Lee Kuan Yew's whole thesis re: Singapore was that multicultural societies need strict laws and punishments for those that step out of line because people don't naturally look out for each other. He learned this from going back to the UK in the 60s and seeing how social trust had degraded due to immigration.
Singapore is a counterexample to the grandparent post. It's very much a "heterogenous" culture, if the word "heterogenous" has any meaning at all, with four (!) official languages and a lot of immigration. It could not be described as "chaotic" or "disorderly."
The unsubtle explanation from someone who is not a huge Singapore fan (or from someone who is?) might be that this is simply the power of well-engineered, highly authoritarian government. But it's certainly not about choosing homogeneity or eschewing immigration.
Singapore is 75% Chinese, and immigration levels are calibrated to maintain that ratio. Accounting for religious diversity, US hasn’t been as homogenous as Singapore since the 1800s. And Singapore is also a country where the top-down authoritarian government is run based on the vision of LKY, who himself is distinctly inspired by a mix of Confucianism and Anglo culture. The other cultural groups are given wide latitude within their sphere of influence, but none have any imprint on the government and institutions. It’s like if Americans agreed that WASP culture would always dominate the government and civil institutions.
> Accounting for religious diversity, US hasn’t been as homogenous as Singapore since the 1800s.
This didn't jibe so I looked up the figures and I still don't understand why you'd write this. To be honest I don't understand why you've written most of what you've written on this thread, but, did you mean to write "ignoring religious diversity...?" The US is 63% Christian. The largest religious group in Singapore is the Buddhists, at... 31%? And unlike in the United States, two minority groups in Singapore (Christians, Muslims) have strong representation in the population, whereas in the US, not so much.
Which I guess would leave things like language, of which they have four official ones and quite a few others, with a bilingual education mandate that demands everyone learn English but recognizes that they've probably got their own as well, IIRC.
There's racial makeup, if that matters to you (I get the feeling it does). In terms of cultural dominance I would reject the idea that there's something massively different about a 69% white majority vs a 74% Chinese majority. The second on their list is Malay at 13.5% and the second on our list is Black at 12.4% and my God why are we even having this conversation
I'm pretty sure the explanation for the undeniable order there is the completely obvious explanation that does not involve "homogeneity" or immigration. It's the authoritarian system of government.
If you compare like with like, the US is more diverse on almost every dimension except language. Catholic/Protestant is a major dividing line. And if you are going to say “white” is a category, then Singapore is virtually 100% “Asian.” If you want to talk about ethnic groups, then the largest US ethnic group is German Americans, which are only about 25% of the population.
And yes the homogeneity helps Singapore’s orderliness. The overwhelming majority of the population is Asian, who in general are more collectivist and orderly than say Italians.
I didn't first realize that you were commenting my post - but I did say two things:
1) There's no such thing as a culture which doesn't change. Culture is a living thing. It changes, even if you never have a single immigrant. My parent's culture wasn't the same as mine, even back when there were no immigrants and hardly anyone coming from elsewhere in the country.
2) I also clarified in a later post that to me the culture is enhanced, i.e. there's more to it than before.
I definitely don't have any feeling of loss of culture, I guess that's my point.
"This is one major reason why BART boarded up their restrooms in downtown SF."
We live in a society where we can't have public restrooms and progressives (including virtually half the commenters here!) think that we're being too mean to vagrants. Just incredible.
Why are Tokyo and Singapore nice cities? What would they do if someone was shooting up in the streets in front of children?
If you've seen government intervention in markets be absolutely destructive then it makes sense to vote for the party that is more pro-market.
Not to mention that national Dems are significantly to the left of the median Hispanic American in terms of social policy (especially on gender and race).
> Ah the old "people only disagree with my politics because they are tricked".
That's not really an accurate paraphrasing, but I guess the gist is close enough. Yes, I think many people vote the way they do because they are misled.
Democrats are in a weird position where they're relatively moderate in terms of economics, but arguably the furthest left major party in the world in terms of social issues. The latter is turning off non-college educated of all ethnicities.
Even more so when you look past the platform to what they can actually accomplish with the traffic light coalition they’ve put together. They got a temporary child tax credit through the Trump administration, but couldn’t even make it permanent when they got a trifecta.
Social issues are really the only thing where the party is unified and can push through changes, especially through the administrative state. We didn’t get a permanent child tax credit, or paid family leave, but we did get abortions and DEI in the military.
Not sure what you're talking about re: "criminal justice reform" - we've had an experiment on that in the last decade that has led to absolute disaster. Low level crime has increased, and now violent crime is increasing.
For an opposite story, my family emigrated from the Mid East to Europe then USA and it was by far the best thing that could have ever happened. My QOL would have been so much worse in Mid East, and even in Europe (developed, Northern Europe at that), vs. what it is today in the US. It's the number one thing I am most grateful for.
Materially things are better, no doubt. It helps that me and most if my cousins ended up as affluent professionals. But in some ways quality of life is much worse, being separated from our family and culture.
I think my mom never really perceived it as an upgrade. My dad did, but as he gets older it’s getting tougher. Professional networks disperse, and he doesn’t really have family in the country. His relationship with his brother (who actually immigrated to NY recently) didn’t really survive 30 years of separation. My kids will probably never meet all of their cousins.
I totally get the folks in rural Ohio that don’t want to emigrate to the coasts for jobs. They’re going to be facing significant disruptions in their family networks. And it’s not like they’ll enjoy a quantum leap in living standards and social status elsewhere. They’ll just be at the bottom of the totem pole somewhere unfamiliar.
There is not a single group of Central Americans that have positive fiscal impact over their lifetime. Their kids are also not becoming doctors and engineers.
By the way, I'm totally fine with allowing some number of people that we know are going to be fiscal negatives (likely into perpetuity) come to the country. There does need to be some aspect of empathy in the immigration system. That being said, those left of center are just so naive about this topic. Noticing differences in groups is so taboo that they throw common sense out of the window.
> There does need to be some aspect of empathy in the immigration system.
Agreed; glad you think so too.
> Noticing differences in groups is so taboo that they throw common sense out of the window.
The problem is that "common sense" often proves to be neither, because we're quite capable of grossly misjudging what constitutes valuable human capital. Recall that we used to deny adult citizens the right to vote, or to serve on juries or in public office, unless they were white male property owners over 21 years old — who knows how much society lost as a result by way of productivity, and how many such men were actually counterproductive.
Wow you convinced me, there is no difference between any group of people and we should just take in the entire population of Central America. There will be no negative effects whatsoever. In fact you could swap the population of Beijing with that of Guatemala and you would see no difference whatsoever. You are so smart dctoedt.
We have decades of hard evidence that only a certain type of immigrant is successful and increases overall productivity. You want to ignore the wealth of data because "America was bad in the past".
Simple game theory: we have two choices - A. focus immigration on high skill or B. focus immigration on low skill. If by some possibility you're right, and all people are blank slates and genetics is fake, then either choice is correct. If I am correct (suggested by ~50 years of hard data), then choice A is a huge boon to the country, while choice B bankrupts the country.
It is astonishing that you are pushing for choice B with this knowledge. Like I said before, the worst thing for those left-of-center is thinking that there may be some inherent differences in different populations. It's the worst thought that could enter their mind. They live their entire lives trying to prove to people that they don't think this. This (plus knowing that you have enough money to shield yourself if the ideas that you advocate end up being destructive), allows you to virtue signal without a care.
Your argument is "America did bad things in the past therefore we should adopt hard leftist policies even if its not in our best interest". That is the logic of unwashed, tattooed community college dropouts.
A question dctoedt - I assume you're from DC (per your name). Do you live in Columbia Heights since you think all people are equally interchangeable? Why not? Are you one of those limousine liberals that advocates for policies you know could be destructive but know you have the money to shield yourself from?
If you'd clicked on my handle, you'd immediately see that's an unfounded assumption. (Although I did live in suburban Maryland for a few years in my early teens when my dad was stationed in downtown DC.)
> Do you live in Columbia Heights since you think all people are equally interchangeable?
Somehow I don't think you're a lawyer — please stop trying to play Perry Mason (you do know who that is, right?), because competent lawyers don't do what you're seemingly trying to do here, not even on cross-examination: Jurors see through the bullshit and it pisses them off.
> Are you one of those limousine liberals that advocates for policies you know could be destructive but know you have the money to shield yourself from?
Au contraire: I didn't grow up with money; while I'm not poor, I hardly qualify as a limousine anything. But as I've gotten older I've become less rigidly judgmental; less inclined to berate people for (what I regard as) their fuck-ups; more respectful of differences in viewpoints; and more tolerant of errors in judgment (of which I've made my share). I've also come to appreciate that more people need opportunities like the ones I had --- as well as those that I didn't have.
