Indeed. The hardest part these days is getting access to a garage.
But the point I'm going on to make isn't just about how stupid the cost of housing is; it's that the high cost of housing comes with extra costs that we might not even see.
How many people would be doing all sorts of neat things, some of which would genuinely bloom into real advances and ideas and genuine new wealth (by which I don't just mean an income; I mean the creation of wealth) if only they could afford some goddamn space in which to do it, without having to move so far from the existing life they have that pays the bills and keeps them alive and sane (by which I mean to suggest that not everyone has the luxury of moving to where there is cheaper space, if their job and support networks won't move too).
Not many, same distribution would apply to that population. Most would scroll tiktok in a larger house.
* There is a rough fixed % of people that are capable of doing interesting things and maybe useful things
* There are minimum levels of resources, time, and comfort that enables you to do interesting things
* The current population that enjoys those resources isn't actually that different from the population at large in terms of that %
Assuming all of that, if you increased the welfare of the entire population to that minimum level (would be nice to do this anyway) then the absolute number of people doing interesting and maybe useful things would increase. I would say that most of human history and esp the past few hundred years has probably proven that to be true.
It is pretty clear from the photos that this young man is very fortunate to have well off and supportive parents. Very few working age adults in full time employment could afford the things shown in those photos let alone someone still in education.
Asimov in the 1950's was quite a visionary. I always liked this.
But I never heard him referred to as "shorty" before ;)
Don't want to be a spoiler but in his visions for an increasingly advanced technological future once the 21st century would arrive, here the dystopian elements that had unfortunately accrued had to be fed to an increasingly conformist society as a utopia instead. No surprise considering the attitude during the Cold War. While the outliers having the true creative potential were subjected to an artificially dystopian environment by comparison, from which only the most-ambitious few would have to break out of on their own accord, against all odds, motivated only by their own committment, to take their rightful place as professionals.
Didn't have to wait until the 65th century to make significant progress in this direction.
>It is pretty clear from the photos that this young man is very fortunate to have well off and supportive parents.
Good observation, and maybe that's about all that's going to be having such an early start for some time to come now. But we don't need photos to be well aware he is vastly outnumbered by tons of more fortunate youngsters who have accomplished absolutely nothing at that age, if not perpetrated destructive efforts instead. Photos of their "accomplishments" outnumber this type of posting a million to one.
Related, somebody referred recently to the device that plays YouTube as the "depression box", because that's what it creates in short order: "I am incapable of anything but scrolling". Yup: "Depression box."
Read: they could make for some very cost-effective innovation.
Lifting other people out of poverty that don't become innovators, would be 'bycatch' from that p.o.v. But still a worthwhile goal.
And how do you know most/many people aren't spending their times scrolling tiktok because they don't have the resources to do something more worthwhile?
Because if that was it, most rich people, rich kids would be all doing crazy science experiments and advancing knowledge. But turns out they don't.
It’s possible that a society that has a more prosperous general population will produce more successful scientists.
https://www.hamiltonproject.org/publication/economic-fact/el...
A tiny house and a small shed/garage would be a huge boon for many aspiring engineers.
"""I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.""" - Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History, 1980
World population has increased 60% since then, while extreme poverty decreased 66% in absolute (not relative) terms.
So, what I think would happen with more space, is that we would find the next limit, while mistaking the growth that improved conditions lead to as the natural state of affairs.
Personally I'm fine with that, but I get why people might have an aesthetic issue with it. They're of course allowed to compromise on one of the other 2 points to get a better looking neighborhood if they want.
It doesn't even have to be own space... just places like repair shops that let you hang around, maker/hacker spaces would go a long way.
I learned / had so much fun just hanging out at "Radio"(/TV/Tape recorder) Repair shops when I was a kid. Of course most of things i built back there were silly things like lights for my bicycle, longer earphone wires etc... But it is a valuable experience for me.
This was pretty interesting to me as a chemist, and there were even more parallels once I went to work for a company specializing in emerging chemicals, where unending experimentation and innovation was essential to bring yields up to tolerable levels from starting points which were barely feasible. Similar to emerging semiconductor processes.
With all the effort Zeloof has put in, apparently single-handedly for the most part, in his garage he does have what looks like a more advanced facility now than they had then. With the ability to make repairs and do maintenance on the comercially available equipment of the time, to a degree and with determination that the leading professors did not even usually possess.
This is the kind of person that needs to be protected from potential disasters that could derail his continuous progress, especially with such an early head-start.
Very much of an outlier, but there are uncountable others who have always had to wait for the least bit of opportunity which never arose in any realistic way.
That said, as a European the meme of "they started in their garage" always sounded so American. Maybe that's what Europe is lacking in terms of entrepreneurship - garages.
Being able to start small and informally allows many more businesses to start.
Not only do I host my own machinery there, but I have access to others’ and communal appliances and training on how to use them (as long as schedules line up).
They're amazing if you love sitting in traffic.
If we want to park a car in there, it's about an hour of moving stuff out of the way. I stand at the back as a spotter while my wife drives at me. Once she hit me, she turns the car off and climbs out through the back seat. I then climb over the roof of the car.
I wish I was making this up. Glad it's 12 years old with no sun roof. I don't have to feel bad about sliding over it.
I'm a European who's lived in an "American downtown" because I was told the suburbs are horrible, but what you're describing sounds great.
Where are you? SF? SD? NY? Miami? You're paying a premium for the right to brag about it. Not for the amenities.
Probably shouldn’t be taking advice from Reddit.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: you broke the site guidelines elsewhere in thread as well - see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38003753. Please don't do that.
Of course, it's not equivalent to being able to walk to places, but I feel the pros outweigh the cons in terms of what you do get from the suburbs.
This is why we can’t have nice things. We simply can’t rely on a class of workers to dote on us simply because we fancy living in the burbs. The amount of waste just so you can get your instacart. The reality is near 8% mortgages have put suburbs with garages out of reach for almost everyone without a trust fund or selling their startup.
Simple example would be to reduce the scale up and install cost of clean energy.
You make zero sense. Going to the grocery store involves the same workers helping you pay for gas and selling you groceries, or cooking your meals. Are you a recluse that interacts with zero workers? Who in their right mind calls someone else out for using a regular service? You'd prefer those people to not have jobs surely.
The planet can’t take any more “conveniences” on our behalf. We need to find a more efficient way of delivering goods and getting our goods. Throwing your hands up and saying “I’ll just get everything delivered” is about the worst option you can do from a logistics perspective to reduce carbon.
If you're annoyed about low efficiency of ordering food, what do you think of vacation traveling, hobbies, any sort of vehicles etc. Most efficiency would be to have no humans with our superfluous wants and needs. Otherwise you're just shaming others for doing things you happen not to like, while forgetting all the useless things you do. Surely you have done consumist purchases that weren't required for your immediate survival or health preservation before.
Yes because carrying groceries by 15m walk to home is surely on the same level as demanding population reduction measures.
You’re the exception.
I would call the entire peninsula from SF to San Jose one big suburb.
Hell, everything West of Gough St in SF is pretty suburb-like: mostly residential, a few shopping streets and no offices.
Despite that there are plenty of areas that are very walkable, including public transportation and shopping for daily needs.
Not every suburb looks like a cluster of single family homes with nothing else within 10 miles.
1) California is a noted outlier. The tax base/road budget ratio does not scale well to the rest of the country.
2) The wealth of affluent suburbs is driven by the cities they surround. The cities generate enough wealth to nominally support the market rate labor that keep them running AND the professional/managerial class that cut and run.
3) The top quintile or two of earners are likelier to live in newer developments, where the cost of maintenance has not built up yet. As regions become older and less desirable, the affluent leave and are replaced by the less-so, just as replacement costs come due. This model is a burden on the state and national levels because it's so prevalent.
If, instead, the model were to have most people living were their wealth was generated - and therefore have amenities scale to means more closely - you would have fewer extremely wealthy individuals and families but a more sustainable and equitable society. I know this is anathema to many, who value getting ahead over getting together.