Monday assorted links

1. Are people in the suburbs happier?  You don’t need to click on this one to know the answer.

2. “Our newest royal bride, meanwhile, has already shut down her blog and deleted her Twitter, Facebook and Instagram accounts. From now on, even as her image becomes increasingly ubiquitous, her voice will be heard less and less. Like Blanche of Lancaster before her, Meghan Markle appears to know exactly what she’s letting herself in for, and all the indications are that she will do her job in the royal “Firm” with style and grace. We can wish her well and at the same time question the job description: the recent prominence of royal women might make for splendid pageantry, but when it comes to the story of gender and power, it’s the antithesis of real change.” NYT link here.

3. The coolest restaurant in Ethiopia?

4. Why is the replication crisis centered on social psychology?

5. The Royal Wedding cellist (short video).

Comments

1. The answer is yes, but is that due to self-selection?

The answer is yes, but there is no way a paper or study would be mentioned in the WaPo unless it concluded that the answer was no.

There is no paper or study mentioned in the WaPo. The theme of the story is "I hated moving to the city, but maybe I should just resign myself to it for the sake of my husbands's happiness."

How many times have you moved from suburb to suburb?

After all, the entire column is about the impact of moving for work, not happiness.

One major factor Goetz doesn’t control for is number of children (though the bachelor variable might proxy for it).

Child-free grownups seem to disproportionally favour the inner city and are also disproportionately unhappy. (I suspect they would be even more unhappy if they moved to the suburbs though)

2: From the New York Times:
"Royalty Loses Ruling Power: Women, Minorities Hardest Hit"

I admit I might have a distorted view as an outsider, but it seems the British tabloid media is especially vicious. Harry lost a few girlfriends already because of it. Markle got to train with the American paparazzi.

2. Gender, power, the royal family, and real change? I have no idea what the writer thinks she is thinking, but my life is much too short to click that link.

You don't think it's sad that this former C-list actress is going to be denied a social media presence, solely due to whom she married? To me, this is like something out of Saudi Arabia.

Twitter, Facebook and Instagram are advertising vendors to someone like Markle. No doubt she also laid off her social media staff, the people who actually managed her accounts.

Why would she continue using them when due to her changed circumstances, she no longer has a need to advertise to consumers of TV shows/movies?

Most celebrities already don't "use" social media in the same way normal people do.

2. They should just abolish the monarchy as a formal institution already. Give them back the Crown Estate as private property with some restrictions for tourism and historical preservation/research purposes, and then let them be private citizens (also abolish the House of Lords as well, which is completely pointless after they created a Supreme Court to replace the Law Lords).

4. Big emphasis on the low costs there.

Give the Lords their veto back!

Nyet. The royal family make for far more accepted and durable heads of state than the alternative of some clapped-out ex-politician.

They're not heads of anything.

They're as much heads as the President of Germany.

That should be abolished too.

Countries do not need pointless, symbolic Heads of State.

Countries don't need opera houses either, but I'm glad some of them still exist.

Opera Houses are kind of necessary when you want to put on operas or musicals, and most of them have lots of other spiffy uses. On the other hand the Governor General of Canada has much less utility. This might explain why Canada has 5 or 6 more opera houses than governors general.

Why not? Everyone can appreciate an apolitical, non-divisive symbol. It is probably healthier than the American system of expecting the president to be some sort of magical superhero. That is why one party becomes deranged when their side loses a presidential election.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/cult-presidency

"The president of the United States is no longer a mere constitutional officer charged with faithful execution of the laws. He is a soul nourisher, a hope giver, a living American talisman against hurricanes, terrorism, economic downturns, and spiritual malaise. He - or she - is the one who answers the phone at 3 a.m. to keep our children safe from harm. The modern president is America’s shrink, a social worker, our very own national talk show host. He’s also the Supreme Warlord of the Earth.

This messianic campaign rhetoric merely reflects what the office has evolved into after decades of public clamoring. The vision of the president as national guardian and spiritual redeemer is so ubiquitous it goes virtually unnoticed. Americans, left, right, and other, think of the “commander in chief” as a superhero, responsible for swooping to the rescue when danger strikes. And with great responsibility comes great power."

So that's what America has become: Maoist China-lite! "Sailing the seas depends on the Helmsman."

They should just abolish the monarchy as a formal institution already.

Why?

Because it's just expensive and useless celebrity at this point.

Because it's just expensive and useless celebrity at this point.

Have you compared the royal family's living expensive to those of any republican head of state?

They don't rent #10 Downing Street out by the hour, though, either. Though perhaps they should.

The PR value of the monarchy is priceless.

Further, the monarchy connects the UK to the US public, the US being the riches and most powerful country on earth. [Look at the widespread US interest in the wedding.]

This helps the UK in various important ways. As the UK leaves the EU, it would be foolish to cast it aside to save a few pounds.

The PR value of the monarchy is priceless.

If they made them dress in period style, it would make the tourism revenue triple. Maybe rotate through different time periods each year.

Public appearances by the Royal Family are at events organized by domestic philanthropies. The Queen gives garden parties, but the people invited are her own subjects. No clue where you all fancy the 'tourist revenue' is coming from, other than historic sites may be more interesting to people when they're still in use.

1. From now on, even as her image becomes increasingly ubiquitous

Even now, only days after her marriage and introduction to the royal family, her image is indeed ubiquitous and will continue to be a feature of media coverage, even though everyone will know who she is and what she looks like, just as one of her predecessors.

1. But if you actually read the link, you actually get some insight - 'All this research might suggest it would be a good idea to pack up and move somewhere with parks, clean water and fresh mountain air. Yet that’s precisely where the link between geography, health and happiness begins to tangle in its own roots.

Relocating is considered a type of loss — like death, divorce or a job layoff — because it disrupts social ties.

Stephan Goetz, a professor of agricultural and regional economics at Penn State, published a study that showed suburban residents were happier than rural or metro folks. Interestingly, people who hadn’t moved at all in the past five years also reported being happier. “This may be related to not having to find new friends and social networks,” Goetz says.

Another study shows that close friendships, even more than family attachments, are key to health and happiness, especially as we age.'

Happiness is not determinate for what the article is actually exploring, which is geospatial medicine.

1. I'm having a problem with the cause-and-effect aspect. It says people who live near gyms are healthier, as if all we need to do is either build more gyms or move people into their vicinity. But isn't it more likely that people who choose to live near gyms are healthier? There are many things people look for when buying a house. For some people, its parks and gyms.

More likely, gyms build around healthy people.

4. I found the first comment tops the blog itself, although the blog raises valid points.

I found it total nonsense. For example,

" In psychology, experiments are easy to replicate (unlike econ or poli sci, where you can’t just run a bunch more recessions or elections) and cheap to replicate (unlike medicine which involves doctors and patients). So replication is a live option, indeed it gets people suggesting that preregistered replication be a requirement in some cases."

Ok, so reproducing experiments exploring what makes mass murderers is easy because it's cheap to birth babies and raise them to age 25 to figure out what factors cause people to become psychopaths?

The fact that budgets for research is small in social psychology is not evidence that research costs are low. Research costs very little because no money exists for actually useful research, so such projects are so limited in scope or scale the results produced are more like religion than science.

When comparing it to economics, it further proves the author is clueless.

Most of natural science is deep history projects requiring massive investments in data collection, at costs so high, almost all of it is "open source" because government paid for collecting the data, is for no other reason.

Data on physics is freely available with the costs in the computers and storage and means of accessing or copying the data. The high speed Internet was a government funded project to provide access to the accumulating terabytes of data on government funded servers.

A lot of social science uses government data on individuals, with the cost of accessing the data being the obstacle. For example, accessing income and location and demographic data is costly in order to preserve individual privacy. The IRS and Census are often employed to process that data, but Congress limits their budgets. Researchers are seldom allowed to pay to directly analyze the data because Congress has failed to fund research panels to ensure the law is followed to maintain data privacy. And if Google or FB were to offer to provide hardware, software, and fund managers at the IRS and Census, left and right advocates would cry foul.

Instead, Google and FB pay billions to workers plus enlist volunteers to do big data collect and analysis to replicate something similar to the data the government has on the US population.

Meanwhile, the social academics don't have access to the data, including most economists, because they do not have public budgets for research comparable to the natural sciences.

Oddly, not having funding to do good research seems to be a point of pride.

As in, they are pure because they depend on the market to fund them, and when conservatives get a few thousand dollars, they produce excellent results.

On the other hand, when evil liberals spend billions paying workers, they produce results they keep secret because, well, they are evil. Not because the market is working....

The 60 Minutes thing on Google is a problem for conservatives. Evil liberal Google has so much analysis on people and things that it makes them evil, but anyone can replicate what Google has by simply paying billions to worker every year for the next 25 years to replicate Google.

The thing is, two conservatives reach paying workers a hundred billion over two decades would end up "destroying wealth" by forcing the price of ads down so Google and FB would suffer massive capital losses as their share prices crash by 80%, which in turn would make the hundred billion investments worth less than a hundred billion dollars, a capital loss.

In an efficient economy, profit is zero, and capital returns only enough to pay labor costs, including the labor cost of the capitalist who thought he was going to be showered with great wealth far beyond his labor.

Hey, mulp, next time you want to go off on one of your unhinged rants, post your own comment, OK?

Greg Cochran argues that psychologists are ideological and sleazy enough to cheat but moral enough to feel kind of guilty about it, which is, on the whole, better than many other fields of social science.

Who is Greg Cochran? And which social sciences are you talking about?

I'll wager you the circumstances you see cheating are when someone is madly attempting to finish their dissertation and when they're madly trying to get that 7th article published 'ere they submit their tenure application.

If social researchers wish to avoid unpleasant results, there's hardly a need to cheat. Don't research certain questions. Structure your models in a given way. Throw inconvenient data in the drawer.

See Douglas Laycock's critiques of Marci Hamilton's work or some of Clayton Cramer's remarks on the work of Saul Cornell. If you're hunting for truffles, go to the very edges of the world of social science and look at what historians are writing.

1. It's more complicated than that, as the author makes clear based on her own experience: her initial dislike of DC, longing for LA, etc. I've been living in one place and working in another, not that unusual today. I've been thinking about where I would choose to live if I could choose anywhere. Popular choices today for those with the freedom to choose include Charlottesville, VA, Charleston, SC, and Boulder, CO. Indeed, those places have become so popular for those with the freedom to choose where to live that nobody goes there anymore (to paraphrase Yogi). The rise of inequality has vastly increased the number of people with the freedom to choose where they live, which has caused the populations of those three places to explode. One assumes that those who move to one of those three popular places weren't happy with where they lived before. Will they be any happier now that they have moved? Probably not. Unhappy people are unhappy people wherever they live. But 'd take my chances in Charlottesville, Charleston, or Boulder.

This is mere anecdote, but at least in my extended family the more conscientious and extroverted members have always seemed more likely to move someplace. I would think that people who are happier, have better career prospects, and are more extroverted would be more likely to move than those less so on those aspects.

In my case, I am unhappy. My property taxes are $18,000 a year and state income taxes are almost as much meaning I pay $36,000 in state and local taxes and deduct (IRS 1040) only $10,000 . Plus, I have to drive over (pay tolls) bridges to get to better fishing/hunting.

My dream would be a little, off-grid cowboy cabin -maybe indoor plumbing - in the Wind River Range, Wyoming - rural not suburban.

Felicitations! This is the second comment I've read/you posted without the customary TDS.

Hey, my happiest times are when I wet my line. My son lived in Boulder many years and he and I would drive over to the Frying Pan and Roaring Fork to fish for a few days. My preference is the Frying Pan because it's very much like the creek I have fished many times in the eastern mountains (lots of elevation change, pocket water, etc.). My eye doctor has a home in western Colorado on the Gunnison, which he believes is the best fishing river in the states. He has a rather famous fishing companion, the two of them having fished all over the globe. I've spent more time on the Bighorn, not that it is all that scenic (it's not) but because of the volume of fish in the river; if I travel across the country, I want the maximum experience while I'm there. Yes, Montana would be my first choice, certainly not on the Bighorn (which is on a reservation anyway). The spring creeks are really amazing, although the degree of difficulty very high. I fish the creeks in the low country where I have a home, usually with a fly rod. My eye doctor never fishes these creeks. Never. But if I had the opportunity to trvel to the places where he fishes, I likely wouldn't either. He is a happy man.

Outstanding!

My youngest son is an excellent fisherman. This past weekend, he and a buddy fished a pond on the NY-VT border area west of Albany with outstanding results. One fish caught was a 40-inch pike. They also connected with LM bass, big perch and trout. Of course, if I had gone, I would have caught a blue gill.

Happy people are all alike. Each unhappy person is unhappy in its own way.

Nabokov began his Alternative Universe sci-fi novel "Ada" with: “All happy families are more or less dissimilar; all unhappy ones are more or less alike,” says a great Russian writer in the beginning of a famous Russian novel (Anna Arkadievitch Karenina)…."

Thanks for the information.

Dick the Butcher - You Know Where This Is Going
May 21, 2018 at 1:59 pm
27
"In my case, I am unhappy. My property taxes are $18,000 a year and state income taxes are almost as much meaning I pay $36,000 in state and local taxes and deduct (IRS 1040) only $10,000 . Plus, I have to drive over (pay tolls) bridges to get to better fishing/hunting."

And yet you support the recent Tax hit aimed primarily at Blue-state dwellers.

Perhaps Dick has principles?

Nyet. The royal family make for far more accepted and durable heads of state than the alternative of some clapped-out ex-politician.

1. It is true that you don't need to click on the link to know the answer is "No, not really, its a lot more complicated than that."

Yes, it's more complicated than that, but generally, I'd say the answer is yes. I googled the title to see if the link was correct, as the article doesn't really discuss this. All the top results were that rural dwellers were happier than suburban, and then suburban were happier than city dwellers. Sounds about right, on average at least.

Beveridge's Law of headlines fails here

The correct headline would be to note that people who are somewhat affluent, don't move around a lot, and have strong healthy family relationships are on average happier than those who don't.

Meghan Markle appears to know exactly what she’s letting herself in for, and all the indications are that she will do her job in the royal “Firm” with style and grace.

Hope so. Her first marriage lasted about two years.

Why should Harry be happy?

Meghan's children can only improve the Windsor gene mudpuddle.

After Charles gets crowned and declares himself "defender of the faiths" and tries to turn over the UK power grid to sunbeams, unicorn farts and zephyrs maybe the blimey blokes will wake up and shut down the aristocratic boondoggle.

Yeah, the United Kingdom was a much happier place when the non-dynastic Puritan Oliver Cromwell was running the show. That's why the return of Charles II produced the greatest outpouring of joy in the history of the country, including VE day. And then Cromwell's body was exhumed and his head exhibited on a spike for 18 years.

Of course, the current royals are a mishmash of continentals, not the proper Stuarts.

Of course, the current royals are a mishmash of continentals, not the proper Stuarts.

The Queen Mother was out of the Scottish aristocracy. None of the Queen's children married 'continentals' nor have any of her grandchildren. Neither did her sister or her sister's children.

..."None of the Queen's children married 'continentals' nor have any of her grandchildren."
But her husband Philip is member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, Philip was born into the Greek and Danish royal families.(Wikipedia). So Chuck is right about the continental mishmash.
House of Windsor:
"The dynasty is of German paternal descent and was originally a branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, itself derived from the House of Wettin, and it succeeded the House of Hanover to the British monarchy following the death of Queen Victoria, wife of Albert, Prince Consort. The houses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Windsor have provided five British monarchs to date, including four kings and the present queen, Elizabeth II."(wikipedia)

So Chuck is right about the continental mishmash.

He didn't limit the judgment to her husband. He also didn't point out that the most recent ancestors of the Queen actually raised on the continent were great-grandparents.

One of the Queen's cousins was a magazine editor, another was in the diplomatic service, a third was an architect, and two others had 20-year careers in the military. Her husband had a satisfying naval career until convention compelled him to abandon it. One of her sons was in the military for 20 years, her nephew founded his own (lucrative) business; one of her grandsons was in the military for 7 years, one was in for 10 years (and a combat veteran), and a third has had a satisfactory business career. Two of her sons and one of her grandsons earned degrees at one of Britain's antique universities. The only member of the family who you'd really call unattractive is her daughter. Her sister and three of her children married clunkers, but that's not a gene pool problem (and the children of the clunkers haven't been causing embarrassment). It's hard to see what the problem is or why Meghan Markle's gene pool (which includes her emotionally fragile father, her lushington brother, her fat slob of an aunt, her dope grower nephew, and the sister from hell) is supposed to improve anything.

Anyone else suspect that the crown is going to skip Charles and go directly to William?

Doubtful. Charles wants to validate his wife, make her fully acceptable as Queen.

Wouldn't that be kinda like dancing on his mother's grave?

No. She is not Princess of Wales, just some duchess or countess, because of the Ghost of Diana.

But once he is King, she would be Queen [Consort] and assuming she out lives him, very high in the precedence chain for the rest of her life.

Its about the respect he thinks she is due.

But once he is King, she would be Queen

And QE would hate that and everyone knows it. Maybe part of the deal in which she allowed him to marry Camilla was that he would let the crown pass to William. He's 69. She might even outlive him.

To add, the fact that she is NOT "Princess of Wales" is a pretty strong signal that QE is saying "This woman is not gonna be queen".

Hazel, the British monarchy is not the Jordanian monarchy. The reigning monarch cannot issue a decree excluding someone from the succession. Camilla actually does have the title 'Princess of Wales', but the title is never used in public communications to evade confusion and to avoid abrading the sensibilities of people who do not accept her, for whom Diana will always be the Princess. The only way Wm ascends the throne is that his father dies unexpectedly or his father elects on his own counsel to abdicate.

Duh. what I am suggesting is that Charles has already made a private agreement with his mother that he will abdicate. Of course he could always renege on it once she's dead, but I'm thinking he's the sort of guy who keeps his word.
As I said, he's 69, maybe at this point in his life he's not going to get much pleasure out of being king, and would rather have a peaceful retirement.

She just might, out of spite.

She would be Princess Camilla. In the British system, there is only one ruler and the spouse is of a lower rank. That's why you can ask for Prince Albert in a can.

No, she would be Queen Camilla. A king's consort is a queen. A queen's consort is a prince.

QE II's mom was a Queen as was her grandmother because they were married to kings.

Prince Philip is usually referred to as 'the Duke of Edinburgh'. If I'm not mistaken, the palace has made it explicit that "Duchess of Cornwall" will continue to be used.

Anyone else suspect that the crown is going to skip Charles and go directly to William?

No. There's no legal basis for that. You could criticize him for one thing and another; the commentary you actually see reminds you that for some people, high school never ends.

I'm guessing Charles may have privately made an agreement with his mother that he's going to abdicate and let William have the crown. For the sake of the monarchy and it's image or something to that effect.

1. Perspective is the key. I have just completed my 14th move in 42 years. I look forward to discovering book stores, tea shops, and restaurants. We have fantastic Ethiopian food in my new city.

3. The view is astounding. Order enjera with a selection of bean w'ets and ayib begomen. Yum.

" shut down her blog and deleted her Twitter, Facebook and Instagram accounts"

How will she exist having gotten rid of all these things that did not exist 15 years ago? Its a horror.

It's probably a mercy to not have to keep up with all that stuff anymore.
Who has time for Twitter, Facebook, AND Instagram?

.... F acebook, I nstagram, T witter.....?

Its this generation's FIT ness fad. They all have time for it.

Denmark still has a royal family, I believe, right? King and/or Queen? Old or young? Any Danish royal marriages in the offing? No don't answer. I have no idea and I doubt many of my other countrymen and women do either. Which is as it should be. If only we could, as a country, reach a comparable state of ignorance and indifference with respect to the British royals...

I don't waste a lot of brain cells on it but it's kind of cool having a few existing royal families still around, with the connection to history. It's like a living museum from when monarchies were the thing. And the fact it's the English one means Americans have a connection there. We don't much know about Thailand's monarchical history, for example.

"... but it's kind of cool having a few existing royal families"

This particular UK bunch doesn't seem any better or worse than the average family would be if thrown into completely undeserved prominence, but saying it's cool to still have them around...I dunno...isn't that sort of like saying it'd be cool to still have a few serfs or castrati around just for the connection to the past?

The idea that anyone should rule (or even serve as ceremonial head of state) based on 'aristocratic blood' is one of those truly appalling ideas that belongs buried several layers deep in the dung heap of history. The continued fascination with the British royals makes me a bit embarrassed for my species.

The idea that anyone should rule (or even serve as ceremonial head of state) based on 'aristocratic blood' is one of those truly appalling ideas that belongs buried several layers deep in the dung heap of history.

No, it's much better that the head of state be a superannuated pol who earned the job by thirty years worth of being conniving and needy in and amongst his fellow pols.

I don't waste a lot of brain cells

Smart move. You're on short rations.

Which is as it should be. If only we could, as a country, reach a comparable state of ignorance and indifference with respect to the British royals...

Britain has a population 12x that of Denmark, was the premier power in the world as recently as a century ago, and has a historical connection to the U.S. The Queen is Canada's head of state.

Denmark has a Queen and had a royal marriage a few years back. No clue why not knowing that is some superior state of being, but status competition is stupid like that.

Presumably, despite the tragic loss of social media rights, there are still many young women who would sign up for the job.

Nice work if you can get it.

5. Nice coverage also on CBS Sunday morning about how all his siblings also are into Music.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/the-kanneh-masons-the-family-that-plays-together/

I'm assuming that any Brit hearing one of us Yanks prattle on about their head of state can only smirk and roll their eyes.

Why are you assuming that?

Somewhere the ghosts of the various mad kings, vicious kings, corrupt kings and weakling kings are all gazing at our President Joffrey in horrified astonishment.

And here we are, lacking even a Tyrion to do what should be done.

Why are you talking in riddles?

The King of Hearts,
Called for the tarts,
And beat the Knave full sore.
The Knave of Hearts
Brought back the tarts,
And vowed he'd steal no more.

"Access to whole foods." Don't people like the author of this article get the causality wrong on this one?

On 2, let me first say that I don't care, and as an American I feel that is the right position to take. But, with a woman and the house there may be a TV tuned in. A burden a few of us may share.

But from the manly side, while Prince Charles is flawed, he deserves these props. Kings don't duck.

https://youtu.be/9e_GoHngOIE

He was too stupid to what? Looks like this video lines up with the newer pot post.

3: Cool indeed, but will Tyler eat there? If there was ever a restaurant where you're paying for the view and not for the quality of the food, it's that one.

OTOH, what are the alternatives -- maybe that's the only decent place to eat within 15 miles, over-priced or no.

4: I think Gelman overlooks economics' version of p-hacking. Yes there might be just one dataset, but what economists can and do is data fish that dataset to death, using different models and sets of explanatory variables until they get the results they want -- or that are at any rate publishable.

Critics and commenters can re-run the results and show that under alternative models the conclusions no longer hold, but by then the original authors have their publication (and at least one citation, from the commenter).

Re: . Like Blanche of Lancaster before her, Meghan Markle appears to know exactly what she’s letting herself in for

If we're talking John of Gaunt's wife, she was herself a descendant of the Plantagenets and Gaunt was her third (I think) cousin. Nor exactly a commoner.
We could cite Elizabeth Woodville, technically a commoner, instead, although her mother came from a very high ranking Burgundian family and had served at the court of Henry VI. Or Henry VIII's third and sixth wives (Jane Seymour and Catherine Paar) who came from the gentry.

#4 -- Perhaps because everybody tests their own theories?

I'm sure that the reasons discussed in the post are contributing factors, but you'll notice that they're all reasons why bad results would be more detectable in social psychology, not reasons why bad results would be more prevalent.

But the real problem with the replication crisis is that important results are turning out to be wrong. I think you have to entertain the possibility that the field is somehow encouraging bad results.

The really insidious thing about p-hacking is that once you've determined the minimum threshold for publication, it's more advantageous to run smaller experiments with noisier statistics because

a) It's cheaper / faster / easier.
b) False positives will result in more publishable outcomes.

So I don't think it's enough to say "The experiments and measurements in this field tend to be smaller and more informal." That's the result, not the cause. Rather, I think you have to ask why people in the field are willing to accept smaller and more informal experiments as giving useful results.

If you had a sudden spate of collapsing bridges, I don't think anybody would be reassured by happy talk about the informal style of bridge building or the easygoing acceptance of steel with widely varying properties.

After working in Europe for a few years, I moved back to an English-speaking country and ended up living in the suburbs for the first time in my adult life. It's worse than anything I could have imagined. You get a larger house, that is the entire extent of the upside, everything else is downside. Instead of having dozens of buzzing restaurants and cafes within 5 minutes walk you have to drive to a restaurant that's half empty because everybody else has to drive there too and they can't be bothered. The lawnmowers drone on all the time. Everyone can see into your house so there's less privacy. My kids activities have been drastically curtailed because there's only so much time to drive them around from place to place, instead of them being able to walk to music lessons on the next street by themselves. There's no feeling of life. I can't understand why anyone would voluntarily live in the suburbs, I can't wait to leave.

“The suburbs” are not monolithic. There are plenty of suburbs, at least around older and larger American cities, that are walkable and have nice places to eat and drink. Furthermore, I’ve never noticed that suburban houses are easier to see into than urban houses. This is also an easy problem to solve insofar as it exists: a simple window covering (curtains, blinds,etc.) will give you total privacy.

Terrible comment.

Comments for this post are closed