Like Cities
While several studies have shown that urban density isn’t linked to increased spread of COVID-19, no one has been fooled into thinking that the pandemic won’t affect our cities - partly because, as it turns out, pandemics have affected our cities. In this conversation (my favorite among the recent wave of “what will become of cities” think pieces, and not just because of the host’s delightful Minnesota accent), Tom Fisher of the Minnesota Design Center lists a number of urban infrastructure innovations that were developed as responses to plagues and epidemics - including cemeteries, indoor plumbing, and zoning. So change is gonna come. Fisher thinks about what it might be this time around.
Many other commentators are often caught up arguing for or against the idea that workers and employers who have now realized they can conduct most (if not all) of their business remotely will leave cities. And there’s certainly evidence that this is happening to some extent. But Fisher considers changes that might come even for those currently remote workers who stay put and do hybrid work - a few days in the office and a few days working from home. He gives a bunch of numbers about this trend, and I’ve found a few sources that also provide evidence for it.
So even if no one moved away, I agree (and hope) that cities will look and feel different. Fisher’s point is that while we will return to offices and stores, it won’t be because we have to. It’ll be because we want the experience of going there - which means that these places will need to evolve to be better experiences. Or, in the case of our over-built retail spaces, they’ll need to evolve into something else.
This made me think of the way urban areas, and especially downtowns, are shaped by the transactions that take place there. Office buildings are an efficient way to stack workers, partitioned into cubes to give each just as much space as their salary justifies. On their way into and out of their cubes, they pass a series of establishments where they can spend the money they’re earning. The parks, the public art, and other signs of culture are often ancillary to the real economic work of the city.
I want to see a downtown shaped primarily by what people want to do there and how they want to relate to each other. What would offices look like if people who come there do so because it feels good to be in the physical presence of coworkers? What would streets and stores look like if their main purpose is for people to be social? And what if “people” includes everyone, like those whose job it will be to cook the food, empty the trash, and deliver the packages? This disease has taken so much from us - even those of us who haven’t lost our lives, our health, or our loved ones. Is a little utopia too much to ask for in return?
And Economics
For my next trick, allow me, the world’s only weirdo who reads economics texts for fun, to expound on a concept that has captivated me lately: scarcity.
Scarcity is the basis of economics - the whole field is built on the idea of how people satisfy their wants and needs in a world of scarce resources. You can’t have everything all the time, so you have to make choices, and voila: the rational economic actor is born into the market of the world.
This is common sense. It’s also pretty wrong, and people promoting everything from get-rich-quick schemes to mental health to racial justice argue against it...but that’s a different post. For now, let’s just take it at face value. Scarcity underlies economics, which defines markets.
And markets define everything. We don’t need Benjamin Franklin to tell us that things that have nothing to do with material resources are described in terms of money and markets. We can spend, save, or waste time, energy, even our breath.
But here’s the curious part. Our time and energy are goods to be traded on the market, but paradoxically, they’re the only things that we don’t treat as scarce. If your job gives you too much to do, the solution is to work late. If a global pandemic keeps your kids at home, the solution is to find a way to both work and be a caretaker at the same time...or else drop out of the job market completely.
This just doesn’t work: time and energy are indeed scarce. Even though we talk about “making” time for something, we know that if you choose to spend your evening cooking pozole from scratch, that means you can’t spend it playing beach volleyball. Time is pretty obviously a zero-sum game.
This is less intuitive when it comes to energy, by which I mean the human capacity to be active in the world; to do things - physical things, emotional things, everything. Every American pep talk I’ve ever heard tells me that energy is boundless. If you think you can’t do it, dig deeper! Lean in! In fact, your unlimited energy can even let you overcome your limited time - you can multi-task! If you have enough energy (or attention or will or whatever), you CAN do everything all at once!
But no. Energy, or whatever you want to call it, is a scarce resource. And if you run out, you either need to stop what you’re doing or start borrowing from somewhere else. If you borrow too much - from your family, from your down time, from whatever sustains you - the interest payment on that loan becomes your sanity and eventually your physical health. This used to be called a nervous breakdown, and this article by Jerry Useem, arguing to bring the idea back, is where I first encountered the idea of mental or emotional bankruptcy. I agree: it’s real.
So I kindly ask The Market, as it continually tries to take over every corner of our lives, to treat our time and our human energy as a scarce and extremely valuable resource. Don’t ask people to spend more than 40 hours a week earning money - and for people like me, who find even 40 hours to be untenable right now, create more ways for people to spend even less. Don’t ask people who are working full time or more to also care for children, parents, or anyone else without help. And definitely don’t ask anyone to work and care for family while expending constant energy worrying about how to make ends meet.
Too bad The Market doesn’t read my newsletter.
Other Interesting Bits
For anyone else who feels like you should be against the filibuster but is as confused about it as I was, this is a great explanation.
Ditto for modern online monopolies.
If you consider yourself a serious feminist but haven’t heard of Silvia Federici or Nina Banks, the New York Times has good news for you.
I love this community mapping project.