Join the newsletter to receive the latest updates in your inbox.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://quillette.com/2022/06/03/diversity-and-its-discontents/
Join the newsletter to receive the latest updates in your inbox.
If you ask me, this piece starts with an excess of the passive voice:
white people are often critically examined
other ethnic identities are reflexively praised
Diversity is encouraged
What I want to know is who is the active voice behind the curtain.
The answer of course, we all know. The educated ruling class, prompted by Marx and others 150 years ago, rules with an over-under political formula where the upper, ruling, class obtains the support of the lower class with whatever class or race or gender appeal that it takes to move the needle.
Obviously, I would say, the ordinary middle class, white or Asian or now Hispanic is on the receiving end of this political formula and it doesn’t like it. Thus Trump, among other things.
Now, I am an unashamed racist-sexist-homophobe. But I understand the hesitation of a good member of the educated class like the writer to call a spade a spade. Politics is a dirty game, and Job One is to dress it up in silk breeches and silk stockings and pretend that its power game is high-falutin’ and high-toned. Thus the vital role of The New York Times.
Thus, also, our ruling class advertises its selfless Activism, as selfless Allies of the Oppressed, much as the rude crude barons of the Middle Ages paid for minstrels to recite gorgeous Medieval Romances to represent barons as noble knights rescuing helpless damsels-in-distress on white palfreys. And for those with more ambition, the story could show the selfless knights seeking the Holy Grail that Our Savior drank from at the Last Supper. I think we can all agree that Richard Wagner rather lowered the tone of the whole thing with his Medieval Romance operas.
A good essay, but missing from the discussion is class interest. Shortly before Trump was elected to office, conservative historian Niall Ferguson gave a talk for Google Zeitgeist. His disdain for Trump was obvious, putting him firmly in the camp of Burkean Conservative, but what he succinctly highlighted, through his exploration of the history of populism in America, was that each of the four times that populism became active in the American polis, the conditions required were both that the rate of foreign-born citizens exceeded 14% of the population and an economic downturn increased fears of economic scarcity. Let me parse that differently- populism has only historically been on the ascendant when blue collar fears of economic displacement and wage dilution become activated.
By contrast, Australia managed to achieve a rate of foreign-born citizens at 30% with their Populate or Perish policy, but populism really was banished to the sidelines for the longest time. The reasons for this were simple. First, Australia has always insisted that people who migrate to their shores become Australians first, with their cultural heritage a secondary consideration. Second, and far more importantly, for a long period of Australia’s immigration history, labour interests were protected- simply put, blue collar jobs were enshrined in Priority Migration Skilled Occupation List, to the extent that regardless of the wage pressures employers felt, those seeking full-time blue collar jobs weren’t allowed into Australia. Put simply, it is possible for a country to run high levels of immigration without populism becoming prevalent, provided that said migration doesn’t hurt blue collar interests.
Since the 2000s, this policy has changed, with the stranglehold which labour once held over barring blue collar occupations from inward migration, being relaxed. Predictably, as blue collar interests have increasingly been trampled upon, we have began to see the first stirrings of populism in Australia- proof positive of the fact that if you want to protect your country from the far right and the politics of racial division, then the only feasible way of doing so is to protect blue collar interests from the destructive force of the unlimited labour supply neoliberalism so desperately needs to turn the blue collar class into powerless serfs, with no negotiating power.
These may seem like strong words, but it’s worth noting that of all the demographic recently surveyed by Pew about immigration, African Americans were the most laudable- they were both the most likely to want government to step-in to help migrants in need, and the most likely to fear that their economic interests will be damaged by labour competition from migrants. They are only partially correct on the second point, because the evidence shows that although their economic interests will be significantly damaged, those who suffer most from further migration are the recently arrived.
The best data on The Labour market effects of immigration comes from the UK and the Migration Observatory at Oxford University. It’s a somewhat honest appraisal which shows that higher income workers benefit the most and the lowest paid are the most adversely effected, with at least some negative effects on labour participation rates for the native-born population. But contained within this overview needs to be couched the understanding that whilst some lower to medium income workers benefit somewhat from migration, others find their interests harmed drastically.
Simply put, if you fall into the category of having done well at school, and especially if you have attended university, then immigration has been an economic good for you. Not only will you have benefitted through cheaper goods and services produced domestically, especially in areas like cheaper restaurant bills and takeaway food, but if you happen to be a valuable employee, whose skills are in demand, then the cheaper wages of lower skilled support staff like cleaners, and even the halved wages of the construction workers who laid the foundations of the offices you work in, will mean that your employer has greater latitude to reward you.
Even if you are a high school leaver with no higher education and a woman, it is somewhat likely that you will have either experienced a small gain, or are treading water. An employment agency servicing industry with a contract worker database of 200 to 500 blue collar, mostly male, blue collar workers, will need admins to man the phones and do the paperwork, as well as recruitment consultants in sales roles to work with professional managers in their customer base. Both types of roles are likely to be predominantly female, and this is only the tip of the iceberg. The blue collar version of the gig economy is big business, it supports roles in Real Estate, for leasing agents, machinery sales, work for lawyers, accountants, stationary suppliers, IT workers and numerous others. But again, opportunities for some come at the expense of the repeated decimation of blue collar interests.
Central to the divided worldview between the Cosmopolitan Educated Class and Blue Collar Interests is the liberal fallacy that anyone can be educated to do anything, given enough time and resources. It’s simply not true, even if for some it feels true, given the ease with which they’ve breezed through life. Once a liberal studies the problem they will propose solutions, none of which work. Let’s raise the minimum wage, which ignores the fact that the natural labour rates of most of the blue collar work that is being displaced or wage diluted is well above proposed minimum wage hikes. Let’s try economic transfers, otherwise known as redistribution. Again, by the time redistribution has been arranged and targeted towards lower income families, the $10 a week is hardly compensation for the $200 a week lost by a line operator, construction worker or driver.
The simple fact is that if you didn’t do well at school, and you don’t have the polish and appearance to work service or retail, there is only a limited pool of work within the economy which you can do. To be fair, there are other factors, both offshoring and automation have had incredibly harmful effects on blue collar class interests. But any attempt to shift the blame from immigration to these factors, conveniently ignores the fact that whilst automation and offshoring might have been the things which eliminated the preferred source of employment, it’s highly likely that its the unlimited supply of blue collar labour from inward migration is the factor which wiped out choices number two, three, four and five- particularly given that 50% of all new economic opportunities in America has been confined to 20 or so major American cities where migrant blue collar labour is both abundant and cheap.
What should concern the educated millennial directly, is that migrant labour is the primary reason why they can’t buy a home at a price to which their budget can stretch. It’s worst in the UK, where an annual undersupply in the building of replacement housing stock dates back to 1992. Here it’s by no means uncommon for local councils in major metropolitan centres like London, to find migrant workers living in sheds with space heaters, or 30 migrant workers living in a three bedroom semi-detached house.
It’s not the only problem. The New Frontier of Private Equity is Pricing according to McKinsey, for which the translation is higher rents and more expensive housing. And for those neoliberals who would argue that Private Equity helps pension and insurance investment, it’s worth noting that the biggest inward investment in Private Equity in the West increasingly comes from Sovereign Wealth Funds, particularly from the Middle East. But however much those on the Left might decry the aggressive movements of the likes of Blackrock into the housing sector, we need to acknowledge that they are only taking advantage of the existing market forces that our governments and our politics have unleashed on an unsuspecting West.
Most politicians seem to think that economics forces operate like the consumer economics they know so well- prefaced on the notion that demand creates supply. In areas like housing this simply isn’t the case, given that the scarcity cost increases which come from increased demand tend to be higher than the increases in house prices. Put another way, increased demand in housing squeezes the profit margins on housing even tighter, whilst the only true profit to be rendered comes from land asset speculation, which is hardly speculative at all, given that the local central planners grip on new building land means that building land costs rise ever upwards in a boon for financiers chasing mortgage debt as an asset class, and carpet baggers intent upon inflating prices at the expense of ordinary aspiring home owners.
It’s the New Gilded Age with the desperation of economic migrants seeking a better life serving as grist for the mill in an inhumane economic system, not only deflating blue collar wages to the point of economic serfdom, but also increasing housing costs to the point that they eat up a larger and larger share of income. And it’s process which cosmopolitans are largely blind to because although they are intimately familiar with some of the effects of this process- lower net incomes relative to their parents and grandparents, and higher housing and rent costs, they lack the economic understanding and discipline to investigate the root causes.
Besides, nobody really wants to believe that the inward influx of blue collar labour is the primary driver of growing economic inequality, and that tighter labour markets could be transformative in resurrecting the American Dream. For a start it would put the lie to the notion that higher income workers are worse off than their parents, in any area other than housing opportunities, when one understands that most of the relative income losses by generation have accrued further down the socio-economic ladder. It would also entail admitting that many wasted money spending it on higher education, because a huge portion of real value creation in the economy occurs through the labours of the blue collar class, and many of the jobs which occupy the educated middle classes are largely superfluous and of no real value.
But above all, it would dispel the notion that there is a way out of this emerging dystopia through conventional politics. Yes, there are significant things which might help- a more libertarian approach to zoning and planning laws would be a huge boon for house building, blue collar labour and value creation, but it is unlikely to happen because of entrenched interests. Capital loves the huge returns which can be made by artificial scarcity in building land, and finance loves the greatly inflated mortgages which an undersupply of housing creates. Above all, neoliberalism craves cheap blue collar labour more than anything else.
My dad was a ship’s captain in the oil business. He always used to say that if anybody could do his job better than him, they were welcome to it. He did, however, take exception to people willing to the work for considerably less money than him. This used to be a part of the blue collar ethos which everyone understood. Now, this perfectly rational position is routinely mischaracterised as racial animus or xenophobia. Race and politics obscures this simple truth. The problem is only exacerbated by the fact that most proud blue collar men are unlikely to admit even to themselves that they feel threatened when younger foreign men are willing to work for less money than them, with ugly hostility often masking the very real reasons why they feel under threat- because of the ever present fear of being thrown on the scrapheap before their time.
This doesn’t mean that immigration should stop. Far from it, most American support legal immigration and Australia proves that a migration system can be designed in such a way that aspiring migrants from around the world get the chance to participate in a vibrant, thriving society. But central to any sane immigration system should be the imperative to protect blue collar male employment. To guard it fiercely as the exclusive domain of native-born kids who don’t do well as school. Otherwise we are setting our less fortunate teenage boys on the path towards self-destruction, regardless of whether they happen to be African American, White or Latino.
As usual, my essays are to be found on my Substack which is free to view and comment:
“Few on the Right, however, have been able to navigate the thicket of taboos surrounding this topic to discuss diversity and demographic change in a responsible but unapologetically conservative manner.”
“The second claim is often confused with the first by mainstream media outlets, but it is both demonstrably true and perfectly reasonable to discuss. Examples abound of liberals cheerfully anticipating the effects of increasing diversity on their electoral prospects. For example,”
Responsible dialogue is at the very heart of the problem here but I suspect it’s just as much a conservative media problem too. Whilst I agree (& in my experience most people of all walks do) there are very legitimate concerns regarding disorderly, unsustainable & exorbitant immigration these concerns aren’t exactly responsibly framed by the right nor are they in any way ‘silenced’. To suggest the subject is taboo is a misconception given hugely popular US political broadcasters who for years have been loudly raising their objections to their increasing mass audiences with out any consequences other than criticism. The pushback that’s eventuated is largely a result of framing which is politically exploited as a conspiracy by the left for cheap votes.
Whilst no doubt some on the left may anticipate votes from immigrants this is hardly a publicised viewpoint & demonstrably false given increases in recent hispanic republican support. And it’s exactly these kinds of assumptions that legitimise racism claims when huge swathes of ethnic minorities are stereotyped into the ‘hand outs’ vote by major political personalities with widespread influence like Tucker Carlson. Just hispanics on their own are a very diverse group where voting outcomes can be hugely unpredictable. Its reported Trump’s popularity with hispanics from Cuba & Venezuela was due to his appeal against socialism. And many Floridian hispanics being business owners were attracted to Trump’s pro business policies as were hispanics in general to orderly immigration policies probably because it’s usually them that suffer the immediate social & economic consequences of sharing a space with illegal or unsustainable immigrants. So the assumption that hispanics or other immigrants for that matter will always have loyalty to liberals is not a given especially once they integrate but let’s be honest on who is actually propagandising the false narrative & its those that have the most to gain.
"Liberal commentators and public intellectuals routinely malign demographic conservatives as white supremacists and white nationalists. But it is important to recognize that most demographic conservatives are not racial chauvinists of any kind; they do not believe that nonwhites should be excluded from the nation, and they do not harbor hostility toward other ethnic groups. Many of them are attached to the prevailing demographic dispensation that includes significant diversity.
But the problem is these views aren’t the one’s portrayed by the right wing media or their politicians rather a very different exaggerated dog whistling fear mongering version which invariably results in leftist accusations of racism. These claims of racism didn’t appear out of a vacuum but are the result of consistent inflammatory discourse see Trump…“mexican rapists” etc….
Granting this, one might still object that any concern about demography is ipso facto racist since it reflects an assessment, positive or negative, about ethnicity qua ethnicity. This accusation is common on the Left, but it is not particularly persuasive. If true, it would suggest that it is racist to prefer diversity to homogeneity, since the preference for diversity is a preference for a particular demographic settlement. Yet one very rarely encounters the argument that promoting or celebrating diversity is racist. To the contrary, promoting diversity is seen as paradigmatically anti-racist.
Diversity racist? Racism by definition requires a sense of superiority & intolerance.
Diversity in essence is inclusion of everyone including whites so there’s no particular superiority or intolerance of a race/ethnicity as opposed to homogeneity which by nature suggests both those elements.
Similarly, few who argue that demographic concerns are ipso facto racist apply this to groups other than whites. Progressives often celebrate black or Asian representation, contending that it is important to promote a diversity of role models. And the Left more broadly has generally promoted, or at least tacitly endorsed a kind of asymmetric multiculturalism in which demographic concerns are perfectly legitimate, so long as they benefit people who are not white. Affirmative action is championed by most leftwing intellectuals and politicians (and the broader left-leaning population), yet it is specifically designed to increase the share of certain ethnic groups, generally at the expense of whites and Asians."
But it’s not racist if those groups are already included & often (for whites) substantially via admission policies that consequentially favour their race ie wealth, legacy, sports & donor admits. Individuals maybe discriminated either way via admission policies but it’s not for reasons of racial superiority or intolerance so college admissions via AA or other means can’t really be considered as racist in the original sense of the word.
“Perhaps a wiser and more judicious route is to allow ethnic attachments and identities as we currently allow religious attachments and identities, while strictly enforcing non-discrimination policies and diligently promoting race-blind liberalism in the public sphere. In this way, those who are attached to the majority ethnic identity would feel welcome in the mainstream of American politics, while those who promote hateful or exclusivist ethnic ideologies of any stripe would be stigmatized. Instead of operating in codes, the country’s political discourse would at least become more frank and transparent.”
The problem is the deck is already stacked that hasn’t exactly been historically race blind so to pretend it hasn’t isn’t going to alleviate discontents but inflame them…
The trouble with the article is right at the beginning when statements that are not necessarily true except as repeats of opinions, are asserted as general state of play. “[Whiteness] and [white people] are often critically examined and even denigrated, while all other ethnic identities are reflexively praised and promoted." And propaganda language is used "Diversity is encouraged with an evangelical fervor, while doubters are denounced as backward racists terrified by the righteous wheel of progress. Of course I get that much of this is all inside the bubble of academia and while being impactful in that arena may hardly reach the light of day in the broader community. What we do understand in the broader community in Australia is that there is a diverse community, always has been since Europeans stepped foot on the continent. What is undeniable is that, in Australia cultural wars came with the colony. It has many fronts, Irish vs english, catholic vs protestant, invaders vs indigenous peoples, men vs women, and then all the various people brought in from other colonies of the british empire to work on the newly opened land. However, as Australia developed its own identity, many of the pioneers chose that the fundamental value of the society was “a fair go” for everyone. It is clear that this has been a work in progress rather than a fully fledged cultural mechanism. Our political leaders fluctuate between “rather unfair” and perhaps “only just fair enough”. We just sent a conservative political party to the sin bin because their unfairness extended a little too far up the food chain. The middle class can be particularly defensive around a governments will to solve social and economic problems. On the issue of ethnicity, Australia’s migrant waves follow a pattern of: 1st generation getting established and working flat out; 2nd generation getting tertiary education, rising in academic, research and professional ranks while at the same time among the young 3rd generation are ethnic cliques, even gangs and crime. By the fourth generation, an Australianism has come to bear by and large, and many people enjoy an engagement across a number of ethnic groups. There is an exception to that rule. It can be seen in social behaviour that middle class white adolescents enjoy a cultural homogenity that has them failing to engage with people of other ethnicity even in their own classrooms. This disengagement is not because of language, as 2nd third and fourth gen migrants can speak impeccable Australian. The disengagment seems to be related to a discomfort many white middle class people have socialising across ethnicities and the complete comfort they have among other middle class white people. I do not think this is a racist issue per se, however it is a cultural issue. Many non-white middle class people are orientated towards accomplishment and see that their pathway is only through diligence. White middle class people in Australia find accomplishment from within the network (mainly white) of the school and university they attend. Without going to the ‘correct’ school, even a white middle class person will not have such easy access to career pathways. Even at the level of doctors getting specialist registration, many doctors (women, doctors who didn’t go to the right school, didn’t have the right parents) observe a fast-tracking of doctors from the-right-side-of-the-tracks, even when they have exhibited poorer standards of practice in their work. So, there is less entertainment, let’s call a spade, less booze and sport time spent by people from non-white ethnicities, and this creates a social divide. Going to the right school even allows some really shonky players enter political power positions. And by shonky I mean people whose sense of themselves is far higher than their actual competency. At the moment in Australia, the conservative parties have had a decade of a number of poor government cabinets. This was not the case in the past, and I see signs of a new more competent generation of politicians coming up in the ranks of those parties.
Meanwhile, I don’t see any real practical sense that ‘white people’ are somehow loosing ground to people from non-white ethnicities. And while i have had plenty of conversation with people who do not have good will towards non-white people, especially aboriginal people, these conversations are by far among a less educated and less socially mobile part of the community. And not only white people are involved in ethnic or racially denigrating conversation but also people of non-white ethnicities and aboriginal people. So my conclusion is that everyone walks through the world with various prejudices related to race (skin colour), actual cultural behaviours, gender, age, socioeconomic status, etc etc. There can be practical issues relate to how to address unfairness or biases. I see that where these bushfires of ethnic ‘correction’ flare up, mostly I see that there is little lived experience with cross ethnic socialisation among those in argument. And what I would caution, if you fall into that category of white person I mentioned above, comfortable in your white middle class socialness, the before continuing to argue about the unfairness done you, spend your time in the company of people of other ethnicities. At some point you might see that much of this just gets down to a lack of flexibility of mindset. And I’m not averse to recognising that such rigidity goes for many parties.
I didn’t understand the connection you tried to make between migrant labour and housing costs… Could you clarify please?
It’s amazing how, at the slightest suggestion that Diversity and open borders might not be a shining utopia for everyone, and there could be valid reasons to at least discuss this, the liberals among us come out frantically insisting, no, Diversity is good, and the rest of us really are racist uneducated rubes…
I see this, and am being told this, every day in the US, in the broader community. I work for a fortune 500 company employing 40,000+ people worldwide. The Diversity and Inclusion office was started about 10 years ago, but is now roughly equal to the HR department. Their only task is to preach Diversity with an evangelical fervor. On a recent community meeting, they had a Black guy testifying to the racism he had suffered at our hands, to the point of breaking down and crying. As this is an Ivy League schooled Vice-President, overseeing 12 large manufacturing plants, for well over $1mm a year, I found this a bit performative.
My bosses, over the last 25 years, have been Black, English, Spanish, Chilean, Iraqi, Female, Chinese, and Indian. I’m not complaining, other than one or two obvious Diversity hires they have been fine people, but… The only way they could be any more diverse would be to fire me! There are only two other white Americans on my 30 person team.
And before you start thinking I’m a backwoods rube, I’ve lived for months at a time in China, Malaysia, Mexico, Romania… I’m perfectly comfortable being a minority and stateless. The US is the only place in the world I’ve seen where I’m told I have to be ashamed of myself.
An omniphobe, like me.
The first claim (the GRT) should be rejected because it is obviously false and because it is used to promote racist hatred of Jews.
But one might reject one or all of the various flavors of Conspiracy put forward while still facing the plain fact of white replacement as a demographic reality. While it is unlikely there is some secret cabal of Jews, or Illuminati or Satanists or begonia lovers – those people are dangerous – who meet in darkened rooms to plot whitey’s doom, it is also true that the woke openly work to destroy whitey and – more importantly – all his works, and even moderate progressives celebrate Diversity which is identical in practice to white replacement. All progressives openly look forward to that glorious year when whites will be a (still shrinking) minority, do they not? It’s no secret that the Rats like immigration because immigrants tend to vote Dem – at least at first. As for the globalist capitalists, they and the commies and the socialists agree that working class unity strengthens the working class, and Diversity (read fragmentation) weakens it. Not a Conspiracy, but several vectors all pushing in the same direction – white replacement.
Also we have the felt-need to keep the economy expanding infinitely and since whitey is increasingly unable to afford a family of his own, immigrants fill the gap. It is important that the planet be consumed as quickly as possible!
Yabut the fact that a Rat strategy has recently started to backfire does not mean it was not their strategy. I think we all know it was.
Perfect logic. But wokeness is racist because it casts whitey as implicitly racist – born bad.
True. But the question is whether one set of discriminatory policies is best offset by another set of discriminatory policies, or rather, the first set be abolished. AA is ‘racist’ on its face even if the intentions are noble. A case can be made for AA, but it is simply lying to pretend that it is not racist, it is explicitly racist – mind, here I am again using dictionary definitions.
Nice post El, very well argued.
Think of him as Identifying as Oppressed. Since, as with
gender, Identity has nothing whatsoever to do with reality, and is an entirely internal mind state, one cannot refute his claim by appealing to reality – he is Oppressed.
But still the work of DIE is not over, is it? There is still more progress to be made, yes?
This is yet another example of the language expansion I was talking about.
Films with all black casts are frequently hailed as “hella diverse” by the media, even though they’re the opposite of the kind of diverse that Ella is talking about.
So diverse can now either mean “no white people whatsoever” or, it can mean “everyone including whites.”
We can see how the promotion of the former anti-white meaning in the media can be pushed onto the populace and then be thusly defended by strategically switching back to the old definition when convenient like Ella is doing here.
Next she’ll ask what’s the problem with a word meaning two opposite things and feign ignorance as to how that could ever lead to any confusion because after all if the word “right” can mean correct but also mean not-left, then what’s the problem with interchangeably using diversity to mean “no white males” but also “everyone including white males.”
I mean she probably won’t now that I’ve predicted it out loud. But the point was they want to be able to switch between meanings without it being as obvious to discern as turn right vs yes that’s right.
It’s underhanded and conniving. Pulling strings, being sneakily manipulative is a feminine trait moreso than directness and negotiation which is masculine. Being manipulative on its own is neither good nor bad, it can be used for both. But what we’re seeing with its use here is definitely a case of toxic feminity.
The case for “AA” is almost the exact same case for using socio-economic status as a factor in these decisions.
The admissions process dives into a variety of criteria for these decisions. Past work experience, extracurriculars, grades, written essays, etc. As a process like this is already in place, there is no need to use racial stereotypes as a shortcut in decision making.
That AA proponents insist on using race as a crude proxy for determining an applicants socio-economic status, as opposed to just “determining the applicants socio-economic status”, is what propels “AA” to the status of pure racism.
Precisely. I happen to agree (as I suspect do you) that many of the criteria in the admissions process should be abolished. As the US President continues to sock the US taxpayer with the bills for the cash that went to these institutions, even the libertarian in me thinks this is a problem that should be solved.
However, rather than build a coalition of people to try and fix these rules, AA proponents instead divisively argue that since the rules are currently unfair, they should instead be unfair in ways they prefer.
In this way Progressives stand in the way of actual progress. And they do so in order to champion the idea that right and wrong should be decided based on the color of ones skin.
Most economic goods respond to demand in the market by furnishing supply. Housing simply doesn’t work this way. The reason is the value of building land- beyond a certain threshold of demand, the scarcity cost of the land increases at a faster rate than the increase in house prices. Ironically, demand stoking can actually reduce supply with housing, effectively leading to a market which is endemically prone to price gouging through scarcity cost. It’s Rentier economics, with the payment made up front on the price of a home.
As you can see, the increase in the price of building land has been enormous here in the UK, squeezing profit margins on actual house building more each year. What these figures mask is that more houses are being built per acre of building land than ever before, because this is the only way that building firms which aren’t also land speculators can turn a profit.
Back in 1995, an average acre plot would probably have 6 houses built upon it. These days 16 houses on an acre is by no means uncommon. Many refer to most of the new builds as rabbit hutches. Road access is usually single carriage AND shared by pedestrians, which means that when a wheelchair and a delivery van meet it can cause chaos. Pavements or walkways are non-existent. There is usually only a tiny strip for a front garden and only a little more out the back. There is virtually no clearance between houses, and flooding is common with new builds because not only are they often built upon flood plains, but the way they are built means that there is virtually no soakaway land.
America is heading in the same direction as the UK, but thankfully this phenomenon is at least somewhat limited to cities with employment and their feasible commuter belt. This might mean that with remote living, at least some of America’s ticking time bomb of a housing crisis can be somewhat deferred. Regardless, single family home production has been anaemic ever since 2008, and not only has the industry not recovered, but scarcity costs combined with local regulatory regimes which want to see people packed into high density concrete and glass monstrosities, means it probably never will.
I know people in the building trade with 20 years experience, perfect credit ratings and a degree of liquidity. The banks simply won’t lend them money to buy land (a secured asset) to increase building supply. They are quite happy that new houses are scarce, because it means they get to charge more interest on fundamentally larger mortgages. It’s a systemic price gouging scheme in which government is a full and equal partner. With higher house costs, they generally get to justify charging more in property taxes.
The role migrants play is that their arrival means that housing demand drastically outstrips supply, which is one of the factors which enables the systemic, market aggregation of rentier economics.
Motte and bailey. The interesting thing is that a word retains its ‘favor’ even when the content of the word is reversed 180. Thus ‘Diversity’ is a good word, we like the sound of it, it is just automatically given our approval because our moral reaction to the word is still tied in with the old meaning. But the word can now actually mean the exact opposite of what it used to mean, still, we attach a good feeling to it. Thus Racism is the opposite of racism and Diversity is the opposite of diversity and Discrimination is the opposite of discrimination – we wouldn’t want to discriminate, but if we treat everyone impartially that’s Discrimination.
Agreed. Still, in the spirit of centrist detente, I’d admit the possibility of a valid use of AA even if in practice it would be much better to focus on actual disadvantaged status in fact rather than the racial proxy. Perhaps an example is the way that India used AA to help the dalits – a heavy handed approach, but given the rankness of the discrimination there, not without merit.
Interesting that this is spin-doctored to look like it is charity for regular people when in fact it is charity for the Ivy leaguers.
Well said. Racism becomes Affirmative Racism.
My sister just sold her place and it was like that. Essentially a trailer prefabbed and placed on six concrete posts, 10x10 ‘yard’, double tracks of paving stones to form the driveway, the entire development on narrow one-way roads with no sidewalks and no drainage! I don’t know how in hell the building codes even permit that. She got $460,000 for the place.
Anybody tried that out? The guy seems to want to give both sides to every issue. Shocking.
The “demographics is destiny” idiocy has been shown, over and over, to be false. It is false, for a simple reason: You can’t put your foot into the same stream twice.
The proportion of “white” people is decreasing. That is, there are fewer persons of European ancestry. But there are NEW white people now. Asians are now becoming white. Specific Hispanic portions are becoming white. They are, basically, moving up the income and property ladder, and acting more like white people.
This highlights EXACTLY why “demographics is destiny” is stupid: Because the definition of the Republican and Democratic parties change, all the time. So, the subtext of DID is that “soon Democrats will win all the races all the time” is foolish, because the D and R parties are very different than they were even 10 years ago - Obama and Trump (the Wordle presidents, along with Biden) changed things.
I think your use of “blue collar” obscures the point because it tacks too closely to the Continental marxist notion of the urban proletariat, lumpen- or otherwise, and pointed excludes the rural free holders and the urban burgers; in other words the middle class.
The settlement that ultimately emerged in the Anglosphere from the English civil wars of the 1640s was that the center of political power should rest in the middle class. James Harrington postulated that political power follows economic power. This should be contrasted with Mao’s postulation that political flows from the barrel of a gun.
The Glorious Revolution in England vested political power in the upper middle class and landed gentry; the grandee faction during the civil wars. The American War of Independence vested political power in the 40 shilling freeholder; the Leveller faction during the civil wars.
The point of this is that the regimes in power in the political West seem intent extinguishing the economic and hence the political power of the entire middle class. Naturally, this requires the Stalinist/Maoist extermination of the freeholder and burger class whatever their race, gender or national origin. Going after whites is merely the first step.
I envision in the near future a new subset will emerge:
“I’m a white-acting (insert sexual preference), (insert gender) of (insert non-Caucasian heritage)….”. Intersections be intersecting.
I largely agree with you, but would stipulate that the model you state in increasingly becoming an artifact of the past. In the last couple of decades we’ve effectively seen a colour chromatograph effect which has separated some new class interests, whilst merging others together. At the top we see the clerisy, a merging of highly educated interests- the non-peasant workers in the Adminstrative state with its parasitic capture of office jobs at the expense of blue collar government contractors, media, Big Tech, much of finance, academia and the professional management class within corporations.
At the same time, small businesses owners interests have increasingly converged with those of the blue collar class, given the stifling unfairness which SMEs experience through government imposed regulatory regimes compared to corporations, and the fact that SMEs are a huge source of employment for the blue collar class. I would also add that to my mind, trade professionals have always been blue collar, even though their incomes often exceed the highly educated, and even though in some instances they increasingly fall into the SME class, many having decided to become self-employed or run their own businesses rather than experience the continual ‘squeeze’ of the professional management class.
But they real chromatographic changes have occurred at the level of values. Simply put the blue collar and entrepreneurial class now stand directly opposed to the overwhelming indoctrination which now exists within the clerisy and the highly educated class. In the UK, this resulted in the smashing of the Red Wall. The basic problem is that the values of the university educated Momentum wing of the British Labour Party, with its fondness for constructing an Intersectional coalition which priorities issues on the basis of race, gender and sexuality stands in direct competition with the interests of the blue collar class, and traditional labour voters.
Matthew Goodwin has spoken extensively about this schism within the Left in the UK, and a smart movement on the Right in the US would capitalise on this self-same division on the American Left:
A good example of this shifting political landscape comes from the world of Ben Shapiro, who to many represent a pretty mainstream religious conservative. Recently, he was voicing standard Republican talking points on Unions, only to find that his own subscriber fees paying audience was disagreeing with him, as to their own views and experiences of Unions. Put another way, they fundamentally agreed with him on values, but differ somewhat on economics, especially in those areas which are considered blue collar staples like Labour Unions.
Some have argued that a party realignment in ongoing throughout many parts of the West, as Blue Collar and SME business interests realign against the interests of Big Government, Big Tech and crony capitalists. One of the most interesting ways this shifting Right demographic ethos manifests is in relation to Republican voters support for Amazon workers attempts to unionise- 55% either strongly or somewhat support Amazon workers, with a further 15% answering don’t know.
The smart move would be to differentiate a general Right-wing support for commerce and free enterprise from the machinations of the crony capitalist Davos class, who are increasingly more closely aligned with government interests. Here is one of the most intelligent takes I’ve seen on the subject of the WEF:
The video argues that the multiple stakeholder model inherently dilutes democracy by relegating it to only one of a multiple number of stakeholders, but I would argue that its just as dangerous to entrust any objective to large corporations whose own motives begin and end with extracting as much revenue as they can from taxpayer funded ‘priorities’.
It seems to me that, silly as it sounds to say it, one of the problems here is a simple artifact of language – we use the words ‘right wing’ and ‘capitalist’ to describe both even tho they are very different. The common word tends to force these things into the same box even tho they are as different as Danish ‘socialism’ and Stalin’s ‘socialism’. These semantic difficulties IMHO cause not just confusion but real harm. If we had better language it would be materially easier for real businessmen and real workers to unite to burn down Goldman … actually almost all of Wall St – let’s err on the side of overdoing it rather than letting some of the Gordon Gekkos live.