I recently read some articles claiming Gen Z -Americans born between the late 1990s and the early 2010s - have become “unprecedentedly rich”, an assessment purportedly based on some number-crunching by the Federal Reserve. Turns out that’s not what the Fed found. To quote:
Why does this matter? Because workers support the young, elderly, and other nonworkers, aka “dependents”. A larger working-age population supports economic growth, thereby generating additional tax revenue to fund pensions, healthcare, public education and other programs that benefit the young, old, disabled, etc. Too few workers relative to dependents, the economy tanks, tax revenues plummet, and the dependents go without – majorly. And that’s where we are headed.
Several developed countries have lowered capital gains taxes over the last couple decades, mainly to stimulate economic growth, investment, and global competitiveness, as well as to discourage investors from holding on to their assets simply to avoid taxes. However, some argue that lower capital gains taxes mainly benefit the rich and have little impact on economic growth or investment. The verdict is out on that score.
Before all these intervening factors muddled the causal picture, many (especially partisans) offered confident opinions on the impact of TCJA. For instance…
Well, how the hell can governments do more to protect the environment if their primary funder - tax payers - refuse to pay for the service? Tread lightly and lay off guilt trips to get people to sacrifice their dreams for the greater good of the planet.
A single cow requires 1-2 acres a year (3-5 acres if grass-fed). One acre of single family homes on 5,000 sq ft lots could house around 25 people (assuming 3 residents per house, on average).
Environmentalists push for high-density housing because it’s a way to lower emissions and conserve habitat. The basic idea is more people on less land, the better for the biosphere. Single family homes usually don’t belong in this picture. But they can.
But large yards are no longer de rigueur in this country. As documented in the first post in this series, a recent survey of over 7,000 Americans ages 18 to 54 found that over 90% of renters with plans for more children wanted to own homes - but the survey did not find a preference for homes with bigger yards over smaller yards. Across every demographic subgroup, safety/low crime was by far the single most important neighborhood trait, especially for families with children or with plans to have more. Good schools ranked second for people with children, followed by walkability. Note that neighborhoods with large lots tend to be less walkable.
Single-family homes could be built on already developed lands (infill), such as abandoned industrial parks, and in some less developed areas, such as pasture previously used for cattle grazing. I envision these as dense developments that would not cause the suburbs to grow “exponentially”. The states could impose environmental impact fees on single-family home developments for funding land acquisition projects elsewhere to protect wildlife and create wildlife corridors. These fees need not be exorbitant. For example, in California the average cost of farm and ranch land is around $13,000 and $6,000 per acre, respectively. A per acre cost within that range could then be the basis for environmental impact fees for conservation land acquisition projects, passed on to developers and incorporated into the price of new homes, somewhere between $1,000 - $2,000 each, based on a lot size of 4,000-5,000 sq ft.
Several surveys have documented that most families in the U.S. and many other countries prefer living in single-family homes, detached or attached (e.g., townhouses). What’s the attraction? Here’s one explanation:
“Challenges surrounding building fewer large homes or more multifamily homes mostly relate to policy and societal norms.” - Berrill & Wilson (2022) Decarbonization pathways for the residential sector in the United States
American families are generally receptive to living in single-family homes on small lots, as long as they have at least three bedrooms. Unfortunately, densifying cities typically limit the construction of single-family homes and often bar new housing developments on previously undeveloped land (“greenfield”), creating a housing shortage for local families. Without an adequate supply of suitable housing, many of these families will end up moving away when they’re ready to buy a home.
When choosing the best home for their family, respondents overwhelmingly preferred to have at least three bedrooms. Researchers did not find not a preference for bigger yards over smaller yards.
In 2004, 31% of American voters self-identified as independents, less than either Democrats or Republicans. Twenty years later, 43% identify as independents, much higher than either Democrats or Republicans, both sinking under the weight of voter dissatisfaction at just 28% each. The trend is obvious…
“The inhabitants of a particular town are much better acquainted with its wants and interests than with those of other places; and are better judges of the capacity of their neighbours than of that of the rest of their countrymen. The members, therefore, of the legislature should not be chosen from the general body of the nation; but it is proper that in every considerable place a representative should be elected by the inhabitants.” (Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, 1748)
“Political liberty is to be found … only when there is no abuse of power. But constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go.” - Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws
Climate change is mostly about bad weather becoming worse over time, to the detriment of humans and the rest of the biosphere. However, one doesn’t have to believe in climate change to care about bad weather and its impacts. Nor does one need to believe in climate change to want to fix problems associated with today’s bad weather. And since problem-solving capacity builds over time, whatever is learned fixing today’s problems will help us fix similar problems in the future.
The same goes for fossil fuel companies and the meat industry. Yes, these are businesses whose main interest is profit and survival. I don’t expect them to willingly self-destruct. That doesn’t mean they can’t be allies on some environmental issues, eg, reducing methane emissions. But I don’t require that they really care about these issues. Environmental allies don’t need to be pure of motive as long as they contribute…
Granted climate change skeptics are unlikely allies in the fight against climate change, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be allies for other environmental causes. One can doubt the existence or seriousness of climate change and still care about protecting wild habitat and endangered species. Why not?
Some may feel that optimism undermines the spirit of political activism and thus makes people less open to “structural change”. This is not an unreasonable proposition: if optimism is based on positive experiences, why would anyone want to hobble a system that has improved the quality of life for so most of humanity?