At this point, making fun of The New York Times op-ed page is like shooting fish in a barrel that have already been shot, but sometimes you have to. Asks David Brooks:Substance is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The perfect title for this piece - don't forget that Brooks preaches about family, community, etc., and I wonder how his leaving his wife to marry a 20-something research assistant informs his views on those issues. As you said, David Brooks is a moron.
Years ago, my social media advisor told me not to read the opinion pages of the NYT. It was great advice. His reasoning was I write opinion columns and should form my own opinions. Brooks has always struck me as a guy who made a lot of money and doesn’t want to pay taxes and has to rationalize that in a way that makes him seem righteous. However, I am still amazed at how many of my liberal friends continue to praise his work.
To be fair, Brooks acknowledges that it’s the cost of housing. “The median home price in those 10 population-gaining states is an average of 23 percent less than that of the 10 biggest population-losing states” But then he launches into a typically garbled Brooksian rant.
David Brooks isn't wrong, although he often is. There is no perfect" right answer" here. One might move because the rents are lower in one place or another, but the rents are lower in upstate New York. People are not moving from New York City to upstate New York.
They are schlepping all the way to Nashville because the business environment is better and the business environment is better because they are red states.
"I have only one question: If we’re right, why are so many people leaving blue states so they can live in red ones?" - Brooks
WTFing F????? Literally this is the GOTCHA that right-wing bloggers have been saying for decades. Nothing has changed (except maybe Arizona's and Georgia's voting patterns). Do they think people choose where to live by looking at an electoral map?
Lots of "red states" are actually turning blue, anyhow, cuz voters there are getting sick of Republican extremism on things like the GOP supporting Trump and banning of abortion.
What about huge outliers like Seattle, Portland (both of them) and San Fran? All have been huge drivers of economic growth in the past 10 years. Particular Seattle, with its "byzantine regulatory regimes" especially rainy weather has been overrun by Amazon babies!
Well he’s a neocon isn’t he? Should we expect him to be better? I say that even though I am not firmly in the “homelessness problem is due to poverty” camp (if that were the case then you would see the thousands of low wage workers out there homeless, but that’s hardly ever the case). Poverty is part of the problem, sure. But it’s also drugs, mental illness, the atomization of society and the breakdown of the family. You will hardly ever see homeless people in Greece for example, because they have a strong family structure and drugs are frowned upon.
And the rich with their bankers keep getting richer. Now they all love MBS because $$$$$$. Is it worth stepping over all those homeless folks in your path?
The perfect title for this piece - don't forget that Brooks preaches about family, community, etc., and I wonder how his leaving his wife to marry a 20-something research assistant informs his views on those issues. As you said, David Brooks is a moron.
It seems reductive but almost every major issue we face comes back to housing.
Years ago, my social media advisor told me not to read the opinion pages of the NYT. It was great advice. His reasoning was I write opinion columns and should form my own opinions. Brooks has always struck me as a guy who made a lot of money and doesn’t want to pay taxes and has to rationalize that in a way that makes him seem righteous. However, I am still amazed at how many of my liberal friends continue to praise his work.
The blue city/red state dynamic has the Republican Party abandoning the conservative principle of subsidiarity. At least here in Texas.
To be fair, Brooks acknowledges that it’s the cost of housing. “The median home price in those 10 population-gaining states is an average of 23 percent less than that of the 10 biggest population-losing states” But then he launches into a typically garbled Brooksian rant.
He is a moron for a very simple reason: he lives in a bubble.
Thank you for the snort-chortles, Tana!
David Brooks isn't wrong, although he often is. There is no perfect" right answer" here. One might move because the rents are lower in one place or another, but the rents are lower in upstate New York. People are not moving from New York City to upstate New York.
They are schlepping all the way to Nashville because the business environment is better and the business environment is better because they are red states.
"I have only one question: If we’re right, why are so many people leaving blue states so they can live in red ones?" - Brooks
WTFing F????? Literally this is the GOTCHA that right-wing bloggers have been saying for decades. Nothing has changed (except maybe Arizona's and Georgia's voting patterns). Do they think people choose where to live by looking at an electoral map?
Lots of "red states" are actually turning blue, anyhow, cuz voters there are getting sick of Republican extremism on things like the GOP supporting Trump and banning of abortion.
It's more than that. I live in West Michigan. Housing is not expensive here, but people move to the South or Southwest (despite the lack of water).
David Brooks as precisely in touch with American politics and socioeconomic issues as an alien from a nearby Galaxy would be
I wish we could debate important things without labeling those we disagree with as morons.
What about huge outliers like Seattle, Portland (both of them) and San Fran? All have been huge drivers of economic growth in the past 10 years. Particular Seattle, with its "byzantine regulatory regimes" especially rainy weather has been overrun by Amazon babies!
Well he’s a neocon isn’t he? Should we expect him to be better? I say that even though I am not firmly in the “homelessness problem is due to poverty” camp (if that were the case then you would see the thousands of low wage workers out there homeless, but that’s hardly ever the case). Poverty is part of the problem, sure. But it’s also drugs, mental illness, the atomization of society and the breakdown of the family. You will hardly ever see homeless people in Greece for example, because they have a strong family structure and drugs are frowned upon.
And the rich with their bankers keep getting richer. Now they all love MBS because $$$$$$. Is it worth stepping over all those homeless folks in your path?