A depressing realization about American work culture
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
DP but there is a LOT of research indicating that homogenous societies are happier in general. Progressive researchers often believe that expanding the social safety net of government can replace this effect such that different groups don't see themselves as competing or in conflict, but obviously that hasn't resolved the issue yet (they propose it will if government gets big enough). I guess we shall see, if they succeed. So far, data from major metropolitan areas which have more expansive safety nets doesn't look good but there are lots of factors that play into that. |
Anonymous
Every job I've ever had it wasn't a big deal if I was sick. It's a big deal in schools because it inconveniences admin who have to find coverage. That's why they get paid more but they resent teachers for taking off. Maybe if they didn't let kids get away with murder, we would have more subs to provide coverage. |
Anonymous
Very interesting. Can you point me to some of the research that makes this conclusion, that diversity results in an unhappier society? That seems really fascinating. |
Anonymous
I wouldn't call it inescapable. However, I did have an epiphany while selling my house recently. I actually have a large house in neighborhood full of small houses and a nominally above average school. The realtors seem to hate my house they want to sell it for the same price for all the other houses in the neighborhood. For a frame of reference in another neighborhood it would be maybe a 1.3 million dollar home. So basically an owner in these other neighborhoods, paid too much for their home so they can be next to a bunch of other people who also paid too much for their homes. Realtors seem to really like this idea. However, I got to thinking about it. Many of these "good neighborhoods", they lack decent amenities. Like no sidewalks, nothing to do really except drive a car. Well, I jumped on chatGPT and it explained it to me. The problem with large houses in neighborhoods of small houses or houses near amenities... entertainment like bowling alleys, is the Financial institutions can't model them. Their model's don't know how to value them, they can roll them into package that conforms to some criteria then put them in a mortgage portfolio. So there it is. These financial movers that build these subdivisions, explicitly exclude many amenities, anything that might interfere with your paying your mortgage off why? So they can predictably model profits. Everything else follows from that. Long commutes etc. They're basically financial engines. The only way out is to get someone else to buy in. |
Anonymous
I don’t understand this post. I want to, but I don’t. How does excluding amenities make profits more predictable? |
Anonymous
+100 What value do consultants bring to our daily lives vs. our trash collectors? Consultants make all of our lives arguably worse. |
Anonymous
I didn't say that diversity results in an unhappier society, I said they are correlated. Not sure the studies go that far. The most famous one is Harvard professor Robert D. Putnam’s paper “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty‐First Century” (2007). He has since tried to explain it away in various ways, but the data is the data. Putnam is most famous for his book Bowling Alone, about the importance of community and the shift in our society away from community support and how bad that is for the US. |
Anonymous
Local amenities — like shops, restaurants, parks, bars, or entertainment — make life better for residents, but they also introduce variability in local housing markets and incomes. Lenders (banks, investors, insurers like Fannie Mae) care about predictability because mortgages are long-term contracts priced on risk. Here’s how amenities complicate that: 🧭 1. Amenities make local housing prices volatile When a neighborhood gets new amenities (say, a trendy café strip), home values can rise rapidly — but if those amenities fail or trends change, they can fall just as fast. That means the collateral (the house) is harder to value reliably over 15–30 years. Mortgage models prefer stable, homogeneous areas where price movements track the broader region rather than idiosyncratic local economies. Example: A suburban tract of identical houses near a business park has predictable resale values. A mixed-use block with boutiques, bars, and new condos might swing 20–30% up or down with small economic shifts. 🧱 2. Amenities signal mixed land use — which increases income and tenant variability Lenders prefer neighborhoods where everyone has similar, steady incomes. When local amenities attract transient populations (students, gig workers, tourists), you get: More rental churn More seasonal employment Less predictable household stability That makes defaults less statistically predictable, even if average incomes are higher. 🏪 3. Amenities rely on discretionary spending Areas built around leisure — restaurants, casinos, entertainment — depend on residents having spare income. If the economy slows, those sectors contract quickly, hitting both local employment and property values. For lenders, that’s a correlated risk: many borrowers in one place might lose income simultaneously. 📉 4. Amenities distort standard risk models Most U.S. mortgage risk models are based on tract-level historical data — like census data on income, employment, and housing turnover. Mixed-use areas or amenity-driven “creative” neighborhoods don’t fit the historical mold, so their default probability and prepayment patterns are less predictable. 🧩 5. Amenities can change neighborhood composition too fast When new amenities appear, they often accelerate gentrification. That makes long-term forecasting (and thus pricing) harder: Today’s borrower profile may not match tomorrow’s neighborhood. If low-income residents are displaced, lenders can’t rely on historical payment performance in that ZIP code. In short: Mortgage finance likes monotony. The more a neighborhood looks like a controlled experiment — similar homes, incomes, jobs — the more confidently a lender can price risk. Local amenities make a place livable, but also less predictable to model. |
Anonymous
I am confused. Are these two factors, diversity and happiness, correlated or is there a causal relationship that has been established? Correlation seems fairly simple to explain: a society that needs to overwork cheap immigrant labor will be less happy for reasons that may not have anything to do with immigration. What data is professor Putnam “explaining away?” |
Anonymous
Go read it. It’s way too complicated to say there is one clear reason/cause for complex societal issues. If it was that simple we would have solved the problem long ago. Also, the data doesn’t have much to do with cheap immigrant labor so that conclusion is not correct. |
Anonymous
I don’t really understand why you are telling me to “go read it” when you are offering diversity as a reason not to pursue a social safety net. Why? What is your reasoning? I want to read what YOU have to say. I am interested in your reasoning. I am particularly interested in this statement that you made: Progressive researchers often believe that expanding the social safety net of government can replace this effect such that different groups don't see themselves as competing or in conflict, but obviously that hasn't resolved the issue yet (they propose it will if government gets big enough). I am also offering a potential explanation for the correlation, not saying that is the reason. Our society has let in immigrants and increased our diversity for a core reason: cheap labor. Perhaps the exploitation is behind a less cohesive society. |
Anonymous
Additionally research finds that cultures which are more ethnically homogeneous are more supportive of resource redistribution by the state via fiscal systems. |
Anonymous
Sure but how is that important to this thread? |
Anonymous
It's not just consumerism. It's the cost of healthcare, student debt, child care costs, homes, and that wages haven't kept up with inflation. |
Anonymous
This. But wouldn’t it come down to the states? They protect and tap into their own resources to grow sovereign funds and distribute proceeds to citizens snd our use to improve schools, healthcare, transportation (and in our current situation keep Trump’s grubby hands off their money at all costs). |