Links to consider, 3/25
Tyler Cowen on the Internet vs. books; Glenn Reynolds on government brain drain; Ruxandra Teslo on fertility and culture; Simon Cooke on urban density
I think what is right now interesting is to learn how to use the internet as a kind of truth computing device where it’s not about any one person, but sort of playing the internet as one might, say, play an organ, and tinker with it and try to figure out what’s going on. That’s the thing the world has created that is truly novel and super powerful, and I find very rewarding. Much more rewarding than reading books.
And I too as a kid loved Jerry Kramer’s book. Also Jim Brosnan’s books. I still remember the line that Joey Jay hit three ways: right-handed, left-handed, and seldom. I also still have Earnshaw Cook’s Percentage Baseball, which preceded Bill James by two decades.
the growth of federal power made lobbying the federal government a more attractive career for federal workers…
So if you’re a senior civil servant, you were constantly reminded that you could make a lot more money taking the revolving door to an outside interest, and you felt like you needed it because otherwise you felt poor in your own city in a way civil servants hadn’t felt before. When everyone drove Buicks and Fords, you fit in; when BMWs and Benzes became the norm, you didn’t. And, of course, all those incoming lawyers and lobbyists drove housing prices way up too. So why not switch teams?
…The upshot, then, is that as the federal government got bigger and more powerful, it also became more stupid.
Pew Research Center reports that only 26% of American adults consider having children as key to a fulfilling life. This is compared to 71% who say the same about a career they enjoy and 61% who regard having close friends as important. The same survey also reveals an increase in the importance placed on having large amounts of money in younger cohorts compared to older ones: while only 13% of 65+ adults believe that having a lot of money is very important for a fulfilling life, as many as 35% of 18-29 year olds do! In another survey from 2024 27% of 18- to 26-year-olds said they saw starting a family as an important goal to achieve in the next five years. By comparison, 72% said they wanted to achieve financial security, and 59% said their goal was improving their health.
These attitudes are not coming out of nowhere, and are most likely re-enforced by older generations. A recent study highlights that many parents place less importance on their children's marital or parental status than on academic and intellectual achievement. This prioritisation of career over family stands in stark contrast with the experience of actual parents, who find time spent with their children deeply meaningful, often much more so that paid work!
The playwright Wendy Wasserstein used to point out that her mother did not value Wendy’s successful career and instead fretted that Wendy was not married. But Wendy was born in 1950. The opposite message is being sent to Millenials.
And who would - without necessity or accident - have children in a high-rise environment featuring fug-filled air that causes asthma, streets filled with rushing vehicles, public spaces designed for adults, and places dominated by strangers. In San Francisco and Berkeley over 70% of households are childless. And we're supposed to see dense urban living as a better model than the sprawl of the suburbs, the comfort of the small town or the community of the village?
…the reality of the city is selfish, focused on the here and now rather than on creating places to which people can relate, where they might want to spend their whole lives.
I wonder how much of the “fertility crisis” can be traced to urbanization.
substacks referenced above:
@
@
@
"And who would - without necessity or accident - have children in a high-rise environment featuring fug-filled air that causes asthma, streets filled with rushing vehicles, public spaces designed for adults, and places dominated by strangers."
Um, what? Is Cooke unfamiliar with the many volumes in a whole late 19th-mid-20th century Old-Progressive literature panicking about there being not too little but far too much fertility in such dense urban circumstances, indeed, circumstances that were in many respects far worse and less wholesome for raising children? Riis is spinning in his grave. That didn't stop anybody, and no, these recent ancestors were not clueless about ways to control family size or helpless before the introduction of hormone-based birth control.
It's amusing how far people will go to concoct absurdly ahistorical stories as desperate attempts to find an alternative to having to accept politically inconvenient truths staring everyone in the face.
Well, yes, but SF is the poster child for bad urbanism: crime, homelessness, restrictive land use and building codes, bad public schools.
Maybe the indictment should be of "Progressivism" rather than urbanization.