Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Alpharius wrote: Hard to believe an area so 'ahead of the times' via technology is so behind the times in using a term almost no one else does anymore!
He can't have a cheap faux-leather wallet, it must be a designer product made of real and hopefully exotic leather. A discrete watch? Only if it's also senselessly expensive and made by a brand the other yuppies recognize. And he can't go to the corner bar for a cheap drink, that would mean he has to mingle with workers - at the very least it has to be a nightclub with dress code so only "better" people bother turning up. If he does sports it's not something cheap either, it has to be something with expensive gear which he can brag about.
.
Huh. Interesting qualifiers.
So...if you appreciate well made things then you're a yuppie. Got it.
No, Yuppies, in this context, appreciate expensive things, especially if they're flashy. to pick up on Spetulhu's bar example, a £10 bottle of Budweiser is "better" than a £2 pint of quality real ale.
Traditional examples would be Harry Enfield's "Loadsamoney" character. Some might say Gordon Gecko or a lot of the charcters in Suits although that's a different style of yuppie; they do appreciate quality rather than just flashiness, but it's the selfishness, the amoral pursuit of money with no regard to any consequences for anyone else that understandably isn't very popular.
Alpharius wrote: Hard to believe an area so 'ahead of the times' via technology is so behind the times in using a term almost no one else does anymore!
Huh, I see it quite a bit in both Around San Jose/San Francisco.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, this is a term I see often in my circle. Yuppie. from what i understand it is a "Young Urban proffesional" AKA someone who makes alot of money.
But I see alot of people seem to dislike the idea of it and seem to deride them. Why is that. from what I see, alot of people from the left, seem to dislike them making money and living in the city, while others seem to just dislike them living in the city.
I personally find the idea of lving in the city and making a lot of money a good one. I mean, who wouldnt want to make alot of money?
These are the forces of gentrification and rapidly-rising rent, especially as they encroach upon and, eventually, take over inner-city neighborhoods.
They are the people that see a neighborhood that is an artist's community, think it's swell, and then move in (with their yuppie friends), pricing the artists out of the neighborhood, closing down the local dive-bar to be replaced by some trendy fern-bar bullgak, and driving around in the too-narrow, dimly-lit streets in a BMW at 60 miles an hour drunk on mimosas.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Yuppie is a term that very directly relates to new money. Young prats who've dropped in to very high paying jobs, and are keen to splash that money everywhere to prove something to everyone.
It only really works during a period of very high economic prosperity, and there hasn't been a broadly overheated world economy like that since, well, since the word 'yuppie' was common parlance.
It's interesting that it's had a bit of a revival in the SF tech boom. Makes sense. Here in Perth during the mining boom we had lots of young people in the mining sector earning obscene amounts of money, but they weren't really yuppies because they didn't splash the money on designer wallets, they spent it on jetskis and hotted up cars. We called them 'cashed up bogans', which in the US would translate to 'cashed up rednecks', more or less.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Because they are largely douche bags with disposable income that are so wrapped up in their own little world that they just ignore the homeless guy they have to step over in order to get to the subway train.
They are the people that see a neighborhood that is an artist's community, think it's swell, and then move in (with their yuppie friends), pricing the artists out of the neighborhood, closing down the local dive-bar to be replaced by some trendy fern-bar bullgak, and driving around in the too-narrow, dimly-lit streets in a BMW at 60 miles an hour drunk on mimosas.
Ha! Truth...watched that garbage happen in Oakland.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/09 06:53:04
These are the forces of gentrification and rapidly-rising rent, especially as they encroach upon and, eventually, take over inner-city neighborhoods.
Extreme rises in rental prices are bad. Changing the on the ground conditions in impoverished neighborhoods is NOT bad. The idea that people can "just live in one place and never move" is also completely insane (esp to think renters will stay in one place forever), in the context of our modern reality. I mean lets be honest, how many of us moved constantly as kids because our parents took whatever good paying job they could find in order to provide for their families?
At any rate, my point is that reducing crime and violence in urban areas is damn good for the folks that live there. Now how to do it without a 300% rental increase over a 2 year period...can't nobody live with that kind of garbage.
Peter Wiggin wrote: At any rate, my point is that reducing crime and violence in urban areas is damn good for the folks that live there. Now how to do it without a 300% rental increase over a 2 year period...can't nobody live with that kind of garbage.
High rent increases happen for more reasons that gentrification. It isn't good, but it also isn't really the fault of people who are going through their 'inner city' fashionable phase of their lives.
Really, if you want any kind of security from seeing the rent in your home grow beyond your means to pay, then buy your home and lock in your future payments.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Peter Wiggin wrote: Because they are largely douche bags with disposable income that are so wrapped up in their own little world that they just ignore the homeless guy they have to step over in order to get to the subway train.
They are the people that see a neighborhood that is an artist's community, think it's swell, and then move in (with their yuppie friends), pricing the artists out of the neighborhood, closing down the local dive-bar to be replaced by some trendy fern-bar bullgak, and driving around in the too-narrow, dimly-lit streets in a BMW at 60 miles an hour drunk on mimosas.
Ha! Truth...watched that garbage happen in Oakland.
Don't worry, Oakland is working hard to maintain its murder and riot rate. Have faith.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I would think that young, well off people would be a bit of a target for disdain at a time when a lot of younger people are struggling with underemployment, high student loan debt, or both.
No matter how kindhearted you are, it's tough to see peers prosper far ahead of you.
These are the forces of gentrification and rapidly-rising rent, especially as they encroach upon and, eventually, take over inner-city neighborhoods.
Extreme rises in rental prices are bad. Changing the on the ground conditions in impoverished neighborhoods is NOT bad. The idea that people can "just live in one place and never move" is also completely insane (esp to think renters will stay in one place forever), in the context of our modern reality. I mean lets be honest, how many of us moved constantly as kids because our parents took whatever good paying job they could find in order to provide for their families?
At any rate, my point is that reducing crime and violence in urban areas is damn good for the folks that live there. Now how to do it without a 300% rental increase over a 2 year period...can't nobody live with that kind of garbage.
When you price the poor people out of their neighborhood, where do you expect the poor people to go? Because you don't get one without the other. Crime and violence in urban areas is directly proportional to the average income of said area, as there is a direct link between poverty and crime. However, again, gentrification seems the preferred method of reducing crime and violence, by pricing people out of their homes.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
He can't have a cheap faux-leather wallet, it must be a designer product made of real and hopefully exotic leather. A discrete watch? Only if it's also senselessly expensive and made by a brand the other yuppies recognize. And he can't go to the corner bar for a cheap drink, that would mean he has to mingle with workers - at the very least it has to be a nightclub with dress code so only "better" people bother turning up. If he does sports it's not something cheap either, it has to be something with expensive gear which he can brag about.
.
Huh. Interesting qualifiers.
So...if you appreciate well made things then you're a yuppie. Got it.
The complete reverse. It doesn't actually matter how nice it is, it could be absolute trash as long as it is ridiculously expensive.
Exhibit A - 1980s Porsche 911. Famous as THE yuppie car, almost as famous for being near lethal to drive. Was still ridiculously successful as ownership was, for whatever reason, one of the badges of corporate success.
Exhibit B - You don't wear an Omega, or a TAG Heuer or Rolex Oyster, despite them all being excellent timepieces, you wear something with a gold wristband and encrusted in diamonds, because engineering is secondary to ostentation, if it happens to be a good watch too, that's coincidence not intent.
Read American Psycho, if you haven't already, for a perfect insight into the superficial nature of the group in their prime.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Don't worry, Oakland is working hard to maintain its murder and riot rate. Have faith.
Oh without a doubt....but the "riots" these days consist of a dozen or so (mostly honkey transplant) protestors yelling in the street. Its certainly not as....spirited....as it was a few years ago.
The murder rate is unbelievable, and its one of the reasons I left the city. The sobering part is that, overall, the homicide rate is lower than it was 5 years ago. Ugh. The really bad part is all the street level violence that goes totally unreported. I saw people mugged in broad daylight, an old man get beaten up at a taco truck (I was inside and ran out to stop it, but over too fast), and men who had zero qualms about decking a woman for being "too uppity"......
Biggest shithole I've ever lived in, and filled with people who would rather hurt their neighbor for short term gain than build a strong city with a conhesive & unified civic spirit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Psienesis wrote: When you price the poor people out of their neighborhood, where do you expect the poor people to go?
Fairfeild, Stockton, Vallejo, Benecia, hell....even Concord or other North Bay areas. Even Richmond. Cities are NOT static, nor have they ever been. To expect static living condition, in a rental economy, is unrealistic....to say the least. All of those are nearby places with VASTLY lower costs of living that are also in commute distance of jobs in the Bay.
As for reducing crime rates, "gentrification" (IE making the environment more stable for development) is a counterpoint to more aggressive implementation of policing. Or were you asking an ideological/emotional question as opposed to one with an outcomes based answer?
Oh, and yes....I was actively priced out of my rental in Oakland. I was also leaving for school, but if I hadn't had that option I'd still have had to relocate. No big deal, thats the way life in a city works.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2015/09/09 21:18:54
Read American Psycho, if you haven't already, for a perfect insight into the superficial nature of the group in their prime.
Great movie. Completely fethed up, but great!
Spoiler:
Not a patch on the book.
He does things to prostitutes with rats...
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Fairfeild, Stockton, Vallejo, Benecia, hell....even Concord or other North Bay areas. Even Richmond. Cities are NOT static, nor have they ever been. To expect static living condition, in a rental economy, is unrealistic....to say the least. All of those are nearby places with VASTLY lower costs of living that are also in commute distance of jobs in the Bay.
As for reducing crime rates, "gentrification" (IE making the environment more stable for development) is a counterpoint to more aggressive implementation of policing. Or were you asking an ideological/emotional question as opposed to one with an outcomes based answer?
Oh, and yes....I was actively priced out of my rental in Oakland. I was also leaving for school, but if I hadn't had that option I'd still have had to relocate. No big deal, thats the way life in a city works.
And when those areas are again gentrified in the next boom-cycle? Where do they go then?
You seem to think that poor people exist to be at the whim of market conditions beyond their control with their places of residence theirs only until someone wealthier comes along to drive the prices beyond their ability to pay for it, never mind the fact that said home might have been paid for, or even built, by that poor person's ancestor following a period of service in the military (VA Guaranteed Home Loans, for example), retirement plan, scrimping and saving for many years, or other examples of the "hard work" that many people like to accuse the poor of not participating in.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Psienesis wrote: You seem to think that poor people exist to be at the whim of market conditions beyond their control with their places of residence theirs only until someone wealthier comes along to drive the prices beyond their ability to pay for it, never mind the fact that said home might have been paid for, or even built, by that poor person's ancestor following a period of service in the military (VA Guaranteed Home Loans, for example), retirement plan, scrimping and saving for many years, or other examples of the "hard work" that many people like to accuse the poor of not participating in.
If the poor person built or otherwise owns the house, then they can't be priced out by increasing rent, because they're not paying rent.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
The Undying Spawn of Shub-Niggurath 
Tau Empire
Orks
Exiled Cadre
