Category Archives: Sociology

McMansion construction next door can violate your rights?

Posted on by

A New York woman claims teardown McMansions in her neighborhood violate her rights:

The view from Evelyn Konrad’s backyard has been ruined, she claims, by a massive house built behind hers. The Southampton attorney is suing village officials, claiming they should not allow the building of so-called “McMansions.” She wants them “to be cut down. They’re not allowed to be there. Sure, chop them down,” Konrad said.

The term “McMansion” was coined more than a decade ago to describe the crop of super-sized new houses. Konrad claims Southampton village officials violated her rights by approving the larger homes on half-acre lots – 4,000-6,000 square-foot houses — that dwarf tiny capes.

“In architecture scale is a factor, and these houses are overscaled for the area they are in,” Konrad said…

They said the homes comply with village code, but Konrad claims those who enacted the code had conflicts of interest.

“They all profit from it. They partner with the spec builders,” Konrad said.

This is an update to a news story covered in an earlier post.

Such debates about teardown McMansions are common: long-time residents of neighborhoods tend to see the big homes as intruding on the character of the neighborhood as well as driving up property taxes and prices while others argue property owners should be able to do what they want with the property they own. But, Konrad highlights what is often behind these debates: who has the rights to do what they want? Should a property owner be at mercy of what their neighbor does? Should the community be able to limit what people build and, if so, how much can they limit? What are the rights of property owners versus over nearby parties? Should community or individual interests win out? These are not easy questions to answer and are the same issues present in cases of eminent domain. Hence, the heated situations where neighbors take sides in response to McMansions.

Inside Amazon’s fulfillment centers

Posted on by

If Walmart is where normal America gathers, then here is where much of the stuff Americans order online comes from: Amazon fulfillment centers.

For its “Amazon Unpacked” series, UK’s The Financial Times Weekend Magazine got photographer Ben Roberts a pass into the hyper-systematized environs of one of Amazon.com’s ginormous—roughly the length of nine football fields—fulfillment warehouses. The facility in Rugeley, England, is an expansive structure flooded with natural light and imbued with the sterility and efficiency of a major hospital. Here, employees can walk between seven and 15 miles a day, and they don’t meander; the warehouse gets 35 orders a second and worker productivity is measured via handheld device. Architizer calls it “a warehouse employee’s worst nightmare,” but with all the organization, light, and crisp colors, the space seems pretty ideal for a warehouse—particularly if an employee were training for a 10K or something.

When looking at these pictures, they seem like they could either represent the possibilities of our future (think of what is on all those shelves!) or represent cold, calculating buildings that are all about feeding a consumerist economy in the most efficient way. Either way, their scale alone is impressive.

Combined with my post over the weekend about subway facades, these images could be part of a larger series on the infrastructure behind the 2013 world. When people order from Amazon, they are not likely to think about all that it takes to get the product from a factory to a distribution center and then to their door/mailbox. Yet, they know it all works and like the results. Or, think about the data centers built in places like Iowa to handle all of the information flowing through the Internet. Or, the distribution centers behind Walmart or that helped Netflix quickly ship out DVDs years ago. All of this is relatively hidden in faceless warehouses away from the consumer.

 

 

 

 

 

What people see when they read home loan disclosure forms

Posted on by

A new study uses eye-tracking devices to look at what people actually see when they read mortgage documents:

Choplin, along with Debra Pogrund Stark, a law professor at John Marshall Law School, and DePaul graduate student Mark LeBoeuf, conducted three eye-tracking experiments on 50 people to see if the various changes made to the government-mandated home loan disclosure forms made it easier for people to understand and retain critical information.

Their research found that the forms introduced in 2010 were generally better than the 2008 versions, so long as consumers are given the chance to read and digest what they’re reading. Their findings showed that people are much less likely to recall the initial interest rate, the maximum interest rate and the maximum monthly payment if they are distracted…

“The problem is if people are talking over it,” Choplin explained. “We believe mortgage brokers are initiating (the conversation).”

But even with silence and better forms, consumers still aren’t protected from potentially predatory lending, the researchers concluded.

That’s because they found that while better disclosure forms might alert consumers to changing interest rates and payment terms, none of the people in their study commented on how an adjustable-rate mortgage might affect the loan’s future affordability.

This sounds like an innovative way to use eye-tracking software. And it looks like the new forms do help some. But, perhaps they don’t go far enough in pushing consumers to ask the right questions about what it all may cost down the road. Simply seeing something on the page is helpful but doesn’t necessarily lead to comprehension and the next logical questions.

It would be interesting to then ask the mortgage brokers why they talk while people are trying to read the forms. A malicious answer is that the brokers don’t want people to consider them too closely. Or perhaps it is that the brokers, like a good number of people, have a hard time keeping silent for even more than 5 or 10 seconds. I’ve seen this in action many times myself – if you try to give a bill or form to sign a good look over, it seems to make the people waiting for you nervous even though the form is supposed to help you be better informed.

Reconsidering what sprawl, suburbs, and world-class city mean

Posted on by

A sociology grad student involved with the city of Calgary regarding development and growth suggests we need to step back and reconsider the “vacant terminology” used by “urbanistas”:

When it comes to sprawl, said Gondek, the term actually means “non-contiguous growth of an urban area.”“It’s uncontrolled, it’s unplanned. In our opinion, it’s simply not the case for Calgary,” she said…

“Suburb” is Gondek’s least-favourite misused term, preferring the term “community” instead.

“Suburbs, as they are properly defined, are areas outside the metropolitan region,” she said.

“They are bedroom communities. It’s an American concept that means independent municipalities outside of the city.”

Growth on Calgary’s edges actually involves periphery communities, not suburbs.

“Calgary’s so-called suburbs are actually a part of the city — there’s nothing ‘sub’ about them,” said Gondek, pointing out that these homeowners pay property taxes into the same pool as inner-city residents do.

The third phrase is the idea of just how “world-class” is Calgary.

Gondek looked at various indices to see how cities are rated on their globalness. She found a wide variety of measures, depending on what angle of “globalness” was sought to be defined: population, income, walkability, transportation — any number of measures.

Gondek drew the conclusion that indices of world-classness depend on the subjective views of what the creators of the indices decide is world-class, rather than any real, fundamental, unified definition of the term.

Some of this makes sense. Suburbs are now vital parts of metropolitan regions rather than ugly step-children of cities. Also, sprawl is not necessarily unplanned or disordered as critics suggest; there is a logic to it, typically involving profits to be made by developers and others. Both of these terms are often loaded with negative connotations by critics.

On the other hand, the definition of a world-class city seems more set to me. The term used widely in urban sociology actually is “global city” which has a lot of overlap with the concept of a world-class city. The global city is typically defined as being a global economic center with a high concentration of FIRE (finance, insurance, and real estate) industries. But, there are other dimensions to global cities including cultural and government institutions. (For one example of these various dimensions, see this ranking of global cities.) I wonder if the suggestion that world-class city is a nebulous term is done so that Calgary can feel better about what it is doing…

Housing facades hide subway infrastructure

Posted on by

Not all the necessary equipment for subways fits underground. Here are a few examples of how cities use facades to hide the subway:

On a street in Brooklyn that takes you towards the river, where the cobblestones begin paving the road, there is a townhouse that deserves a second look. Despite its impeccable brickwork, number 58 Joralemon Street is not like the other houses. Behind its blacked out windows, no one is at home; no one has been at home for more than 100 years. In fact, number 58 is not a home at all, but a secret subway exit and ventilation point disguised as a Greek Revival brownstone.

If you think about it, this could happen a lot in cities and not too many people would know. It is a clever way to not let necessary infrastructure mar what otherwise are pleasant streets.

It reminds me of seeing Hollywood sets where the exterior looks like a city or neighborhood but then you walk inside and there is nothing there. Here is an example of the interior of a city street scene on a Hollywood lot:

HollywoodFacadeInterior

This could be an interesting premise for a science fiction story: the city looks real but there is nothing behind the facades…

McMansions = SUVs, large TVs, air conditioning, and steaks

Posted on by

Here is another example of how McMansions are tied to larger patterns of excessive consumption:

OK. Move along. Nothing more to say. Earth Day is over. Get back into your SUV, drive to your 5000 square foot McMansion, flip on your 80-inch plasma TV, crank down the AC, crank up the grill, throw on a big slab of carbon-laden beef, secure in the knowledge you’ve done your duty, paid homage to the lonely little rock in space upon which we depend for life.

Whew. Hard work, great sacrifices. Sure glad Earth Day only comes once a year.

One way to interpret this is someone could fight against McMansions and their construction and still have to deal with a whole host of other issues including driving, entertainment options, and what kind of food Americans eat. In other words, McMansions are just one part of a larger issue of American consumption. Perhaps the kind of people who purchase McMansions in the first place are more likely to purchase the other listed products but I haven’t seen this kind of evidence.

Argument: humans like causation because they like to feel in control

Posted on by

Here is an interesting piece that summarizes some research and concludes that humans like to feel in control and therefore like the idea of causality:

This predisposition for causation seems to be innate. In the 1940s, psychologist Albert Michotte theorized that “we see causality, just as directly as we see color,” as if it is omnipresent. To make his case, he devised presentations in which paper shapes moved around and came into contact with each other. When subjects—who could only see the shapes moving against a solid-colored background—were asked to describe what they saw, they concocted quite imaginative causal stories…

Nassim Taleb noted how ridiculous this is in his book The Black Swan. In the hours after former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was captured on December 13, 2003, Bloomberg News blared the headline, “U.S. TREASURIES RISE; HUSSEIN CAPTURE MAY NOT CURB TERRORISM.” Thirty minutes later, bond prices retreated and Bloomberg altered their headline: “U.S. TREASURIES FALL; HUSSEIN CAPTURE BOOSTS ALLURE OF RISKY ASSETS.” A more correct headline might have been: “U.S. TREASURIES FLUCTUATE AS THEY ALWAYS DO; HUSSEIN CAPTURE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM WHATSOEVER,” but that isn’t what editors want to post, nor what people want to read.

This trend doesn’t merely manifest itself for stocks or large events. Take scientific studies, for example. Many of the most sweeping findings, ones normally reported in large media outlets, originate from associative studies that merely correlate two variables—television watching and death, for example. Yet headlines—whose functions are partly to summarize and primarily to attract attention—are often written as “X causes Y” or “Does X cause Y?” (I have certainly been guilty of writing headlines in the latter style). In turn, the general public usually treats these findings as cause-effect, despite the fact that there may be no proven causal link between the variables. The article itself might even mention the study’s correlative, not causative, nature, and this still won’t change how it is perceived. Co-workers across the world will still congregate around coffee machines the next day, chatting about how watching The Kardashians is killing you, albeit very slowly.Humanity’s need for concrete causation likely stems from our unceasing desire to maintain some iota of control over our lives. That we are simply victims of luck and randomness may be exhilarating to a madcap few, but it is altogether discomforting to most. By seeking straightforward explanations at every turn, we preserve the notion that we can always affect our condition in some meaningful way. Unfortunately, that idea is a facade. Some things don’t have clear answers. Some things are just random. Some things simply can’t be controlled.

I like the reference to Taleb here. His books make just this argument: people want to see patterns when they don’t exist and thus are completely unprepared for changes in the stock market, governments, or the natural world. The trick is to know when you can rely on patterns and when you can’t – and Taleb even has general investment strategies in his most recent book Antifragile that try to minimize loss and try to maximize potential gains.

I wonder if this isn’t lurking behind the discussion of big data: there are scientists and others who seem to suggest that all we need to understand the world is more data and better pattern recognition tools. If only we could get enough, we could figure things out. But, what if the world turns out to be too complex? What if we can’t know everything about the social or natural world? Does this then change our perceptions of human ingenuity and progress?

h/t Instapundit

American middle class worried about downward mobility

Posted on by

A new poll suggests the American middle class is anxious about falling out of the middle class:

That’s the deeply ambivalent message from the latest Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor Poll exploring the public’s perception of what it means to be middle class in America today. Fully 56 percent of those surveyed said they believe they will eventually climb to a higher rung on the economic ladder than they occupy now. But even more said they worry about falling into a lower economic class sometime in the next few years. Reaffirming the results in earlier Heartland Monitor polls, most of those surveyed said the middle class today enjoys less opportunity, job security, and disposable income than earlier generations did. And strikingly small percentages of American adults said they consider it “very realistic” that they can meet such basic financial goals as paying for their children’s college, retiring comfortably, or saving “enough money to … deal with a health emergency or job loss.”

In all, the survey suggests that after years of economic turmoil, most families now believe the most valuable–and elusive–possession in American life isn’t any tangible acquisition, such as a house or a car, but rather economic security. Asked to define what it means to be middle class, a solid 54 percent majority of respondents picked “having the ability to keep up with expenses and hold a steady job while not falling behind or taking on too much debt”; a smaller percentage defined it in terms of getting ahead and accumulating savings. “It seems like that class of the people just live from paycheck to paycheck,” said Dale High, a trucker from near Idaho Falls, Idaho, who responded to the poll. “Everything is going up, but wages are staying the same. And people can’t live like that.”

Several quick thoughts:

1. Is this mainly the result of the current economic conditions? In other words, if the American economy rebounded significantly in the next few years, would the middle class again be more optimistic? I’m wondering if this is a temporary anxiety or is this a longer-term insecurity based on a perception that the world and their position within it is more fragile than before.

2. This seems related to research that suggests people feel losses more deeply than equivalent gains. Moving down is much more influential than moving up.

3. How do these perceptions actually line up with economic realities? Here is one indicator:

People who responded to the Allstate/National Journal poll reported a substantial amount of economic churning in their own lives–showing, again, a close balance between upward and downward mobility in American life. Exactly 30 percent of those surveyed reported they had risen from a lower economic class, and 27 percent said they had slipped down from a higher class. Forty-three percent had seen no movement at all…

This fear of losing ground is rooted in the conviction that, in the past few years, downward mobility has become much more common than upward movement. Asked whether more Americans recently had “earned or worked their way into the middle class” or had “fallen out of the middle class because of the economy,” almost eight times as many respondents took the bleaker view.

So how much “economic churning” is acceptable? Where do these ideas that people are falling behind at larger rates coming from – statistics about stagnant median household incomes, anecdotal evidence from family, friends, and neighbors, media coverage, etc.?

4. I wonder if this is also related to American interest in keeping up with others. Critics have argued that American consumption and life in suburbia has been motivated by “keeping up with the Joneses.” Is this still the case when times are tougher – people don’t want to fall behind relative to others around them? There is also some measure of generational comparison in this poll data – perhaps future generations will have it tougher in living in a “decent life.”

Canadian PM says we shouldn’t “commit sociology” and try to explain terrorism

Posted on by

When asked about a recently uncovered train terrorism plot, the Canadian Prime Minister said we should not “commit sociology”:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said this is not the time to “commit sociology” when asked about the arrests of two men this week who are accused of conspiring to carry out a terrorist attack on a Via train.

Harper was asked during a news conference with Trinidad and Tobago’s prime minister about concerns with the timing of the arrests. He was also asked about when it’s appropriate to talk about the root causes of involvement with terrorism.

The Conservatives had taken Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau to task when he suggested last week it was important to look at the root causes of the Boston Marathon bombings after offering condolences and support to the victims. They said he was trying to rationalize the bombings or make excuses when the Liberal leader said the bombings happened because someone felt excluded from society.

“I think, though, this is not a time to commit sociology, if I can use an expression,” Harper said. “These things are serious threats, global terrorist attacks, people who have agendas of violence that are deep and abiding threats to all the values our society stands for.

“I don’t think we want to convey any view to the Canadian public other than our utter condemnation of this kind of violence, contemplation of this violence and our utter determination through our laws and our activities to do everything we can to prevent it and counter it,” Harper said.

This echoes some conversations in recent years:

–George Will warned against committing sociology after the shooting in Aurora, Colorado.

-After the riots in London, some said we should not try to explain why some people would riot (which is a relatively rare event in Western society).

Is this a new conservative talking point?

Just because we want to try to understand why some people commit terrorist acts (and most others do not) does not mean the explanations excuse or condone the actions. It also does not necessarily imply that society is entirely at fault. But, we do know that social forces can affect people even as individuals have some agency. In the end, thinking about causes of terrorism (and rioting) can help us develop ways to stop it in the future.

Spreadsheet errors, austerity, ideology, and social science

Posted on by

The graduate student who found some spreadsheet errors in an influential anti-austerity paper discusses what happened. Here is part of the conversation about the process of finding this error:

Q. You say, don’t you, that their use of data was faulty?

A. Yes. The terms we used about their data—”selective” and “unconventional”—are appropriate ones. The reasons for the choices they made needed to be given, and there was nowhere where they were.

Q. And how about their claim that your findings support their thesis that growth slows as debt rises?

A. That is not our interpretation of our paper, at all. If you read their paper, it’s interesting how they handle causality. They waffle between strong and weak claims. The weak claim is that it’s just a negative association. If that’s all they claim, then it’s not really relevant for policy. But they also make a strong claim, more in public than in the paper, that there’s causality going from high debt to drops in growth. They haven’t been obvious about that…

Q. Paul Krugman wrote in The New York Times that your work confirms what many economists have long intuitively thought. Was that your intuition?

A. Yes. I just thought it was counterintuitive when I first saw their claim. It wasn’t plausible.

Q. This is more than a spreadsheet error, then?

A. Yes. The Excel error wasn’t the biggest error. It just got everyone talking about this. It was an emperor-has-no-clothes moment.

This would make for a good case study in a methodology class in the social sciences: how much of this is about actual data errors versus different interpretations? You have people who are clearly staking out space on either side of a policy discussion and it is a bit unclear how much does this color their interpretation of “facts”/data. I suspect some time will help sort this out – if the spreadsheet was indeed wrong, shouldn’t this lead to a correction or a retraction?

I do like the fact that the original authors were willing to share their data – this is something that could happen more often in the social sciences and give people the ability to look at the data for themselves.