Luxury beliefs remind us that the aristocracy never died with monarchism, and they still control popular opinion, conspicuous consumption, and a large share of social engineering policy. H.P. Lovecraft had some interesting things to say about the aristocracy. I recommend reviewing them, to understand thought process 100 years ago. It's not wildly different today.
I've heard the "luxury belief" argument applied in the opposite direction: to justify car-oriented development and design. I've debated with people who claim that bike lanes and public transit are for urban elites and that road diets and elimination of parking minimums harm working class people who need personal vehicles for their jobs or who have no choice but to endure long commutes. I don't buy it because making ownership of a car the price of entry into the economy is the ultimate luxury belief. Nevertheless, the argument is out there and advocates for urban vitality need to be prepared for it.
There are many new and used electric cars with less upfront cost than the average ICE and lifetime costs are just dramatically lower - not to speak of electric motorcycles which have the lowest cost per km by a wide margin.
Renewable energy already reduces energy prices and can do so even more dramatically in the future.
Minimum wages are a proven way to fight poverty with minimal effects on unemployment (as long as it doesn't exceed 60% of local median wages).
Nice article and extension of these ideas. I really resonate with it when it comes to housing. There’s a fascinating inversion that progressives do there. Housing is expensive because of capitalism! Evil landlords! Slave plantation corporations! All very juicy sounding ideas when not looked at in any detail. But when one does, one can easily see that it’s actually the “luxury beliefs” that drive up prices in the most expensive locales, like SF where I used to live, by restricting supply. I had a neighbor (who owned) who went all out on a NIMBY war against a new single lot building because it was to be 3 stories instead of 2. From what I understand they held up the project for years. This wasn’t an outlier case, of course. And in Portland there was a time where there were yard signs everywhere saying “preserve historic Portland homes” which was code for “don’t change single family zoning”. It’s hard to convey in a short comment just how struck my brain is at the cognitive dissonance. The real and obvious causes in basic supply/demand economics are ignored, while the results of their phalanx of choices (that hugely restrict supply) are projected onto a “bad other”, an abstraction - capitalism. The poor and middle classes get hurt the most, the NIMBYs are the direct and unequivocal cause of that hurt, and yet they entirely disown their agency in the whole process. Psychologically it’s fascinating (and frustrating) to watch. I could give a thousand other urban planning examples in agreement with you, but the point is it’s always the same pattern, it’s only the slogans and details that change.
Each person can read Henderson's work and determine if luxury beliefs are true or false. I write about human flourishing as it relates to the built environment. How do you believe I'm fooling people?
Propagandas uses images and emotion to pull feelings out of people that don't reflect reality.
For instance, he puts a picture of people wearing pro weed shirt, defund the police, and a person wearing a hijab with a loudspeaker. He shows images of abolish the police, acab, and legalize it. And Henderson says "it;'s self centered manipulative and terrible for America."
But actually, none of those images are manipulative or terrible. He doesn't say how. He just shows images and says "bad".
It is nothing but manipulative propaganda.
I'm not talking about your writing; only Henderson's video.
Just to be clear, you're talking about a New York Times video. Corporate media outlets produce propaganda for various reasons.
To critique Henderson, consider breaking down one of his many articles or long-form interviews where he goes in depth about how he formed his conclusions. He's not a bumper sticker slogan type of communicator.
I was just complaining about a guy who said you cannot live in the USA without a car because “It’s much harder to go car free with kids. Especially as they get older. Ballet, Kumon, soccer, choir, karate etc” I pointed him to Jarrett Walker and his discussion of “elite projection.” I think this is similar! https://humantransit.org/2017/07/the-dangers-of-elite-projection.html
Luxury beliefs remind us that the aristocracy never died with monarchism, and they still control popular opinion, conspicuous consumption, and a large share of social engineering policy. H.P. Lovecraft had some interesting things to say about the aristocracy. I recommend reviewing them, to understand thought process 100 years ago. It's not wildly different today.
I've heard the "luxury belief" argument applied in the opposite direction: to justify car-oriented development and design. I've debated with people who claim that bike lanes and public transit are for urban elites and that road diets and elimination of parking minimums harm working class people who need personal vehicles for their jobs or who have no choice but to endure long commutes. I don't buy it because making ownership of a car the price of entry into the economy is the ultimate luxury belief. Nevertheless, the argument is out there and advocates for urban vitality need to be prepared for it.
I agree with most things here except:
There are many new and used electric cars with less upfront cost than the average ICE and lifetime costs are just dramatically lower - not to speak of electric motorcycles which have the lowest cost per km by a wide margin.
Renewable energy already reduces energy prices and can do so even more dramatically in the future.
Minimum wages are a proven way to fight poverty with minimal effects on unemployment (as long as it doesn't exceed 60% of local median wages).
Nice article and extension of these ideas. I really resonate with it when it comes to housing. There’s a fascinating inversion that progressives do there. Housing is expensive because of capitalism! Evil landlords! Slave plantation corporations! All very juicy sounding ideas when not looked at in any detail. But when one does, one can easily see that it’s actually the “luxury beliefs” that drive up prices in the most expensive locales, like SF where I used to live, by restricting supply. I had a neighbor (who owned) who went all out on a NIMBY war against a new single lot building because it was to be 3 stories instead of 2. From what I understand they held up the project for years. This wasn’t an outlier case, of course. And in Portland there was a time where there were yard signs everywhere saying “preserve historic Portland homes” which was code for “don’t change single family zoning”. It’s hard to convey in a short comment just how struck my brain is at the cognitive dissonance. The real and obvious causes in basic supply/demand economics are ignored, while the results of their phalanx of choices (that hugely restrict supply) are projected onto a “bad other”, an abstraction - capitalism. The poor and middle classes get hurt the most, the NIMBYs are the direct and unequivocal cause of that hurt, and yet they entirely disown their agency in the whole process. Psychologically it’s fascinating (and frustrating) to watch. I could give a thousand other urban planning examples in agreement with you, but the point is it’s always the same pattern, it’s only the slogans and details that change.
Wow, you should be a writer too Richard! Well said! The contradictions out there are a baffling display of mental gymnastics.
I hear you re: development delay and blocking. Sooooo frustrating.
You write a 100/100 and turn it into a 0/100 by associating with crap is my point. That's it!
When you use propaganda as evidence in your articles your points are reduced to ash.
It’s a false ethos. You are using his reputation to fool people into something.
Each person can read Henderson's work and determine if luxury beliefs are true or false. I write about human flourishing as it relates to the built environment. How do you believe I'm fooling people?
As a story teller, you know how much your story influences people's beliefs.
Give me a break, "Each person determines.." Yes, in an ideal world.
But there is a field called psychology and it shows people are influenced by our stories.
Propagandas uses images and emotion to pull feelings out of people that don't reflect reality.
For instance, he puts a picture of people wearing pro weed shirt, defund the police, and a person wearing a hijab with a loudspeaker. He shows images of abolish the police, acab, and legalize it. And Henderson says "it;'s self centered manipulative and terrible for America."
But actually, none of those images are manipulative or terrible. He doesn't say how. He just shows images and says "bad".
It is nothing but manipulative propaganda.
I'm not talking about your writing; only Henderson's video.
Just to be clear, you're talking about a New York Times video. Corporate media outlets produce propaganda for various reasons.
To critique Henderson, consider breaking down one of his many articles or long-form interviews where he goes in depth about how he formed his conclusions. He's not a bumper sticker slogan type of communicator.
https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/status-symbols-and-the-struggle-for
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-luxury-beliefs-hurt-the-rest-of-us/id1570872415?i=1000540733255
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slm6K8XsYwk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKJLFmYXBao
https://quillette.com/2019/11/16/thorstein-veblens-theory-of-the-leisure-class-a-status-update/
The tone of Henderson video is educational and informative but the content is prop·a·gan·da: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature
It’s deceptive that he uses the voice and style of informative videos and that makes it propaganda.
In short, the Henderson film bothers me at my core because it is propaganda.
Great stuff, thanks Andy. There’s so much of this that needs real self-examination.
Thanks Kevin.
I was just complaining about a guy who said you cannot live in the USA without a car because “It’s much harder to go car free with kids. Especially as they get older. Ballet, Kumon, soccer, choir, karate etc” I pointed him to Jarrett Walker and his discussion of “elite projection.” I think this is similar! https://humantransit.org/2017/07/the-dangers-of-elite-projection.html
Ohhh that's good stuff.
About time!