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.
“While average net worth is good to know, median net worth by age may be more representative of the state of wealth across the country.” What's the average net worth for your age?/Fidelity (December 2024):
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…
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.
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…
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?
What I find surprising is the sharp rise in public concern about the environment during the pre-Covid Trump administration, despite the administration’s anti-environmental rhetoric, aggressive deregulation and cost-cutting measures. Apparently, the administration’s top-down messaging was unable to override the inclination of Americans to care more about nature when bread-and-butters worries subside.
Grandiosity refers to a sense of specialness and self-importance that might lead you to:
boast about real or exaggerated accomplishments
consider yourself more talented or intelligent than others
dismiss or try to one-up the achievements of others
believe you’re above rules or ordinary limits
fail to recognize that your actions could harm others
lash out in anger when someone criticizes you or points out a flaw in your plans
— from “What is Grandiosity?”, PsychCentral
“A sanity-preserving maxim among observers of Mr Trump is to pay attention not to what he says but to what he does. Better yet, pay attention not to what he says or does but to what the courts allow him to do. By this standard, Mr Trump’s first-month frenzy is likely to fall well short of a constitutional crisis. (The Economist, Donald Trump is a reckless president, but not yet a lawless one. February 22, 2025)
This post is an update to a post on rent control I wrote in 2022. It was inspired by a Zoom conversation I had some weeks ago. We were talking about rent control and I mentioned there was plenty of research showing that rent control often does more harm than good. My comment triggered a quick response, “yeah, that’s what conservatives say”. (For the record, I’m not a conservative).