Will in About a Boy with his “units of time” and all of our lives lived in 15-minute increments

Posted on by

In the movie version of About a Boy, the adult character Will describes his life as lived in “units of time”:

Photo by Jordan Benton on Pexels.com

The important thing in island living is to be your own activities director.
I find the key is to think of a day as units of time, each unit consisting of no more than 30 minutes.
Full hours can be a little bit intimidating and most activities take about half an hour.
Taking a bath: One unit.
Watching Countdown:
Okay.
One unit.
Web-based research:
Two units.
Exercising: Three units.
Having my hair carefully disheveled: Four units.
It’s amazing how the day fills up.

In the movie, this looks somewhat depressing. Perhaps it is a coping mechanism. Will claims he is fine living alone but the story involves him finding value in relationships with several people who would not expect to have relationships with.

But what if all of us live in small increments of time that add up to weeks, months, years, decades. From the end of a recent article on declining social engagement in American life:

When Epley and his lab asked Chicagoans to overcome their preference for solitude and talk with strangers on a train, the experiment probably didn’t change anyone’s life. All it did was marginally improve the experience of one 15-minute block of time. But life is just a long set of 15-minute blocks, one after another. The way we spend our minutes is the way we spend our decades. “No amount of research that I’ve done has changed my life more than this,” Epley told me. “It’s not that I’m never lonely. It’s that my moment-to-moment experience of life is better, because I’ve learned to take the dead space of life and make friends in it.”

What if life is a series of 15-minute blocks where our choices with those blocks can add up to profoundly different outcomes? In the example above, start socializing each day in one 15-minute increment and see what it can lead to. This is the narrative in numerous self-improvement and habit books: build small new routines and change your life.

Keeping track of every 15 minutes in life would be laborious and could turn someone into a clock watcher rather than an active participant in life. Yet, time use does indeed add up and broad changes in time use – such as watching more television – can have big impacts.

Are millennials going to the suburbs like boomers did?

Posted on by

The American suburbs reach across generations:

Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels.com

But the reality of many millennials is starting to more closely mirror their parents’. They’re catching up on earnings and wealth, and while they’re still behind on homeownership, they’re not screwed. It may have taken them awhile to settle down, but they’re getting around to it and heading to the suburbs. In short, millennials are looking increasingly boomer-esque, and in some areas, they’re doing better than their parents.

The primary argument here involves wealth and homeownership. Are millennials at similar levels? Can they find the same kind of American Dream consisting of making it to the suburbs and owning their own house?

But it strikes me that there is a larger argument to make: these are longstanding cultural patterns, not just questions about economic resources. A later passage in the article hints at this:

In other words, it may not be that all the millennials headed to the suburbs want to be there, but in some cases, they feel like they have no choice but to exit urban centers and swallow a longer commute in the process.

“The plurality are moving to the suburbs, but that’s where the housing stock is,” Lautz said. Some of it has to do with having school-age kids, for example, but a lot has to do with affordability and availability.

Do economic conditions alone drive these choices – people need housing they can afford – or is it about influential ideologies that provide Americans particular messages about the suburbs? Americans prioritize certain things in suburbia. They like cheap and big houses. They like living near certain neighbors. They like particular amenities in their communities, including those they think help their children succeed.

If millennials do indeed end up in the suburbs at similar rates to previous generations of Americans, they may do so because this is what Americans have been doing for decades. There are economic imperatives for doing this – owning a suburban home is a primary vehicle for acquiring wealth – but also established patterns where they like driving, they are used to the ins-and-outs of sprawl, and they enjoy their private dwellings.

If the exurbs are way beyond the basketball three-point line, where are downtown and the suburbs?

Posted on by

With more NBA action taking place beyond the three point line, this description likened it to the exurbs:

Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko on Pexels.com

This is some wild stuff happening between the circles. Minnesota’s Jaden McDaniels is guarding Steph Curry nose-to-nose more than 40 feet from the basket, no space between them, two guys sharing a shirt. The other eight players on the court might as well be in another galaxy; this dance in the exurbs is its own game. The player who has the ball is somewhere behind McDaniels, far outside his sphere of interest. His mandate appears settled: He will go where Curry goes, and he will turn his attention to the ball if, and only if, he sees it in Curry’s hands.

The idea invoked is that the dribbling is taking place on the outskirts of a region. Forty feet out is a long way from the basketball and closer to the half-court line than the hoop.

But continue the spatial analogy. One issue is that some announcers say a three-point shot is from “downtown.” From Hunter S. Thompson:

My grudge against Brent Musburger has been smoking on a personal back burner for many years — since the early 1980s in fact, when Brent was covering the NBA Finals for CBS-TV, and it involves the word “downtown.”

That is when Musburger changed the language of sports forever when he kept repeating this ignorant notion that any basketball player firing off a long 3-point shot is shooting from “downtown.” (Celtics announcer Johnny Most might have coined the “downtown” trademark in the 1960s, but it was Musburger who beat it to death.)..

Downtown is where you score — not somewhere out in the wilderness, where people are far apart & not much happens. You don’t fire a long jump shot from Downtown, you fire it into Downtown. The Real definition of “Taking it downtown” is to suddenly drive to the basket & into a cluster of 7-footers who seem to have you sealed out — like Iverson launching himself at Robinson & Duncan & dunking it over them. To think Otherwise would be to think like a Baseball Writer, or like Brent Musburger.

Thompson did not like the term and he points out that it makes more sense to say downtown is right where the basket is. If downtown is at the center of the city and the region, why would taking a three-pointer be from downtown?

If the basketball court is likened to American geographic categories, how about downtown is under the basket, the city is the paint, the suburbs span between the paint to just outside the three-point line, the exurbs are between the normal three-point shots and the half-court line, and rural areas are in the backcourt. That is probably too many categories but it more accurately applies categories Americans use.

The suburbs and television helped decrease American social engagement

Posted on by

By the 1970s, Americans engaged less with others compared to previous decades:

Photo by Huu1ef3nh u0110u1ea1t on Pexels.com

But in the 1970s, the U.S. entered an era of withdrawal, as the political scientist Robert D. Putnam famously documented in his 2000 book, Bowling Alone. Some institutions of togetherness, such as marriage, eroded slowly. Others fell away swiftly. From 1985 to 1994, active involvement in community organizations fell by nearly half. The decline was astonishingly broad, affecting just about every social activity and every demographic group that Putnam tracked.

What happened in the 1970s? Klinenberg, the sociologist, notes a shift in political priorities: The government dramatically slowed its construction of public spaces. “Places that used to anchor community life, like libraries and school gyms and union halls, have become less accessible or shuttered altogether,” he told me. Putnam points, among other things, to new moral values, such as the embrace of unbridled individualism. But he found that two of the most important factors were by then ubiquitous technologies: the automobile and the television set.

Starting in the second half of the century, Americans used their cars to move farther and farther away from one another, enabling the growth of the suburbs and, with it, a retreat into private backyard patios, private pools, a more private life. Once Americans got out of the car, they planted themselves in front of the television. From 1965 to 1995, the typical adult gained six hours a week in leisure time. They could have devoted that time—300 hours a year!—to community service, or pickup basketball, or reading, or knitting, or all four. Instead, they funneled almost all of this extra time into watching more TV.

Television transformed Americans’ interior decorating, our relationships, and our communities. In 1970, just 6 percent of sixth graders had a TV set in their bedroom; in 1999, that proportion had grown to 77 percent. Time diaries in the 1990s showed that husbands and wives spent almost four times as many hours watching TV together as they spent talking to each other in a given week. People who said TV was their “primary form of entertainment” were less likely to engage in practically every social activity that Putnam counted: volunteering, churchgoing, attending dinner parties, picnicking, giving blood, even sending greeting cards. Like a murder in Clue, the death of social connections in America had any number of suspects. But in the end, I believe the likeliest culprit is obvious. It was Mr. Farnsworth, in the living room, with the tube.

There are more details on this in Bowling Alone. This also reminds me of the famous sociology Middletown studies that found the widespread adoption of the automobile allowed people to drive off and do their own thing. For example, they could take a drive into the country on a Sunday morning rather than go to church.

This is also something Jonathan Haidt tried to get at in The Anxious Generation: take away smartphones and you have preexisting social issues in the United States where social interaction had already changed. Yes, the smartphones may affect people and interactions but they are not the only or initial culprits to changing social conditions.

So would the answer then be to limit or eliminate cars or television? I have heard this argued before. Would these changes limit individualism in significant ways or would the trends in that direction just find other outlets?

Washington, DC is the city with the most single-person households

Posted on by

More Americans are living alone and one city leads the way:

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

An April study by the Chamber of Commerce, a real estate research company, named D.C. the loneliest city in America, based on Census Bureau data showing that 48.6 percent of households in the city consist of just one person, the highest share of any city with a population of at least 150,000. Nationwide, the study said, solo living has increased as people wait longer for marriage and children, and the covid pandemic accelerated the trend.

Three thoughts (and questions) in response:

  1. It is interesting that the original study framed this as about “loneliness.” Does this match with the experiences of the residents who may choose to live in a single-person household?
  2. If the problem is indeed loneliness, then the solution presented here involves co-housing opportunities. Who are these housing opportunities available to and who are they not available to? Who will end up living in these spaces?
  3. Is there a tipping point where the percent of single-person household has particular effects on local community life? Washington is at the top of the list but it is very close to the number 2 city (Birmingham).

For more on this broader trend among Americans of living alone, I remember enjoying reading Going Solo by sociologist Eric Klinenberg.

Would Americans choose lower property taxes if it means giving up local control of funding for local services?

Posted on by

This is an interesting “Would you rather?” for numerous American communities: would residents rather have higher property taxes or give up control of the local funding for schools and other local services because of lower property taxes?

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

There is a silver lining, though. The most radical property tax–related proposals are argued for as either general anti-tax measures or as efforts to privatize schooling. Whatever you think of their intended goals, they would also have an unintended effect of ameliorating one of the worst features of the property tax: its localism.

If North Dakota voters had voted for a repeal of the property tax, much of the revenue used to replace it likely would have come from state taxes. (The group formed to oppose it was called “Keep it Local.”) Similarly, if the state government is supporting school choice vouchers with income or sales tax revenue, that means schools as a whole rely less on local property taxes.

Americans like local control, particularly in the suburbs. To give that up to governments elsewhere who may attach particular guidelines to the funding could be seen as a loss.

And there are some people willing to argue they are willing to pay higher property taxes for what they receive. It is less clear how many residents feel this way or that people do not find ways to limit their property taxes.

I am not sure this has to be pitched as an either/or: higher property taxes or lower taxes and give up financial control to other bodies. Here are two other options:

  1. Do Americans believe that local services can and should be provided more cheaply? This could be about containing costs of existing services.
  2. Another variation for #1 is cutting local services to limit costs.

Both of these options might be unattractive: local services tend to help enhance the status and value of properties and communities. Reducing these or threatening them could be perceived as backfiring and hurting everyone.

The choice might also depend on the local context. Would high housing values in some places lead to residents wanting to do a lot to limit property taxes? Or what if residents felt they could handle funding coming from other places? After all, real estate is local.

Scaffolding assignments for class, scaffolding tasks in life

Posted on by

As I do some final planning for courses this semester, I was reminded of the scaffolded final assignments I now have in each class. These involve having multiple steps that contribute to a final product, usually a research paper, at the end of the semester. At each point, students work on a portion of what will be the final product and receive feedback. I have generally found this helps lead to better final projects and more learning over the course of the semester compared to having a big assignment due at the end with little preparation or feedback beforehand.

Photo by Josh Sorenson on Pexels.com

But this is not just for school assignments. This is often helpful for getting tasks done. People might go about this in different ways. Imagine doing a little of a task each day – such as cleaning one level of a house – and it adds up to being done. Or working hard on something for a set amount of time and then taking a short break before going back to the task. Or putting in practice time each day and it adding up to more in the long run. Indeed, how often do we set out to accomplish something that goes beyond a simple task and get it all done in one sitting? It may be possible – but scaffolding often helps.

What if one important skill to be learned here is how to learn how to break complex tasks into manageable steps over time? Being able to consider a task, see how it can be effectively subdivided, finding the time to do those parts, reflecting on the progress after each part is completed, and then putting it all together into a final product. A classroom can provide an opportunity to practice this with some guidance.

Suburban pattern #3 to watch in 2025: where suburbs will find revenue

Posted on by

What will 2025 bring in the American suburbs? A third thing I will be watching for is the search for municipal revenue.

Photo by Miguel u00c1. Padriu00f1u00e1n on Pexels.com

Every government body has a budget and sources of revenue. This includes suburban communities. They may receive money from taxes, fees, state government, the federal government, and other sources.

What will happen to suburban revenues in 2025? There are multiple threats:

  1. Slowing population growth or no population growth.
  2. Vacant office and retail buildings.
  3. Reduced funding from the federal and/or state governments.

And it is difficult to reduce municipal costs. As suburbs develop and mature, there are certain costs to maintain infrastructure and provide the services residents expect.

One way to boost revenues is to boost local taxes and fees. This may be unpopular among locals, particularly if they already perceive their local tax burden to be high. But more of this money can go directly to local operations and small increases can be sold as small burdens for individual taxpayers.

To some degree, municipal budgets are always tight. How many suburban communities have surpluses that enable them to keep spending and expanding services and amenities?

In 2025, some suburbs may face tough financial situations. What will they do in these situations? Where might they find extra money? How much goodwill will there be among leaders, residents, and other actors to find solutions?

Suburban pattern #2 to watch in 2025: shopping malls and retail locations

Posted on by

What will 2025 bring in the American suburbs? A second thing I will be watching for involves the fate of shopping malls and retail locations.

Photo by Photo By: Kaboompics.com on Pexels.com

While the suburbs are known first for their emphasis on single-family homes, they are also full of commercial activity. Specifically, shopping malls, retailers, and strip malls dot the suburban landscape. Drive down major roadways through the American suburbs and you are likely to see retail activity all over the place.

With the ongoing shift toward online shopping and shopping by delivery, what happens to all of these locations? The shopping mall has been suffering for years. A quintessential suburban feature with acres of free parking, numerous retailers in one location, and a place for teenagers and others to hang out, many malls will not survive. Similarly, big box stores and smaller retailers are also closing.

Suburban communities have been working on this for years. Can the shopping mall become more of an entertainment and restaurant center? Can it survive with apartments and housing added on site? Can they be demolished, rezoned, and be home to thriving new developments? For the big box store, what can fill that space?

In all of these plans and activity, there are some common patterns at work:

  1. Suburbs want to replace the revenue malls and retailers produced. This can mean they hold on to ideas of retail or revenue producing uses for a long time.
  2. What replaces the retail locations should not significantly drain local services.
  3. Redevelopment, even if local actors generally agree on what should be done, can take a while. Some of these malls and retail locations have been there for decades. Their particular location and context may vary but changes can affect local character and experiences.

At the same time, some suburban communities will continue to have thriving malls and retail locations. Will this only be in wealthier communities or in ones with advantageous locations within a region or among ones that provide certain desirable amenities? Even if the number of shopping malls, strip malls, and big box stores declines this year, they are not going away completely anytime soon. But the patterns of where there are may continue to fuel differences between suburbs in regions.

Suburban pattern #1 to watch in 2025: affordable housing

Posted on by

What will 2025 bring in the American suburbs? One thing I will be watching for are discussions of and actions regarding affordable housing.

Photo by Kindel Media on Pexels.com

Why this particular concern? We could start with a broad statement: there is a need for cheaper housing in many American metropolitan areas. The rise in housing prices in recent years has priced out many residents from quality housing or living near where they work or residing in places they want to. This is not just true in the most expensive urban areas like Manhattan or San Francisco; there is a need for housing in numerous suburban areas.

At the same time, affordable housing can mean different things in different communities and among different actors. Is affordable housing about providing broad housing opportunities to most people who could live in a region? Or is it for lower-income residents? Or is it for seniors? When suburbs discuss affordable housing, I think they have different populations in mind depending on the local history and context.

The last few decades demonstrated that affordable housing is not a concept many suburban communities welcome. It has particular connotations. It may be perceived as a threat to existing property values. It is for particular residents. Few American suburbanites seem to want to live adjacent to affordable housing, even if they are for the concept in general.

So what might happen in 2025? There surely will be discussions at the federal, state, and local levels about affordable housing. Different levels of government and different actors may want to use different levers to encourage affordable housing. What kind of carrots or sticks might be offered? The 2024 presidential campaigns had different thoughts. Could there be significant shifts either way in the next year? If Americans continue to be concerned about their own economic standing, the issue of housing prices will not go away. But who will act and what might they do?