"Acclimatisation of lifestyle inflation" - that sent a shiver down my spine.
You hit many points here.
The generation that was still able to afford a single-family house in their 30s had different expectations for their standard of living when they were going through university or apprenticeships. That also pertained to their work-ethic.
Of course the market has changed. Not just degrees have undergone inflation - especially expectations for everything being served on a silver plate did.
Inflation is a hot topic at the moment but I don't see many talking about lifestyle inflation. Rather than people tightening their belts I am observing a lot of people (rightly) complaining about the costs of energy and grocery while simultaneously buying consumer goods on credit. Further evidence that the Rational Actor idea that economic theory is built on is nonsense.
Sep 18, 2022·edited Sep 18, 2022Liked by Thomas J Bevan
Maybe the Rational Actor theory applied to people with healthy instincts based on a natural understanding of truly essential needs.
People might have gotten a distorted perception of necessities during those decandent decades of hyperabundance - ergo coddling, not only of the mind, but all aspects of what constitutes life. From mail-order dating to life-life balance. From 1click crap-orders to infotainment.
Good point. The Rational Actor theory may have made some sense or been a reasonable assumption way back when but it really doesn't seem to apply from what I personally am seeing. And I include myself in that category too for the most part.
Most first-world humans fit into that category. In general, humans are the only species that can voluntarily override instincts, so we got used to it. We can keep working despite every system in our bodies wanting to shut down and we can keep running as if our lives depended on it despite it being just for an ultra-marathon medaillon. So of course we also ignore natural needs in the material realm altogether. We are too used to not listening to internal signals.
The Rational Actor theory is a misnomer. Maybe there were reasonable actions at some point. But for the most part, humans acted on emotions derived from instincts. These days they guide many to pointless pleasure or the vanity of societal praise.
I am curious to know where you are talking about. I moved away from a university town (Madison, WI) that has the same problems you are describing (e.g. seasonal fluctuation, newly built tower blocks, and a single crazy day, August 15, when all the leases expire and everyone in town moves). In the past, the university provided affordable dormitory housing for students on campus. But they stopped building dorms while expanding the enrollments. Now they rely on the private sector to provide the housing at excessively high rents, as the university no longer views the provision of housing as their responsibility. Homelessness, high population density (with more crime and recently covid transmission), and increased student debt to pay the rents are the results.
In Madison, the rents are so high that more renters are choosing to rent what they cannot afford rather than being homeless. The landlords then go to court and evict the renters who fall behind. To avoid defaults, the landlords (often corporations or banks) now require a rental history (which students or downsizing homeowners do not have), two months of rent for deposit, and require that the amount of rent does not exceed 25% of the renter's income (failing this, you can get a co-signer who meets the requirements). This is a high bar for people with lower income and for the disabled or those elderly who are living solely on poverty-level pensions. There is practically no public housing (742 units for a population of 277,166, or approximately 0.26% of the Madison population lives in public housing).
I have no answers for this situation other than to face the economic reality and move to a less expensive place.
That's a very interesting case there Lynn. Madison sounds like a potential future scenario for my adopted city if it doesn't heed the warnings of such cases. At the moment all is well and good but the pattern recogniser in me is curious to see how sustainable this model of (seemingly) going all in on building the city around students can last.
Damn this was thought provoking in a number of ways. While I've noticed this in passing in cities larger than yours, I hadn't considered what a proportionally larger impact this would have on a much smaller city! You are so adept at really meditating on a variety of aspects of one topic, and as always you give us springboards to larger societal thinking. Anyway, great piece, and I just listened to this podcast yesterday that talks of the popularity of concrete construction even during a time when it won't be suited to our hot future - if you're inclined: https://theconversation.com/keep-buildings-cool-as-it-gets-hotter-by-resurrecting-traditional-architectural-techniques-podcast-190384
There are often hot potato topics that I feel compelled to talk about without joining the circus of hot takes offering. And so my method at least for now is to hint at them between the lines for those who can read subtext. So without finger pointing or having to do real journalistic research I can hint at much more than student blocks by talking about student blocks. And I think you may have picked up on that.
Oh that is fucking clever approach you subtle genius! Oh that may be a topic for a TOM guest spot - someone comes on asks you deeper more probing questiosn on your springboard topics. . .
I don't know if the UK has the same regulations against SROs as the United States, as part of the West's early gentrification craze, but therein lies the solution:
"Student dorms" are just RSOs, but legal and considered morally permissable because students are supposed to live alone, not migrants, poor people, or itinerant or temporary blue collar workers. Suddenly then they become "flophouses" instead of dorms.
And the refusal of communities to accept RSOs as legitimate housing has a large part to play in homelessness and the soaring prices of housing.
So, what I'm saying here is that the buildings are fine, provided your small town is willing to appropriate their use for SROs if the student population collapses. If not and they go derelict, that's a problem of how the city chose to use them, not in their use value itself.
That's exactly why I try to formulate those 'if' arguments the way I do:
"Here's an opportunity for a positive sum solution, if there's political will and innovative leadership." Thus if the solution doesn't happen and the problem continues, it gets blamed, appropriately in my eyes, on the lack of leadership and communal will as opposed to being blamed, inappropriately in my eyes, on the buildings, the students, or the poor.
Makes perfect sense. As I said in a much earlier essay positive sum is a good definition for wisdom and zero sum is a good definition of what stupidity actually is at root.
"Acclimatisation of lifestyle inflation" - that sent a shiver down my spine.
You hit many points here.
The generation that was still able to afford a single-family house in their 30s had different expectations for their standard of living when they were going through university or apprenticeships. That also pertained to their work-ethic.
Of course the market has changed. Not just degrees have undergone inflation - especially expectations for everything being served on a silver plate did.
Inflation is a hot topic at the moment but I don't see many talking about lifestyle inflation. Rather than people tightening their belts I am observing a lot of people (rightly) complaining about the costs of energy and grocery while simultaneously buying consumer goods on credit. Further evidence that the Rational Actor idea that economic theory is built on is nonsense.
Maybe the Rational Actor theory applied to people with healthy instincts based on a natural understanding of truly essential needs.
People might have gotten a distorted perception of necessities during those decandent decades of hyperabundance - ergo coddling, not only of the mind, but all aspects of what constitutes life. From mail-order dating to life-life balance. From 1click crap-orders to infotainment.
Good point. The Rational Actor theory may have made some sense or been a reasonable assumption way back when but it really doesn't seem to apply from what I personally am seeing. And I include myself in that category too for the most part.
Most first-world humans fit into that category. In general, humans are the only species that can voluntarily override instincts, so we got used to it. We can keep working despite every system in our bodies wanting to shut down and we can keep running as if our lives depended on it despite it being just for an ultra-marathon medaillon. So of course we also ignore natural needs in the material realm altogether. We are too used to not listening to internal signals.
The Rational Actor theory is a misnomer. Maybe there were reasonable actions at some point. But for the most part, humans acted on emotions derived from instincts. These days they guide many to pointless pleasure or the vanity of societal praise.
You're not wrong. And yeah those ultramarathon runners are something else.
I am curious to know where you are talking about. I moved away from a university town (Madison, WI) that has the same problems you are describing (e.g. seasonal fluctuation, newly built tower blocks, and a single crazy day, August 15, when all the leases expire and everyone in town moves). In the past, the university provided affordable dormitory housing for students on campus. But they stopped building dorms while expanding the enrollments. Now they rely on the private sector to provide the housing at excessively high rents, as the university no longer views the provision of housing as their responsibility. Homelessness, high population density (with more crime and recently covid transmission), and increased student debt to pay the rents are the results.
In Madison, the rents are so high that more renters are choosing to rent what they cannot afford rather than being homeless. The landlords then go to court and evict the renters who fall behind. To avoid defaults, the landlords (often corporations or banks) now require a rental history (which students or downsizing homeowners do not have), two months of rent for deposit, and require that the amount of rent does not exceed 25% of the renter's income (failing this, you can get a co-signer who meets the requirements). This is a high bar for people with lower income and for the disabled or those elderly who are living solely on poverty-level pensions. There is practically no public housing (742 units for a population of 277,166, or approximately 0.26% of the Madison population lives in public housing).
I have no answers for this situation other than to face the economic reality and move to a less expensive place.
That's a very interesting case there Lynn. Madison sounds like a potential future scenario for my adopted city if it doesn't heed the warnings of such cases. At the moment all is well and good but the pattern recogniser in me is curious to see how sustainable this model of (seemingly) going all in on building the city around students can last.
Fantastic comment as always. Thanks.
Damn this was thought provoking in a number of ways. While I've noticed this in passing in cities larger than yours, I hadn't considered what a proportionally larger impact this would have on a much smaller city! You are so adept at really meditating on a variety of aspects of one topic, and as always you give us springboards to larger societal thinking. Anyway, great piece, and I just listened to this podcast yesterday that talks of the popularity of concrete construction even during a time when it won't be suited to our hot future - if you're inclined: https://theconversation.com/keep-buildings-cool-as-it-gets-hotter-by-resurrecting-traditional-architectural-techniques-podcast-190384
There are often hot potato topics that I feel compelled to talk about without joining the circus of hot takes offering. And so my method at least for now is to hint at them between the lines for those who can read subtext. So without finger pointing or having to do real journalistic research I can hint at much more than student blocks by talking about student blocks. And I think you may have picked up on that.
Thanks for the great comment as always.
Oh that is fucking clever approach you subtle genius! Oh that may be a topic for a TOM guest spot - someone comes on asks you deeper more probing questiosn on your springboard topics. . .
The guest can try but I'll keep ducking and diving and slipping out of the way!
I don't know if the UK has the same regulations against SROs as the United States, as part of the West's early gentrification craze, but therein lies the solution:
"Student dorms" are just RSOs, but legal and considered morally permissable because students are supposed to live alone, not migrants, poor people, or itinerant or temporary blue collar workers. Suddenly then they become "flophouses" instead of dorms.
And the refusal of communities to accept RSOs as legitimate housing has a large part to play in homelessness and the soaring prices of housing.
So, what I'm saying here is that the buildings are fine, provided your small town is willing to appropriate their use for SROs if the student population collapses. If not and they go derelict, that's a problem of how the city chose to use them, not in their use value itself.
It all hinges on that word 'if', or rather the post if willingness. And my level of cynicism/optimism on that tends to waver depending on mood.
That's exactly why I try to formulate those 'if' arguments the way I do:
"Here's an opportunity for a positive sum solution, if there's political will and innovative leadership." Thus if the solution doesn't happen and the problem continues, it gets blamed, appropriately in my eyes, on the lack of leadership and communal will as opposed to being blamed, inappropriately in my eyes, on the buildings, the students, or the poor.
Makes perfect sense. As I said in a much earlier essay positive sum is a good definition for wisdom and zero sum is a good definition of what stupidity actually is at root.