Suburbs – our new slums?

I found this year-old article entitled Suburbs – our new slums? While the article does contain some silly left-wing nonsense, I think there is mostly truth in there and thus it’s worth reading.

The premise is that a crash in housing prices in suburbs, combined with Section 8, means poor tenants will move in and the neighborhood will be ruined.

But the positive benefits of moving to a neighborhood of less poverty diminish as the number of poor relocating there increases, new research suggests. Families are far less likely to pull themselves out of poverty when their exposure to other poor families reaches a kind of tipping point.

George C. Galster, a professor of urban affairs at Wayne State University, has quantified this poverty threshold as roughly 15 to 20 percent of a neighborhood. If the poverty rate exceeds that, Mr. Galster said, "All hell breaks loose" in the form of crime, drop outs, teen pregnancies, drug use and, in turn, declining property values.

I don’t find this surprising at all. When there are only one or two poor people living in a middle-class neighborhood, they will absorb the predominant middle-class values and become better people. But when there are enough poor people for them to form their own sub-group, they then enforce each other’s poor-people values and the classic “white flight” situation ensues, in which property values decline, attracting even more poor people to the area, and the result is a big slum.

Comments

[ExtraMedium]

Europe has been putting welfare recipients in the suburbs (Banlieues in France, Housing Estates in the UK) for decades. This allows even middle-class people to live in major European cities because the negative pathologies exist somewhere else and housing is freed up.

My mom rented to a woman on section 8 and her 16 year old son a few years ago. The woman was in her 40's without a checking account, and her son broke the glass on the sliding door. The rent was always paid on the last possible day each month.

[Wencil]

Half Sigma,

How does the shift of blue state white people to the cities impact fertility?

It seems to me that where ever populations urbanize, dysgenic fertility accelerates.

For example, in Japan most of the women with higher IQ tend to move to cities (not just tokyo, but one of the cities of Japan) pursue a moderated / diluted "sex and the city" type lifestyle - a lifestyle that generally produces zero to one offspring. Meanwhile women with lower IQ tend to live in more "traditional" less densely populated (rural or suburban) areas and have two or more children.

In the USA, my observation is that highly religious / highly traditional women will almost always avoid living in the cities. If a woman is born with super high IQ in to a religious traditional family she will avoid moving to the cities. She and her parents are well aware of the fact that simply living in a city is going to erode her religious beliefs. So I don't think the presence of cities really impacts the religious / traditional types in the USA

On the other hand, if you are talking about whites that are not too religious not to traditional, it seems to me that the decision to live in a city or not really impacts fertility. Huge numbers of white women who move to Manhattan resolve to never leave, and that means a choice between finding a male who can support a family in Manhattan (generally meaning a male with over $300k per year income) OR living a life with no children.

Overall, if you have a daughter and she moves to Manhattan to make her life, you are **much** more likely to wind up with zero grandchildren than if you have a daughter and she moves to a suburban enclave like Short Hills or Westport or Scarsdale to make her life. Single women find Short Hills Westport and Scarsdale boring. There are far fewer pick up artists and Roissy types, and when they find a male significant other the single woman is more likely to cling tightly to him. The perception is that single men are in short supply in the suburbs and plentiful in Manhattan, so women living in the suburbs - even young attractive women - are much more likely to accept marriage to a man who makes less money and or a man who is more beta

Overall, if you look at a situation in which the average white woman who spends her life in Manhattan has one child and the average white woman who spends her life in the suburbs has two children, is this dysgenic? I think it is since higher IQ women are more likely to be in the Manhattan category. Anyone else on the blog have a sense as to how dysgenic it is?

The issue of dysgenic vs eugenic reproduction is very very important. White groups that embrace dysgenic breeding patterns suffer greatly. I think Serbia is a good example of a place that embraced dysgenic breeding - essentially for the past thousand years the best fighters in Serbia were the ones that had the most children. High IQ serbian men were generally defeated in battles and not allowed to reproduce. As a result, today's serbians (who racially appear very very white and have all white genetic material) have an IQ of only 90.

Ashkenazi jews had exactly the opposite policy. An ashkenazi jew that was particularly good at fighting or warfare was not appreciated or rewarded by his community in any way whatsoever.
The fighters were NOT the elite There were two separate elite groups within the ashkenazi community from the year 1000 to 1900. Talmud sholars and Successful businessmen. The route to elite status was available through both of these paths.

I am trying to figure out how powerful the eugenic effect was for the ashkenazi -

Has any academics done studies of the birth and death records of individual ashkenazi communities in the relevant time period.

My personal hypothesis is that in a typical ashkenazi community, the best talmud scholars would have an average of 50 grandchildren survive to age 40, the best businessmen would have an average of 50 grandchildren survive to age 40.

Meanwhile, men that were not successful as torah scholars and not at all successful in business would be effectively prohibited from having children. (EVEN IF THESE MEN WERE GREAT AT SPORTS, GREAT FIGHTERS, GREAT MILITARY MEN. NO ONE IN THE ASHKENAZI COMMUNITY VALUED OR APPRECIATED FIGHTING SKILL) One way to prohibit low IQ ashkenazi them from having children would be to forbid marraige completely. Another equally effective method would be for the community to only allow them to marry older widows who were known to be infertile.

It is very well known among scholars of Ireland that elaborate social strictures were put in place to reduce the birthrate. In Ireland, young females were told by the church and the large community to not marry unless they could attract a proposal from a man who had the money to feed the offspring. As a result, in various periods in Irish history, 30 or 40 percent of the males were forbidden to reproduce.

While it is pretty well known that many males in Ireland were forbidden to reproduce, for some reason this phenom has not been studied among the Ashkenazim.

[Peter A]

This is has been going on for at least 10 years. Even "exurbs" - places like the Poconos in PA, a 2.5 hour commute from NYC, are starting to feel social pressure from newcomers who have slum values. Giuliani did a great job expelling the more disfunctional social elements out of the city -but they had to go somewhere...

[mannthomas]

Just look at the San Fernando Valley (a formerly predominately middle-class and very safe area of LA) to get a glimpse of what's coming to your nearest suburb -- slummification on an enormous scale, increased crime rates, increased rates of poverty, increased gang activity, etc. Essentially, all hell breaking loose.

[josh]

White flight is the Nash equilibrium as soon as section 8 is announced. The sooner you get out, the better value you get for your house. Its only a matter of time. La Griffe du Lion had an article about how neighborhoods "go black".

[robert61]

You have a lot of interesting ideas, Wencil.

The exodus of the American middle class from the cities is a post-WWII phenomenon, isn't it, driven by southern black migration? (I don't know; I'm asking.) Did it start with the Civil Rights Act of 1965 or is was it already under way as soon as WWII ended?

I grew up in the suburbs of Pittsburgh and then Boston, but have lived in central Stockholm most of my adult life. City life has always been attractive to Americans, but during my lifetime, it always came with a requirement of sending your kids to private school. There are nice neighborhoods in both Pittsburgh and Boston, but you couldn't rely on the public schools.

One of the funny anomalies of American vs. Swedish life - where you expect the Americans to be the big libertarians and the Swedes to be the socialist collectivists - is that the Swedes have enthusiastically adopted school vouchers, while Americans reject them with a moral vengeance. Given the distribution of IQs here, the inner-city schools were always best, but now there are even better alternatives, both here in the city and out in the 'burbs. Of course they teach your kids a lot of multiculti socialist crapola, but still...

When you think about it, it's pretty odd that America let its cities be occupied by the underclass and overclass for three quarters of a century. Where the hell has that ever happened before?

[rob]

When there are only one or two poor people living in a middle-class neighborhood, they will absorb the predominant middle-class values and become better people.

I'm not convinced. It's very possible that underclass families in middle class areas conform because of repression. It's one thing to deal on the stoop when neighbors don't snitch. In a better area, it's way riskier. (Black) criminals stick out more in whiter areas, so they're more likely to get caught.

Right now, when places go slummy, white people just run. If that gets too expensive or difficult, like with 2 hour commutes whites won't be able to run. We'll see way more racial conflict as whites try to force middle-class on blacks.

[RobertSims3]

Half Sigma, good post. Concerned Netizen posted the following

'Steve Sailer’s recent blog post about the increasing whiteness of elite cities demonstrates the disconnect between the HBD-blogosphere and what’s happening in the real world. "

I agree. The HBD blogosphere has degenerated into a heavily anti-Semitic sewer.

Posted by: concerned netizen | June 07, 2010 at 01:26 PM
________________________

Concerned, I think you are missing something here. Most of the moderators of HBD web sites know that Jewish people have higher IQ, and know how much Jewish people have contributed to civilization. The HBD web site moderators allow posts from the anti semites just for entertainment value. Sailer and Managan and the others know the truth about the anti semites, but they also know how boring their web sites would be without the anti semites. The anti semites provide the same role that David Alexander provides, comic relief. (By the way I consider David a friend and think his posts come from the heart, but that being said he does provide laughs)

Remember that the anti semites are by and large people who have failed in life, failed to get a job that they like, failed to make as much money as they would have liked, failed to have the sons that they would have liked to have had (many of the older anti semites see their sons getting tatoos, acting like wiggers, dating mexican women, taking meth, etc) These anti semites want to over dramatize the victimization of whites, blame their problems on the "other" instead of blaming their problems on the low IQ that the average anti semite's family has. The anti semites dream of war between Jews and non jewish whites because in an open shooting war - the anti semite can rise from zero to hero. In American society as it is constructed today, the anti semites are regarded as losers by everyone, by attractive females if the anti semite is single and by their own children if the anti semite is married and has children.

Now I see David Alexander in the same light - David doesn't like the status that he has in our society - He is perceptive enough, and HONEST enough with himself to recognize that he was born with an IQ that he is unhappy with -- by the standards of the college educated, civilized introspective people that he wants to hang around with and the jobs he used to want to get, his IQ is just a little too low - he is unable to sustain a relationship with a woman that is up to his standards, he studied really hard for some sort of useful job (engineering) but the IQ he was born with prevented him from getting a useful job.

I would encourage everyone to show a little understanding for where the anti semites are coming from, the same way we all show understanding for where David Alexander is coming from.

[HS: David Alexander's IQ is higher than the average Ashkenazi Jew's, and his ancestors come from Haiti's elite, not stupid peasants.]

[rightwingnut]

Just look at the San Fernando Valley (a formerly predominately middle-class and very safe area of LA) to get a glimpse of what's coming to your nearest suburb -- slummification on an enormous scale, increased crime rates, increased rates of poverty, increased gang activity, etc. Essentially, all hell breaking loose.

Posted by: mannthomas | June 07, 2010 at 12:40 PM
----
I would attribute San Fernando Valley's demise to what it has catered since the 70's. What do you expect when it has earned the name 'San Pornando Valley' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fernando_Valley#Economy

[Gamma Man]

Indeed, the fate of the middle classes is to live ever impoverished lives in slums thanks to socialism.

[J1]

There are too many cliches in this article to address all of them, but to hit the highlights:

"reclaiming the urban living experience -- dense, walkable, diverse, mixed-use neighborhoods in and around city centers"

As you've pointed out yourself, the absolute last thing people moving back to the city want is diversity. Dense and walkable certainly, as long as there aren't too many of the wrong kind of people. While I love places like Manhattan, the truth is we could probably pay off the national debt with the money wasted on urban redevelopment in the US.

"Americans are disillusioned with sprawl, they're tired of driving, they recognize the soullessness of suburban life"

Define "soulless". Also, let's compare commutes. I live 45 miles from the center of the major city that anchors my burb. I am the only person I know of in my neighborhood (defined as the cul-de-sac I live on, roughly 40 homes) who drives more than 10 miles to get to work. Folks like Villano seem to be completely unaware that the jobs have followed the educated.

"forcing people into their cars, limiting social interaction and discouraging racial and socio-economic diversity"

The burbs do force you into your car for a lot of things, but again, the last thing people gentrifying the city are after is diversity. I think another commenter here once noted that Seattle and Portland were the favorite cities of would be urban liberals, and if you wanted to know why, go to one of them and look around - you'll figure it out.

"the positive benefits of moving to a neighborhood of less poverty diminish as the number of poor relocating there increases, new research suggests"

Somebody had to do research to figure that out?

"The frequency of interaction with neighbors declines, social networks break down"

Unless you are actively hiding from your neighbors, this is absolute BS.

The trouble with articles like this is they look at a subdivision in the fringe swamplands of Miami or the eastern edge of Palmdale, where prices have dropped 50+%, and extrapolate that to every suburb in the country. But most areas didn't see stratospheric increases in home prices, and haven't seen corresponding drops. If houses were selling for 400K four years ago, and they still are, you aren't generally going to see this type of problem. Also, articles like this frequently call urban areas suburbs. The San Fernando Valley, for example, is for the most part in and part of the city of Los Angeles, not a suburb in the conventional sense.

"Swedes have enthusiastically adopted school vouchers, while Americans reject them with a moral vengeance"

The American political class maybe. The American public pretty solidly supports vouchers, particularly wealthy whites and poor blacks.

[HS: I think the ideal place to live is one that's walkable, but where you can also have a car and use it when the car is more convenient, plus not have any low-IQ low-future-time-orientation neighbors. But for various reasons, you can only have two of the above and not all three.

Actually, I take that back. Arlington, Virginia sort of had all three.]

[Joe Morrison]

"I don’t find this surprising at all. When there are only one or two poor people living in a middle-class neighborhood, they will absorb the predominant middle-class values and become better people."

The poor never change -- especially the black and Hispanic poor. I do not believe exposure to middle class values matters one iota. Their social and economic status reflects largely what is inbred: low IQ and poor impulse control. The tipping point is merely a psychological tipping point for whites who leave en mass because they have reached their limit of tolerance for break-ins, assaults, graffiti, public filth, and drug dealing at the local playgrounds.

[Camlost]

"I live 45 miles from the center of the major city that anchors my burb. I am the only person I know of in my neighborhood (defined as the cul-de-sac I live on, roughly 40 homes) who drives more than 10 miles to get to work. Folks like Villano seem to be completely unaware that the jobs have followed the educated."

Very well said - jobs will follow the educated, in many instances.

Here in Atlanta the Republican state govt has been long proposing to build a second outer freeway loop, far outside of the current Atlanta perimeter, in order to ease the horrible traffic in Atlanta's northern suburbs. This loop would be about 200 miles in circumference, in contrast to the 60-mile circumference of the current Atlanta perimeter (aka I-285)

Guess who is using their political influence to block the building of this additional freeway?

Yes - the black democratic leadership in the city of Atlanta is stonewalling the process, since they know that all of the major companies in the Atlanta city limits will move their HQ northwards to the whiter suburbs to be closer to their high salary (white) workers, and to escape the crime and high taxes of the city.

[Brent]

Half Sigma said the following:
I think the ideal place to live is one that's walkable, but where you can also have a car and use it when the car is more convenient, plus not have any low-IQ low-future-time-orientation neighbors.

My reply -
Half Sigma - have you spent much time in the North of Montana neighborhood in Santa Monica? This neighborhood takes up the entire North end of Santa Monica. It has nice normal upper middle class houses on "six to an acre lots" that means the houses have really small side yards so as to provide privacy between houses, but great wide tree shaded sidewalks for strolling the neighborhood. You are never more than a three block walk from the cafes, restaurants, and shops of Montana Avenue which are similar in many ways to the retail in the West Village of Manhattan. Also the weather is almost always between 60 degrees and 79 degrees. No snow ever. No hot sticky humid weather ever.

Huge numbers of Manhattanites that have settled in this neighborhood bringing a Manhattan-like feel.

Ever checked it out? If so you should, next time you are on the west coast.

[HS: I've been to Santa Monica and it was my favorite neighborhood in the LA area.]

[J1]

"But for various reasons, you can only have two of the above and not all three"

If I have to choose two, I'll take 2 and 3, and that's a pretty good description of most upper middle class suburbs. There are defintely places with all three, as long as money is no object...

[Jaymthegenius]

"When there are only one or two poor people living in a middle-class neighborhood, they will absorb the predominant middle-class values and become better people. But when there are enough poor people for them to form their own sub-group, they then enforce each other’s poor-people values and the classic “white flight” situation ensues, in which property values decline, attracting even more poor people to the area, and the result is a big slum."

How would the poor be able to move into such neighborhoods in the first place? No one can live in a middle-class neighborhood by flipping burgers for a living, nor could working at Wal-Mart. Besides, a middle-class neighborhood would not seem "raw" or "real" enough for them.

Besides, demographic changes encourage people to move further out (I await hopefully for the day when post-war architectural forms will no longer be taught; although I do feel fortunate enough to live in a place with houses dating back to the 18th century. Federalist, Georgian, Victorian, and Cotswold styles need to have a massive revival).

"The poor never change -- especially the black and Hispanic poor. I do not believe exposure to middle class values matters one iota. Their social and economic status reflects largely what is inbred: low IQ and poor impulse control."

I do not want to say this, but I have dealt with someone from Africa (who wasn't even poor) who seemed like a good person at first, and he talked about how rich Africa is (it has many unexploited resources) and how I would never want to return to America if I went to Africa. Also, he mentioned that they always have new cars after I had mentioned that it's upsetting that Wal-Mart and McDonald's are considered luxuries in Africa.

Dealing with him was a nightmare; he was very unfocused, loud, had a penchant for interrupting, and was unpredictable. Needless to say, I am glad I don't have to deal with him any longer, it was such a tedious event.

"Indeed, the fate of the middle classes is to live ever impoverished lives in slums thanks to socialism."

The owning classes, for whom society was meant to serve, are the ones who control the banks and corporations. If you were to understand the mindset of many of the owning classes you would find many do not like newcomers (to reference an example I previously made elsewhere people in Nantucket and Greenwich complain about new money moving in) into their economic stratum.

They want to maintain the fact that 1% own 40% of the wealth, because that would mean fewer people would have influence. Also, if 5% (they would rise up from the middle class) owned 40% of the wealth, that would mean that many Social Register listees (who love maintaining the power they inherited) would lose a portion of their influence, because the money, and therefore power, wouldn't be as concentrated in their hands.

[Trumwill]

Suburbs being away from the city are only a problem if your job is in the city. In a lot of younger and sprawlier cities, this just isn't the case. As J1 points out, the jobs followed the workers. When I was living in the suburbs I tried to get a job downtown to ride the bus. There weren't all that many to be had.

It varies from city to city, I'm sure.

[Jaymthegenius]

I see many references to eugenics in this comments; I will further add that in ancient Greece behavior patterns were studied between different social groups. the ancient European Religions stated that the gods set up a "divinely ordained" hierarchy. Eugenics was a very popular practice in those days because it was thought that talent was passed down from generation to generation. While even today genes play a role in one's intelligence and disorders, the theory greatly underestimates the effect of one's environment and access to learning skills and knowledge. But this because evolution, not because Apollo, Hera, Quan-Yin, Anubis, Yahweh, Dionysus, Xenu, Quetzalcoatl, Odin, etc. willed such a hierarchy into being (one Greek philosopher, Anaxamander, even stated that humans evolved from fish. It wasn't until Lucilio Vanini in the 17th century until the next pre-Darwinian evolutionists arose. At least to my knowledge)

Different behavioral patterns and idioms between the patricians and the proletariat alike were noticed and recorded throughout the generations. The so-called "talents" of the patricians were developed because they had plenty of leisure time, resources, and education relative to the proletariat and had inherited social and cultural capital. Plebeians and slaves only knew and communicated with other plebeians and slaves, and inherited the knowledge, values, and mannerisms of their parents, as their parents before them, ad infinitum throughout the generation. In effect, a plebeian would have been nurtured in an environment that ensured he would adopt plebeian interests, tastes, evolve a plebeian body type, and ways of communicating. A shaved head is an example of a slave's caste-mark in this era. The upper-classes were corpulent and lighter-skinned with less exposure to the sun, and they were fewer in number. The proletariat and slaves were muscular and tanned, both signs of being outdoors and performing manual labor. Today, however, with the relative abundance of food, and a less active lifestyle overall, tanned skin and being in relatively good shape is a higher caste-mark because they imply leisure time. This is to illustrate how caste-marks change with the passage of time as circumstances change.

To cite a modern example; when one uses the word "gay" as pejorative, either with or without homosexual connotations (e.g.: "That is quite 'gay'"), modifies an adjective with an adjective (e.g.: "Real(sic)good"), and use double negatives, they also declare that one is most likely working-class.

By contrast, the Patricians distinct caste-marks and place in society were incorrectly attributed to God/the gods. Economic capital passed down from one generation to the next which afforded various luxuries and education, which were also passed down along with cultural capital (i.e.: Forms of knowledge, skills, and advantages that bestow upon the individual a higher status in society. Passed down from one's parents and the environment in which one was reared.) and social capital (i.e.: One's connections.)

[Jaymthegenius]

[I made some corrections here]

I see many references to eugenics in these comments, I will further add that in ancient Greece behavior patterns were studied between different social groups.

The ancient European Religions stated that the gods set up a "divinely ordained" hierarchy. Eugenics was a very popular practice in those days because it was thought that talent was passed down from generation to generation. While even today genes play a role in one's intelligence and disorders, the theory greatly underestimates the effect of one's environment and access to learning skills and knowledge. But this because evolution, not because Apollo, Hera, Quan-Yin, Anubis, Yahweh, Dionysus, Xenu, Quetzalcoatl, Odin, etc. willed such a hierarchy into being (one Greek philosopher, Anaxamander, even stated that humans evolved from fish. It wasn't until Lucilio Vanini in the 17th century until the next pre-Darwinian evolutionists arose. At least to my knowledge)

Different behavioral patterns and idioms between the patricians and the proletariat alike were noticed and recorded throughout the generations. The so-called "talents" of the patricians were developed because they had plenty of leisure time, resources, and education relative to the proletariat and had inherited social and cultural capital. Plebeians and slaves only knew and communicated with other plebeians and slaves, and inherited the knowledge, values, and mannerisms of their parents, as their parents before them, ad infinitum throughout the generation. In effect, a plebeian would have been nurtured in an environment that ensured he would adopt plebeian interests, tastes, evolve a plebeian body type, and ways of communicating. A shaved head is an example of a slave's caste-mark in this era. The upper-classes were corpulent and lighter-skinned with less exposure to the sun, and they were fewer in number. The proletariat and slaves were muscular and tanned; both were signs of being outdoors and performing manual labor. Today, however, with the relative abundance of food, and a less active lifestyle overall, tanned skin and being in relatively good shape is a higher caste-mark because they imply leisure time. This is to illustrate how caste-marks change with the passage of time as circumstances change.

To cite a modern example; when one uses the word "gay" as pejorative, either with or without homosexual connotations (e.g.: "That is quite 'gay'"), modifies an adjective with an adjective (e.g.: "Real (sic) good"), and use double negatives, they also declare that one is most likely working-class.

By contrast, the Patricians distinct caste-marks and place in society were incorrectly attributed to God/the gods. Economic capital passed down from one generation to the next which afforded various luxuries and education, which were also passed down along with cultural capital (i.e.: Forms of knowledge, skills, and advantages that bestow upon the individual a higher status in society. Passed down from one's parents and the environment in which one was reared.) and social capital (i.e.: One's connections.)

[Red Line]

"...is that the Swedes have enthusiastically adopted school vouchers, while Americans reject them with a moral vengeance."

Guess which Americans reject those the most.

[ironrailsironweights.wordpress.com]

"I live 45 miles from the center of the major city that anchors my burb. I am the only person I know of in my neighborhood (defined as the cul-de-sac I live on, roughly 40 homes) who drives more than 10 miles to get to work."

I live on Long Island, which has long been stereotyped as commuter territory. One would be excused in thinking that the majority of working residents commute into Manhattan. In reality, it's just barely one-fifth.

--

"HS: I've been to Santa Monica and it was my favorite neighborhood in the LA area."

I never would've thought you'd like the Peoples' Republic of Santa Monica.

Peter

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"Overall, if you look at a situation in which the average white woman who spends her life in Manhattan has one child"

I doubt Manhattan's white fertility rate is an ideal proxy for the overall fertility rate of educated white women because only the minority of super wealthy white women spend their lives mostly in Manhattan.

The rest normally end up marrying and moving out to the suburbs.

[Test Test]

We get it, HS! You bought a condo, your neighbors are white, and you hope it stays that way.

Your investment probably will go up, but I wouldn't go out on a limb and assume it will do better than similar areas that are upscale and have minority populations.

Your blog has gone from "intelligence pays" to "intelligence, morally, should pay" to "intelligence doesn't pay, but I need to make money, how can I pretend it did as an investment strategy?" I sort of went through these phases myself, skipping the last one.

I think that most of the correlation between IQ and income is caused by its use as a barrier to entry. Its actual utility on many jobs is occasional at best, and someone who scores 99th percentile on an IQ test does not think at that level 100% of the time (the score reflects a peak, when they are both awake and expending considerable effort trying think fast.) Johnny Cochran did not need to ace his LSATs to succeed in playing the race card; an investment banker does not need to be a quant jock these days when millions of foreign math PhDs are begging for work.

Moreover, minorities have successfuly ensured that any costs of their accent will be paid by the United States rather than by themselves. The true HBD investments exist overseas. If you believe it benefits an economy when the sharpest people have the best jobs, then you need to compare a country in which affirmative action is not wanted or needed to the US and see if it outperforms.

[HS: I haven't bought a condo. I thought about it, but didn't. Conoco Phillips stock might be a better investment than a condo in a white neighborhood in an elite city.]

[M]

" the last thing people gentrifying the city are after is diversity. I think another commenter here once noted that Seattle and Portland were the favorite cities of would be urban liberals, and if you wanted to know why, go to one of them and look around - you'll figure it out."

People say that here all the time, and the appeal of that meme is obvious. We can't deny that SWPLs have high IQs, so if they disagree with the IQ worshipers, that creates dissonance. This way, however, they really do secretly believe what we do, but are just hypocrites! We get to be smart AND honest. We're heroes, really.

Sadly, that simply isn't true. SWPLs love Portland and Portland is very white, and those two facts are not coincidental. Where HBDers don't/won't understand is that the supposed cause and effect is actually a feedback loop, and the other effect is much stronger. SWPLs love Portland, so they move there, so it's white (because SWPLs are overwhelmingly white). There is no secret racism. They DO want diversity. They just also want other things, including a lot of things that only a high density of other SWPLs can provide (not 100% density, but high). Not just white people - they don't want rednecks or country club members. They want SWPLs of any race.

[HS: "SWPLs love Portland, so they move there, so it's white (because SWPLs are overwhelmingly white)"

But a significant reason they love Portland is because it lacks the problems of cities with lots of NAMs. The other significant reason is that it's populated by other SWPLs--they like Portland because everyone there is like them. They like Portland for it's LACK OF DIVERSITY.]

[kurt9]

I live in Portland area and can tell you that it is definitely a white/Asian paradise. The downtown area is clean and full of artsy SWPL's. The Portland area has only 3% African-American population. The Hispanic population is increasing, however, but remains below 10%. Portland is popular with SWPL's because it is mostly white and Asian. SWPL's are not comfortable living around NAM's and will go out of their way to avoid doing so.

[Barry]

Kurt thanks for the heads up.

Do you see a lot of pan handlers or beggars in any part of Portland? I want to live in a place with none of those. I don't care what race they are I don't want them around.

Help me out and let me know what the scoop is

[Jaymthegenius]

" The true HBD investments exist overseas."

People talk about how "diverse" Dubai is. However, individuals typically stay within their own racial clique.

[J1]

"We can't deny that SWPLs have high IQs"

The SWPLs I know run the gamut in terms of intelligence. They're no smarter or dumber than any other group.

Semi-related: The residents of the outer ring burb I live in on average have a much higher level of education than the people I know who live in urban SWPL enclaves.

"the North of Montana neighborhood in Santa Monica? This neighborhood takes up the entire North end of Santa Monica. It has nice normal upper middle class houses"

Again, if money was no object... A neighborhood where single family homes start at $2,000,000 (yes, after the bubble) is kind of pressing the "middle class" definition, upper or otherwise. Think I'm exaggerating?

http://realestate.yahoo.com/search/California/Santa_Monica/homes-for-sale?typeBak=realestate&p=Santa+Monica%2C+CA&type=classified&priceLow=2000000&priceHigh=4000000&bedroomLow=&bathroomLow=&search=Search

[M]

"But a significant reason they love Portland is because it lacks the problems of cities with lots of NAMs."

That may well be, but that's hardly the same thing. If true, then what they want - living in diversity and lacking the problems thereof - is impractical but not inherently contradictory. It would be inaccurate to say "they don't want diversity." It might be more accurate to say "they're not willing to make the sacrifices for diversity," but even that is not necessarily (and I think rarely is) a conscious choice.

"The other significant reason is that it's populated by other SWPLs--they like Portland because everyone there is like them. They like Portland for it's LACK OF DIVERSITY."

No, that isn't the same thing. Wanting a population of people like yourself is not the same thing as NOT wanting populations of anyone else. Do you not see that?

[TGGP]

Surprised nobody has linked to Kotkin/New Geography yet:
http://www.newgeography.com/content/001601-the-suburban-exodus-are-we-there-yet

[superdestroyer]

There is no more helpless feeling than standing on the sidewalk waiting for the bus. You cannot avoid thugs and creeps, you cannot leave the area and still try to catch the bus.

I have always thought that women's liberation depended on the car. Women using busses are easy targets for criminals and the criminals know exactly where they women will be.

At least in several cities, subways are much safer than taking the bus/street car. You pay before the wait begins. With buses, predators do not have to spend a dollar to get close to those who are waiting.

Middle class women should be very thankful of the car because it made movement and chld rearing much easier.

[kurt9]

Barry,

Portland's downtown does have a fair number of street people. However, they mostly behave and are not a problem. There is no aggressive panhandling like you encounter in places like San Francisco.

Portland is very nice. I highly recommend it for SWPL types.

[Miguel Madeira]

In almost every country in the world, lower classes live in the suburbs and middle-class live in the city; it is natural that, with time, US will "regress to the mean"

[Rhio2k]

"The poor never change"

Freakin' truth. My family was never ghetto, but lived in the projects due to well, being poor. We were able to get a loan on a foreclosed house and paid off the mortgage ourselves. 4 years later, the city gave the denizens of 3 housing projects section 8 vouchers, and moved them into good neighborhoods (including the friendly caucasian and hispanic neighborhood my family now resides in. The crime started in under a week. The caucasian renters moved out and the thugs and welfare queens moved in. Now this place is mostly black on the outer fringes, and diverse and friendly on the inner 2 avenues. Every other day I get stares from other brothers I've never seen before (I have the misfortune of looking like every black guy some thug had beef with where he came from. Mistaken identity might get me shot one day) as they pass in their $300 car with a $3,000 sound system blaring. Lucky for my family, the good people on these 2 blocks haven't moved out. I'm black myself, but living this close to project trash is worrisome. You don't feel safe pulling weeds in your own front lawn.