THE SUBURBS HAVE BECOME A PONZI SCHEME
THE SUBURBS HAVE BECOME A PONZI SCHEME
A new book looks at how white families depleted the resources of the suburbs and left more recent Black and Latino residents “holding the bag.”
WHITE FAMILIES SUCKED THE SUBURBS DRY
Original article: https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2024/01/benjamin-herold-disillusioned-suburbs/677229/
That's not how that works. Suburbs can't be a ponzi scheme. Get the fuck out of here with that click bait bullshit.
Suburbs can't be a ponzi scheme
Genuine question: Why not?
While the article indeed barely touched on its headline, the way I've seen the "suburb infrastructure upkeep problem" described seems indeed reminiscent of a ponzi scheme.
The way I understand it:
Suburbs have a relatively low initial cost (for the city) compared to the taxes they generate. However, their maintenance cost is relatively high because Suburbs are huge.
Thus, US cities have long had a policy of paying the rising cost of their older Suburbs by creating new Suburbs - which is pretty analogous to a Ponzi scheme.
I think you misunderstand what a ponzi scheme actually is. It's a type of "investment" that's actually a scam where new investments are used to pay out older investors until the funds run out. It is named after the guy is famous for being the first to run one, Charles Ponzi.
In large chunks of this country the suburbs are comprised of hoas that bear a good chunk of the maintenance cost. And I would like to see actual proof that a suburb road needs more maintenance with passenger vehicles than a downtown road with large 3+ axle vehicles on it all of the time. If those roads do need more maintenance then that is likely a quality control problem that happens when you hire the lowest bidder for a job.
Don't feel bad. You are one of the hundreds if not thousands that I have interacted with that don't actually understand what a ponzi is and isn't. Not everything that doesn't work out or work out for everyone is a scam or a ponzi.
Oh and I did just skim the "article" and nothing it says leads me to the conclusion that ponzi is the right word here.
I'm not sure at the moment what the right term would be for what they are trying to describe but it's most definitely not ponzi.
The article is fine. Blame the sub-editor for picking up one of the two metaphors in this quote:
Marohn suggests that what’s happened in places such as Ferguson and Penn Hills is the equivalent of a Ponzi scheme. It’s “the development version of slash-and-burn agriculture,” he tells the author. “We build a place, we use up the resources, and when the returns start diminishing, we move on, leaving a geographic time bomb in our wake!”
Again. Not a ponzi and definitely not slash and burn agriculture either. These neighborhoods exist and continue to have value for people. This "article" is hyperbolic bullshit and you lot have no idea what a ponzi actually is.
Also that quote talks about specific neighborhoods, not surbubia as a whole. Neighborhoods have their place. I would suggest that people move further out of the city center like we have and buy for a lot cheaper with a lower cost of living. If you work from home, there is no reason to be in a massive neighborhood that will have the same drive time to shops, schools, etc than living in what I call country'ish.
Race bait
It’s a class issue, not racial.
Yep. White families didn't suck it dry. The suburbs were largely always unsustainable and came at the cost of disadvantaged groups.
Fuck off.
Feck off