Wouldn't necessarily agree with the source of OP's metrics, but I would agree with the sentiment I believe they are expressing.
Comparatively, the other major metropolitan areas in the U.S. produce some product/service that is competitive in the common market: tech things (SF-Bay Area), financial services (NY), entertainment (LA), more tech things (Seattle), etc. [0] Another way I think about it is that these other metro areas have to produce something that people would want to exchange dollars for because they provide more value to them than their dollars.
The thing that separates D.C. from these other metros (and for lack of a better term, "the real world") is that the value-determination mechanism of exchanging dollars for goods/services is completely different than the other cities (and I would argue much worse). Government has little incentive to spend less and consequently seek goods/services that provide the best value. In fact, the U.S. federal government has quite the opposite motivation. Every department is incentivized to spend as much as possible within their allotted budget (which hardly ever decreases year-over-year), lest they demonstrate that they could actually perform their functions with less money than has been allotted to them (gasp!). This phenomenon can be observed in the frenzy to spend all the budgeted money by the end of the fiscal year. [2]
The end result is a city that continuously spends more money for goods/services that are almost orthogonal to providing value (since that is not their point). There's something perverse in the fact that of the ten highest median income counties in the U.S., 50% of them are in this area that produces goods/services of dubious to no value. [1]
[0] Apologies to anyone if I caused offense at these gross oversimplifications of their cities.
[2] Anecdote: I literally worked on a project for a three-letter agency to develop an ML model that would identify which budgeted funds were "in danger" of going unspent by the end of the fiscal year. Leadership loved it. What was a manual process involving countless person-hours that usually began in late spring to comb through the budget, could be supplemented by a model-based prediction in February.
> That borg-like "you will be assimilated" sort of commentary is fascinating, disturbing, and goes far to illustrate how there are ordinary people who absolutely don't want you to exert your economic authority.
I've learned not to underestimate the extents to which people will go to rationalize their cognitive dissonance. In person, my tactic has just been to self-censor more - I guess I'm tired/lazy and don't want to be bothered unnecessarily.
So the author points out that some reasons constraining mobility are outside of a person's control:
> When we talk about limited mobility, we have to talk about states that are actively and legislatively hostile to marginalized people.
And then proceeds to frame the choice of "where to live?" as solely within a person's control, "What’s holding you back, and what conversations do you have with yourself about when and whether that will change?"
> And so, a prompt for discussion: What would have to change, for you to move closer to the people who nourish you, who support you, who make your life better and easier in so many ways?
I'm getting fatigued with seeing/hearing this meaningless virtue signaling. It usually takes the form of, "We see you," "We acknowledge particular challenges for certain people," and then proceeding to make a point that either completely disregards or directly contradicts (in this case) the speaker's/writer's acknowledgement of racism/hostility/lack of safety/etc.
One reason I ask is because if one is just looking at the Korean-American population as a whole, there are a couple other factors that could be leading to the gender imbalance:
- Mothers raising their kids in U.S. while the father works in Korea
- Historic immigration after the Korean War, during which a large portion of the male population was wiped out
> actually they (the asian you say) would face less discrimination but they just dont know it so they could be also racist by themselve (english is not my best, just trying to explain, of course they are not racist)
Thank you for speaking on our behalf and enlightening us on where we would/would not experience more/less racism.
The fact that the founders named the company based off a Hawaiian-English dictionary look-up strikes me as pretty bland-corporate, "The company was named after akamai, which means 'clever,' or more colloquially, 'cool' in Hawaiian, which Lewin had discovered in a Hawaiian-English dictionary after the suggestion of a colleague." [0]
From what I've seen living here and hearing Hawaiian Creole English (aka pidgin), nobody uses akamai to refer to something that is cool... Always used in the smart/clever context. But then again, I wouldn't expect the founders to know that if they didn't have knowledge of local Hawaii culture.
Comparatively, the other major metropolitan areas in the U.S. produce some product/service that is competitive in the common market: tech things (SF-Bay Area), financial services (NY), entertainment (LA), more tech things (Seattle), etc. [0] Another way I think about it is that these other metro areas have to produce something that people would want to exchange dollars for because they provide more value to them than their dollars.
The thing that separates D.C. from these other metros (and for lack of a better term, "the real world") is that the value-determination mechanism of exchanging dollars for goods/services is completely different than the other cities (and I would argue much worse). Government has little incentive to spend less and consequently seek goods/services that provide the best value. In fact, the U.S. federal government has quite the opposite motivation. Every department is incentivized to spend as much as possible within their allotted budget (which hardly ever decreases year-over-year), lest they demonstrate that they could actually perform their functions with less money than has been allotted to them (gasp!). This phenomenon can be observed in the frenzy to spend all the budgeted money by the end of the fiscal year. [2]
The end result is a city that continuously spends more money for goods/services that are almost orthogonal to providing value (since that is not their point). There's something perverse in the fact that of the ten highest median income counties in the U.S., 50% of them are in this area that produces goods/services of dubious to no value. [1]
[0] Apologies to anyone if I caused offense at these gross oversimplifications of their cities.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_countie...
[2] Anecdote: I literally worked on a project for a three-letter agency to develop an ML model that would identify which budgeted funds were "in danger" of going unspent by the end of the fiscal year. Leadership loved it. What was a manual process involving countless person-hours that usually began in late spring to comb through the budget, could be supplemented by a model-based prediction in February.