> a tax on unhealthy food to help fund Medicare and Medicaid.
Fully 13% of the population lives in an area with restricted access to grocery stores[1]. Couple that with car-centric anti-pedestrian development[2] and you have a definitively societal problem. Addressing that with taxes on the individual will not address these causes, only shift the burden further onto the poor.
>That said, I'd still make the same point that people who value art and the artist will buy from and support the artist.
The chances anyone will come across the artist when their marketplace is flooded with increasingly plausible simulacra become more and more slim as time goes on.
AI is choking off any hope for artists supported by patronage, simply by virtue of discoverability being lost and trust being eroded.
>The concept of a sociological critical mass was first used in the 1960s by Morton Grodzins, a political science professor at the University of Chicago. Grodzins studied racial segregation — in particular, examining why people seemed to separate themselves by race even when that separation was not enforced by law.
Curious where this researcher found examples of white flight in the 60s completely divorced from the reality of explicitly incentivized depopulation and segregation[1]. Very weird that it is used as an example of "spontaneous" sociological critical mass here, because it very much was catalyzed by real economic policy.
Flight and segregation emerge spontaneously in any population where people don't want to be a significant minority, even when they prefer some amount of diversity:
well it appears spontaneously in this game that has a hard set of deterministic rules, but there is no proof that actually this is the cause of demographic flight - just an argument. Probably a correct argument, but I am cursed with the tendency to see the opposition to my beliefs as perhaps true.
Correct, it is not a proof that things like explicit legislation or rampant levels of racism are not the actual cause in some specific instance -- they may be. But it does mean you cannot logically conclude, as many do, that neighborhood segregation is smoking gun proof of continuing rampant racism, or anything else.
For such an interesting topic, the many of the leading examples seemed weak. The racial segregation one seemed a bit strange to me too (is racism really the only reason people can think of? If an area is undergoing radical demographic shifts then there is going to be a lot going on), the business one seemed vague and the Independence one is underexplored.
It is an important topic but I wouldn't recommend reading this article on it. It seems to be a just-so story situation without much meat on the bone.
(I could be wrong) I think there is an argument for a critical mass of where explicit policy gave way to more of a doom loop - as people then flee due to declining services and amenities caused by policy driven white flight.
Please try your best to resist apathy. Contact your representative and let them know your priorities, especially in light of a looming government shutdown that threatens funding to exactly these kinds of initiatives.
It remains to be seen whether these controls will have an impact on the second-order / emergent effects of rampant social media. Would prohibited words or time-limitations stop the algorithm from making an embarrassing moment viral?
What happens when these strict restrictions cut someone off from their support systems?
Why would they unionize when most of their comp is stock? The fear mongering, uncertainty and doubt stoked by their CEO's fully-owned press[1] would tank their stock value.
So they can fight back against before forced into the office 3 days per week?
People have democracy in the personal lives, but not in the workspace. Unions give the workers democratic power so they can collectively make demands of the business owners. They can also demand a greater share of profits.
Exactly. The residents could vote to build more shelters or do something/anything realistic to solve the homeless issue (other than just giving them money/tents/needles), but if they build more homes then that increases the supply of homes which residents are fundamentally against. They don't want any new housing to ever be approved for any levels/neighborhoods because by restricting supply it pushes prices up.
Fully 13% of the population lives in an area with restricted access to grocery stores[1]. Couple that with car-centric anti-pedestrian development[2] and you have a definitively societal problem. Addressing that with taxes on the individual will not address these causes, only shift the burden further onto the poor.
1. https://www.aecf.org/blog/communities-with-limited-food-acce...
2. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/11/09/i...