst.

And yet this deplorable state of affairs has come on gradually, while I was making a life here, and at this point it would be very hard to just up and go. Most of the people I know (none of whom are particularly affluent) are in the same boat.

The reality with the housing thing is that it isn't likely to change. You simply are going to have to become rich to live in California or consign yourself to renting for life. The situation has been like this in New York City forever. The reality is that some folks who bought early will make out well, but you aren't going to turn any of these developments back into orange groves or make the people go away who want housing. To get lower prices you have to get lower demand and demand is already through the roof. There could be a brief drop when the speculators get out, but the reality is that simply too many people want housing and will agree to do to much to get it. However that is sort of the point of the thread.;) :lol:

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by groverat
There's actually not much wrong with children "being raised" in a more collective sense as opposed to a single-parent nest.

I think you assume that staying home means all time is spent with parent and child interacting. That isn't true, however the reality is that even if your child is playing with others while the parents meet for lunch/weekly bible study/ play time at the park/etc. you have more control and can insure your own values are sustained versus those of the government or some advocacy group.

At a certain point there can easily be "too much" time spent with children as "too little".

Yes and one can certainly spend too much time in day care as opposed to too little as well. You've stated that anything taken to an extreme can be bad for you. You're so insightful!

And there is absolutely something to be said for a child being exposed to more culture than offered by White Corporate Christian Stripmallvilles. Like-minded people who all look alike and have the same attitudes and watch the same television shows and read the same Dr. Phil books and drive the same Hummers.


The caricature really isn't worth addressing. Additionally you haven't shown how simply because you change the color or gender of people in a neighborhood, that you change the collective thought. There are plenty of groups that attempt to show black and hispanic thought as monolithic. It isn't as if I go into a Barnes and Noble in Hollywood and suddenly Dr. Phil and the SUV's are gone.

Hollywood is pretty mono-cultural. College campuses are being decried for being mono-cultural. I suppose the best you could advocate for is trading one for the other.

I find myself in the middle of these two attitudes. I want a nice backyard but I also want culture. I feel like I am no longer a human being when I see mile after mile of strip mall (no matter how new) full of chain businesses and megachurches. To me it's a soulless hyper-capitalist nightmare and it seeps deep within the home.

Some of us would say that you pay lip service by claiming to despise that which you actually endorse. You sound like a future hippie to yuppie convert to me.

Why do you really need a backyard? Why not simply go to the collective park? Why isn't the yard at the collective day care good enough for 10-12 hours a day? I'm sure that nice backyard would just remind everyone of how much the concept of private property and land ownership has destroyed this planet.

:p ;)
Nick

[giant]

There are a lot of reasons why people don't like subdivisionland. For example, in my neighborhood where houses are between $800K and $4m (and probably none built sine the 20s) there isn't a single humvee (or any similar car at all). Instead, it's primarily cars from the mid-90's with late-model bmw or mercedes sedan or station wagon. Second, within short walking distance from my house on a street lined with old oak and maple trees (like all streets here), there are literally somewhere around 100+ independent, unique restaurants (no joke), a number of cafes, a few grocery stores including a huge natural food one, just about any kind of independent store you can imagine and beaches for humans (~5), dogs (1 very large one) and sailboats (2). And I don't even live near a major business district! (well, it's about a 15-20 minute walk away)

Also, not everyone thinks having two parents working is worse than having a single unemployed parent stay at home. In fact, there are many people who believe the opposite. Even when we are talking about hourly jobs, smart people can easily find low-stress, highly flexible office positions with huge amounts of vacation, great benefits and flex time.

Personally, I think most justifications these days for staying at home rather than getting a flexible job are mostly a joke. Back when grandparents stayed at home and siblings depended on one another to help raise their children it was a different story, but in modern subdivisionland there just isn't enough to do at home to justify it when kids are ~4 or 5 and up. In fact, the most striking feature of subdivisionland is the odd subcultures created by bored women at home and the massive industries that cater to them. Of course, it's hard to have a flexible job and also deal with kids when you have to commute (as opposed to working 5 minutes from both home and the school), but that just brings us back full circle.

[giant]

Originally posted by trumptman
I think you assume that staying home means all time is spent with parent and child interacting. That isn't true, however the reality is that even if your child is playing with others while the parents meet for lunch/weekly bible study/ play time at the park/etc. you have more control and can insure your own values are sustained versus those of the government or some advocacy group.
This is interesting because it basically sums up the difference in views. On one hand, you want your children to only socialized with others who share your values and culture while there are many other people who view that as a bad thing. In your model, the socialization is only as good as the parents that fabricate and control the social context both by moving to a particularly subdivisionland and by the social ties they make. In the other, the children are exposed to people with values and cultures different than their own and can experience the broader context from the beginning.

Even for those who do agree with the belief that the social context should be tightly controlled by the parent, parents are full of faults and bad habits themselves and having, for instance, a materialistic mall-rat subdivisionland stay-at-home mother controlling the social context is probably not a great thing.

As far as the "government or some advocacy group," preschools have a whole, whole lot of variety. I was going to say that in my experience it was only through low-income families (not middle, low) that I had any contact with ones that would fit that description, but then I realized that I have friends now who work in interesting preschools for low-income folks.

Finally, subdivisionland design still ignores teenagers as anything but a market demographic and that is a very, very bad thing.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by giant
There are a lot of reasons why people don't like subdivisionland. For example, in my neighborhood where houses are between $800K and $4m (and probably none built sine the 20s) there isn't a single humvee (or any similar car at all). Instead, it's primarily cars from the mid-90's with late-model bmw or mercedes sedan or station wagon. Second, within short walking distance from my house on a street lined with old oak and maple trees (like all streets here), there are literally somewhere around 100+ independent, unique restaurants (no joke), a few grocery stores including a huge natural food one, just about any kind of independent store you can imagine and beaches for humans (~5), dogs (1 very large one) and sailboats (2). And I don't even live near a major business district!

Sounds very nice. I would bet it is mostly old money established families. There are many instances of this in California as well in various beach communities.

Also, not everyone thinks having two parents working is worse than having a single unemployed parent stay at home. In fact, there are many people who believe the opposite. Even when we are talking about hourly jobs, smart people can easily find low-stress, highly flexible office positions with huge amounts of vacations, great benefits and flex time.


I agree and will be advocating the same for my own wife when our children are of age. You are right that these jobs are not as rare as people imagine. However the often don't pay as much as those jobs that are not flexible. As a culture, we need to realize that the choice not to earn is an empowered one. You know I have mentioned that on here repeatedly, especially with wage vs wealth gap issues.

Personally, I think most justifications these days for staying at home rather than getting a flexible job are mostly a joke. Back when grandparents stayed at home and siblings depended on one another to help raise their children it was a different story, but in modern subdivisionland there just isn't enough to do at home to justify it when kids are ~4 or 5 and up. In fact, the most striking feature of subdivisionland is the odd subcultures created by bored women at home and the massive industries that cater to them. Of course, it's hard to have a flexible job and also deal with kids when you have to commute (as opposed to working 5 minutes from both home and the school), but that just brings us back full circle.

I agree that there isn't enough to do and that these men and women who might stay home are finding it harder to justify when children reach an age appropriate to attend schooling. As you noted the commutes often make it harder to balance the two part time activities, work and home. However it also seems that more folks get caught up in the money from this second income and more and more often it becomes a full time affair. Full time work often is stressful to most folks and when both household adults begin engaging in it, many seem to begin indulging in a line of reasoning that leads to consumption to justify their work.

Nick

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Kishan
Whether it is a the NYC attitude that nothing exists West of the Hudson river until you reach California, or the Californian attitude that California is the "coolest" state, neither group would denigrate themselves to live anywhere else.

Speaking as someone who lives in CA and grew up here, I can definitely say that my home state sucks.

High taxes: we have incredibly high income tax levels. I lookse 8% of my income to taxes.

Budget shortfalls: God only knows where all our money goes- despite a budget near 100 billion, we can't balance our budget.

Crazy home prices: I just paid 540,000 for a home and that was a steal for a new townhouse in Orange county.

Stupid firearms controls: why oh why can't I buy an assault rifle? It isn't as if there aren't hundreds of thousands of them legally registered in the state. Heck the state could tax me alot and i'd pay the tax.


SF is a great place to visit, and it is where my girlfriend went to grad school, but it is completely insane as a place to raise a family. Every time I visit SF, I am struck by how few cildren are there, how many dogs there are, and how narcissistic the place is. Narcissism means good food and a nice tourism destination, but it is a city that is not about growth and the future, just enjoying the present.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by trumptman
Sounds very nice. I would bet it is mostly old money established families. There are many instances of this in California as well in various beach communities.

Nick

The bay area has a good deal of old money (plenty of old money here in socal as well). Old money mostly means a home bought in the 70s or 80s. Fortunately, since most families have one child, they can just leave their paid off home to their child when the parents die.

[giant]

Originally posted by trumptman
Sounds very nice. I would bet it is mostly old money established families.
Certainly some of them on the higher end, but not anywhere near most. It doesn't fit stereotypes, which is kind of the point. More often than not, it seems to be a result of traditions higher education.

Plus, Yevgeny just summed up the bulk of homeowners here:
Originally posted by Yevgeny
a home bought in the 70s or 80s.
Originally posted by trumptman
However the often don't pay as much as those jobs that are not flexible. As a culture, we need to realize that the choice not to earn is an empowered one. You know I have mentioned that on here repeatedly, especially with wage vs wealth gap issues.
But with the benefits, they do end up compensating very well, and flex time is a form of compensation on top of it. As far as wage differences, my concern has more to do with women in senior position not earning as much as males doing the same amount of work. Since flex time and good benefits compensation, it will naturally reflect in lower hourly salary, but the compensation is equivalent.
However it also seems that more folks get caught up in the money from this second income and more and more often it becomes a full time affair. Full time work often is stressful to most folks and when both household adults begin engaging in it, many seem to begin indulging in a line of reasoning that leads to consumption to justify their work.
I don't know how it is in california (and california is different from the rest of the country in many ways), but in every metro area I've lived there is a strong relationship between subdivisionland and materialism. In fact, there's a strong relationship between stay-at-home mothers and materialism. In my experience, the connection between working mothers in non-subdivisionland communities and absence of materialism in the family is pretty consistent and part of the reason large retailers have a hard time in such areas.

As far as san francisco and really california overall, I'm not a fan of it. I have a pet theory that the tension in the fault has some sort of influence on attitudes of people there

[trumptman]

Originally posted by giant
This is interesting because it basically sums up the difference in views. On one hand, you want your children to only socialized with others who share your values and culture while there are many other people who view that as a bad thing. In your model, the socialization is only as good as the parents that fabricate and control the social context both by moving to a particularly subdivisionland and by the social ties they make. In the other, the children are exposed to people with values and cultures different than their own and can experience the broader context from the beginning.

No one said the values had to be shared nor the culture. As they say though, possession is nine/tenths of the law. I could have a court order declaring a vehicle mine but that doesn't help me when you are driving it around town or into another vehicle.

Parents can absolutely insure their children are exposed to a broad array of cultures and values, and I think this more likely to happen with month long family vacations than with day care for example. However parents do want to be the final arbiter of the values and cultures their children encounter. Obviously when the child grows up they will be their own final arbiter, but until then parents want that role and it isn't really possible when someone else has possession of your child all the time. No matter who you are, biological or non-biological, relationships and bonds are built with time.

Even for those who do agree with the belief that the social context should be tightly controlled by the parent, parents are full of faults and bad habits themselves and having, for instance, a materialistic mall-rat subdivisionland stay-at-home mother controlling the social context is probably not a great thing.

I don't think I can agree with a view that casts suspicion first and greatest on the mother of the child. Sure all people are not perfect and flawed, but that if we can't trust a mother with her child, then we really aren't going to last long as a society.

As far as the "government or some advocacy group," preschools have a whole, whole lot of variety. I was going to say that in my experience it was only through low-income families (not middle, low) that I had any contact with ones that would fit that description, but then I realized that I have friends now who work in interesting preschools for low-income folks.


You say variety, I say quality. Most preschools I have seen are glorified holding pens. I've not seen one yet that engages in anything that would be remotely as interesting as even a family vacation to a national park. I even worked at a high end day care/camp in Orange County during college. Even though we had more varied and interesting activities than most I still think those kids would have preferred a third less activities and more time with their parents.

Also many of these places still segregate the children based off their ages. When I moved from a small town to LA and Orange county for college and my early adult life, it took me a number of years to figure out what struck me so oddly about my peers there. I realized later it was as if they had gone through their lives without enough adult interaction and also non-peer interaction. They had adult encounters, but not enough adult interaction. Also you learn something when say, all the kids on the street are 7-14 or so and you have to convince and find a way to get them all involved in a game of soccer, baseball or whatever. You learn to encourage, accommodate, etc. This doesn't happen when you are always in large groups of peers all similarly aged and as someone who has encountered both I can really see the difference.

Finally, subdivisionland design still ignores teenagers as anything but a market demographic and that is a very, very bad thing.


It isn't just subdivisionland. It is society which dictates that you remain a child with child responsibilities when your formal education should have already come to an end, or you are ready for adult responsibilities. No one grows or matures at the same rate. The differences aren't as evident when all the parties are five but it is quite evident by the time they are 16. We need to stop treating all teens the same. We had a discussion a while ago about marriage age where I argued quite strongly that certain adult rights should not be tied exclusively to age but to ability. Until we alter our thinking in that area, we will continue to have teen problems.

Nick

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by trumptman
The reality with the housing thing is that it isn't likely to change. You simply are going to have to become rich to live in California or consign yourself to renting for life. The situation has been like this in New York City forever. The reality is that some folks who bought early will make out well, but you aren't going to turn any of these developments back into orange groves or make the people go away who want housing. To get lower prices you have to get lower demand and demand is already through the roof. There could be a brief drop when the speculators get out, but the reality is that simply too many people want housing and will agree to do to much to get it. However that is sort of the point of the thread.;) :lol:

Nick

True indeed, the problem is that everyone's kids want to buy a home when they turn thirty and there are too many kids for the housing market to handle. Add in some people buying for speculation and things get crazy.

One solution is to move out of state. One of my firends is moving to Texas with his wife because GASP! he can find employment in the IT secotor there AND buy a house! In CA he could only do the first, any home was out of reach unless it was in the high desert. Rent for my 2 bedroom appartment is $1300 a month.

I think that the housing market will level off, but to be honest, 30 year interest rates have dipped seven of the last eight weeks. If interest rates stay below 6% for long term home loans, then the housing market here will grow throughout this year.

[giant]

Originally posted by trumptman
Parents can absolutely insure their children are exposed to a broad array of cultures and values,
not in subdivisionland.

Most preschools I have seen are glorified holding pens.
Lot's of people fresh from subdivisionland hold that false belief. Like I said, the crappy ones that I've seen were always low-income ones. If you shop around, there are quite a few very good independent ones.
It isn't just subdivisionland.
Actually it is. In nice urban areas teenagers have a whole lot of outlets and safe venues that simply don't exist in the suburbs. In addition, their exposure to a huge spectrum of cultural variation (cultural, not just ethnic) gives better context for teenagers trying to uncover their identities.

[pyr3]

giant:

not in subdivisionland.


Not in some cities too... Look at Detroit. It's like 80% black. In Detroit you get exposed to black culture, maybe hispanic culture, and maybe arabic if you're close to Dearborn. But railing on Detroit is another topic altogether.

[giant]

Detroit is one massive subdivisionland (possibly the best example) surrounding slums, not a city.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by giant
not in subdivisionland.

Not true at all. I just bought a townhouse in a nie planned community outside of Irvine, the mother of all subdivisionlands. I'd wager we have more ethnic diversity than most whole nations.

Originally posted by pyr3
giant:

Not in some cities too... Look at Detroit. It's like 80% black. In Detroit you get exposed to black culture, maybe hispanic culture, and maybe arabic if you're close to Dearborn. But railing on Detroit is another topic altogether.

My only complaint re: Detroit is their inability to make a car that I would consider buying.

SoCal and NorCal are ethnically diverse. Hispanic, <pc>African American</pc>, Asian, Indian, Caucasian. Most my (soon to be) neighbors are Asian. Of course I am moving into a part of OC where hard working middle class folk live and most of them are Asian. My girlfriend is Philipino (I FYI am caucasian). This is all in the "enthically homogeneous subdivisionland" which is not necessarialy homogeneous.


My point is that subdivisionland is NOT INNATELY monocultural and that nothing makes it monocultural except for the people who happen to occupy it.

[groverat]

trumpt:

Sure all people are not perfect and flawed, but that if we can't trust a mother with her child, then we really aren't going to last long as a society.

You're the one advocating shoving kids in a bubble how can you possibly even pretend to talk about trust?
Kids can get an understanding of other cultures from vacations? :lol:

I think you assume that staying home means all time is spent with parent and child interacting. That isn't true, however the reality is that even if your child is playing with others while the parents meet for lunch/weekly bible study/ play time at the park/etc. you have more control and can insure your own values are sustained versus those of the government or some advocacy group.

Not everyone is so deeply paranoid about the "values" of dirty others being overheard by the precious Faberge eggs that are children.


There are plenty of groups that attempt to show black and hispanic thought as monolithic.

What on earth does this mean? Diversity is about being "diverse", not about simply replacing one culture with another.

It isn't as if I go into a Barnes and Noble in Hollywood and suddenly Dr. Phil and the SUV's are gone.

Who said anything about Hollywood?

College campuses are being decried for being mono-cultural. I suppose the best you could advocate for is trading one for the other.

I don't know if "college campuses" is any kind of group that can just be referred to as a collective. For Texas, UT-Austin's campus is very diverse and it is extremely enriching for it.

You sound like a future hippie to yuppie convert to me.

Perhaps, we'll see. I used to think that about myself, too, until this war (not trying to drag this off-topic, just a little self-explanation).

Why do you really need a backyard? Why not simply go to the collective park? Why isn't the yard at the collective day care good enough for 10-12 hours a day? I'm sure that nice backyard would just remind everyone of how much the concept of private property and land ownership has destroyed this planet.

I'll ignore the childish communist bait…
I don't need a nice back yard, I simply said I want one. Quite frankly if I were to ever live in a suburb I would want the isolation a back yard would provide. I spent most of the week before last at my sister's house (family problems) and she lives in a massive development ( http://www.gorowlett.com/waterviewhome.html). I would go outside with my nieces and nephews and roam the neighborhood. Neighborhood patrol people on bikes would ask who you were and where you were going; nattering housewives would constantly be peering at you through windows. A few would even send their husbands out to tell us to stop playing stickball on a deserted street (no houses being built yet). Here I am, 23 years old and bigger than these guys who stroll out wearing their khaki shorts, polo shirt and flip-flops uniform… Christ.
Kids aren't allowed to be more than 200 feet from their house without parental supervision (this applies to my 13-year-old nephew).
You can't fly any flags larger than 5 feet.
If you step out of line on any of the myriad rules, neighbors will report you with a quickness to the bike patrol who will come lecture you.
And I'm not talking about white trash folks with cars up on blocks and dumping changed into the gutters.
I would call them fascist but at least the fascists were about vitality and movement, this is just the absolute crushing weight of White Christian Corporate America. It's all about property value and homogeneity; it has nothing to do with a sense of community or a shared living space.

This is the direction our country is moving in, too. MegaChurches. MegaWalMarts. MegaCars. MegaTelescreens…sorry Televisions. MegaDevelopments.

This is especially interesting as you tend to associate people living in the city with materialism. That is a ridiculous assertion. The suburbs are all about money and visible signs of success. Credit card millionaires.

[giant]

Originally posted by groverat
This is especially interesting as you tend to associate people living in the city with materialism. That is a ridiculous assertion. The suburbs are all about money and visible signs of success. Credit card millionaires.
In fact, materialism is antithetical to city life, which is why it is a feature of subdivision culture. There's no room for an H2 or suburban. In more urban areas, even if you are wealthy you still have a small yard (if any at all) and more communal living. You also still have to have your kids associate with poor people. Materialism is a defining feature of subdivision communities, not urban ones.

[BRussell]

It's somewhat of a false choice between big city and suburb. I live in a smallish town (<100,000), and there are neither big cities nor suburbs to be found for hundreds of miles. :) There are lots of places in the US, probably the vast majority of places, that are neither culturally as rich as places like SanFran nor the stripmall wasteland of the big burbs.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by giant
In fact, materialism is antithetical to city life, which is why it is a feature of subdivision culture. There's no room for an H2 or suburban. In more urban areas, even if you are wealthy you still have a small yard (if any at all) and more communal living. You also still have to have your kids associate with poor people. Materialism is a defining feature of subdivision communities, not urban ones.

What in the world are you talking about? Have you been to SF? Materialism is more than just a car in the garage (FYI, why would a nice car be bad?). A million dollar home would also be considered materialistic. A good latte in the morning would be materialistic.

One of my GF's former SF coworkers railed against the materialism of corporate America while redoing the kitchen of her $700,000 home with mahogany cabinets.

Whenever I go to SF I am in awe of the number of Volkswagon Passats driving through the park. Are SUVs conspicuious materialism and Passat station wagons that only hold the pet dog somehow not conspicious materialism?

Better questions to ask are "what degree of materialism is bad?" and "Am I just making my own relative poverty a virtue because I can't earn as much money?" and "Are families that decide to not have children for the sake of their standard of living materialistic versus families that lower their standard of living to have kids?"

[giant]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
What in the world are you talking about? Have you been to SF?
Yes, but there's a whole, whole lot to america than san francisco and the surrounding areas, which have their own version of american culture. A million dollar home would also be considered materialistic.
Not really. It's not flashy to have a 100 yo 5 br home with a small yard and no central air.
Are SUVs conspicuious materialism and Passat station wagons that only hold the pet dog somehow not conspicious materialism?
Yes. SUVs are excessive and flashy. Volkswagens are not.
"Are families that decide to not have children for the sake of their standard of living materialistic versus families that lower their standard of living to have kids?"
That must be a california thing. I've never met or even heard socially about a single person in my entire life who decided not to have kids because in order to keep a standard of living. I'd call bullshit, but you guys do have a lot of freaks in california.

[giant]

Originally posted by BRussell
It's somewhat of a false choice between big city and suburb. I live in a smallish town (<100,000), and there are neither big cities nor suburbs to be found for hundreds of miles. :) There are lots of places in the US, probably the vast majority of places, that are neither culturally as rich as places like SanFran nor the stripmall wasteland of the big burbs.
I agree. I love small towns, particularly college towns, but I personally prefer when it's also a satellite city.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by giant
Yes, but there's a whole, whole lot to america than san francisco and the surrounding areas, which have their own version of american culture.

Thankfully so. Most of the counties around the Bay area are farming counties (e.g. Fresno).

Originally posted by giant
Not really. It's not flashy to have a 100 yo 5 br home with a small yard and no central air.

Actually, it is flashy. Homeownership is quickly turning into what seperates the bourgeois from the proletariat ;). And there are next to no 100 year old homes in SF (the great fire took care of that).

Originally posted by giant
Yes. SUVs are excessive and flashy. Volkswagens are not.

Depends on the SUV. Passats aren't cheap.

Originally posted by giant
That must be a california thing. I've never met or even heard socially about a single person in my entire life who decided not to have kids because in order to keep a standard of living. I'd call bullshit, but you guys do have a lot of freaks in california.

Well, over here it happens. Good examples would be some of my coworkers.

[giant]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Actually, it is flashy.
I strongly disagree. Being able to buy a home does not make one materialistic. Giving up things like central air, excessive property and large, late-model cars in order to live somewhere for the culture, community and convenience is just about the opposite of materialism.