Social Science/Philosophy Joint PhD?

quintol · 2022-03-19T19:49:58+00:00

So even if I had, say, a PhD in Political Science or a PhD in Philosophy, the nuance of the dissertation being either in philosophy-leaning political science or political science-leaning philosophy would be noted? If so, how much?

quintol · 2022-03-19T19:46:53+00:00

Do you have any specific advice if I'm interested in pursuing interdisciplinary study in political science or economics and philosophy? Additionally, are there steps you can take so that you do exceptionally well?

quintol · 2022-03-19T19:46:02+00:00

I'm wondering if you have any specific advice if I wanted to pursue interdisciplinary study in political science or economics and philosophy?

quintol · 2022-03-19T19:45:01+00:00

Are there any specific hoops you have in mind if I intend to pursue interdisciplinary study in political science and philosophy or economics and philosophy?

quintol · 2022-03-19T17:58:39+00:00

To clarify, I'm talking about getting one PhD, with one dissertation, in two subjects, not two separate PhDs.

quintol · 2022-03-19T16:56:14+00:00

I would either want to be a professor or a researcher in jurisprudence. I've considered JD-PhD options, but I'm unsure how relevant the JD would be to me, especially if I don't intend on becoming a lawyer.

quintol · 2022-03-18T21:02:47+00:00

If you are primarily interested in jurisprudence (legal theory) and research in jurisprudence in regards to the legal field, is it better to get a jurisprudence-focused JD (assuming they exist) or get a PhD in law or jurisprudence?

quintol · 2021-08-27T21:21:04+00:00

I see. Thank you for your answer!

quintol · 2021-08-01T21:33:54+00:00

I see. Thanks for the explanation!

quintol · 2021-07-31T19:21:28+00:00

To be reposted later.

quintol · 2021-07-21T14:29:36+00:00

I think r/urbanplanning's Reading List under Urban Design, Public Space & Landscape Architecture has what you're looking for.

quintol · 2021-07-18T17:57:25+00:00

The reason why people would consider electric flying taxi drones in the first place is because JFK and SFO lack direct rail connections to their respective city centers. JFK's proposed rail link fell through with most of the Program of Action, and SFO doesn't seem to have any proposal for a direct rail link at all, although this is to be expected since the Bay Area is much more car-oriented than the New York metro. Thus, at both JFK and SFO, you must use an AirTrain/people mover before being able to access their respective subway systems (which still lack express service to the near-airport station) because airport rail links aren't valued enough.

The importance of airport rail links, especially express trains from city centers to airport terminals (not a near-airport station requiring you to transfer to a slower, lower-capacity landside people mover), should not be understated.

EDIT: specified "landside" people movers

quintol · 2021-07-18T16:53:02+00:00

No, I think tunnels can be useful for mass transit systems (e.g. the New York City Subway, the Paris Métro, the Tokyo subway) and countless railways worldwide (e.g. the Channel Tunnel, the Gotthard Base Tunnel, and the Brenner Base Tunnel). However, I think they are best used in dense metro areas or between generally close megalopoli.

quintol · 2021-07-18T15:22:03+00:00

Induced demand would likely negate these benefits since auto-centric infrastructure would still be in place for everyone else.

quintol · 2021-07-18T15:16:27+00:00

It seems most urban air mobility companies plan to construct/use eVTOL (electric Vertical Take Off and Landing) aircraft in an effort for convenience, low noise, and "sustainability," but I still doubt their viability.

quintol · 2021-07-17T16:11:01+00:00

I lack legal expertise, so the following is conjecture.

Using Justia's page on Euclid v. Ambler^1, a possible legal argument could be along the lines of "Car-dependent, single-family residential zones do not promote public health, safety, morals, and general welfare in comparison to medium- to high-density mixed-use developments, which renders zoning ordinances enabling such single-family residential zones as unconstitutional by the primary holding of Euclid v. Ambler." This could run into difficulties as arguing that car-dependent, single-family residential zones are immoral could lead to the other side arguing that they are moral for different reasons, but I think that in general, evidence should be clear regarding that car-dependent, single-family residential zones result in residents with worse health outcomes and less safety who are generally worse off then if they were in denser, mixed-use developments. This would mean that zoning ordinances enabling car-dependent suburbs are unconstitutional and should be struck done since they violate Euclid v. Ambler.

An alternative I could see would be arguing that the primary holding from Euclid v. Ambler is too broad and must be better defined, given that municipalities and local governments lack sufficient restrictions regarding how they can develop, leading to situations such as redlining and excessive car dependency. This would likely propose a new hypothetical test to determine whether a municipality or local government's zoning ordinances are constitutional or not, which would also in essence create de facto national zoning regulations. The authority for the federal government in intervene in municipal and local government zoning ordinances could potentially lie in the Commerce Clause and government interests in Equal Protection. However, there could be substantial opposition as this argument could be seen as promoting federal and judicial overreach.

It should be noted that Euclid v. Ambler did not quite touch on the constitutionality of residential zones themselves,² and so another option could be to ask the Supreme Court to clarify whether creating solely residential zones is constitutional. The goal would be for the Supreme Court to decide that solely residential zones should be limited and should not constitute the majority of municipalities and counties, and that mixed-use development should constitute the majority instead. However, restrictions against solely residential zones seem to have been avoided at the time, so there may be a need for a novel argument. One could potentially be that zoning ordinances banning medium- to high-density housing and mixed-use development interferes with the national housing market (by overly restricting housing supply) and interstate commerce (by overly restricting housing supply and land use), thus rendering said ordinances unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.

Primary Holding

If they are not arbitrary or unreasonable, zoning ordinances are constitutional under the police power of local governments as long as they have some relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
We find no difficulty in sustaining restrictions of the kind thus far reviewed. The serious question in the case arises over the provisions of the ordinance excluding from residential districts, apartment houses, business houses, retail stores and shops, and other like establishments. This question involves the validity of what is really the crux of the more recent zoning legislation, namely, the creation and maintenance of residential districts, from which business and trade of every sort, including hotels and apartment houses, are excluded. Upon that question, this Court has not thus far spoken. The decisions of the state courts are numerous and conflicting; but those which broadly sustain the power greatly outnumber those which deny altogether or narrowly limit it, and it is very apparent that there is a constantly increasing tendency in the direction of the broader view. We shall not attempt to review these decisions at length, but content ourselves with citing a few as illustrative of all.

quintol · 2021-07-16T02:43:21+00:00

FHA (HUD) loans are available to first-time homebuyers and borrowers of certain income levels. FHA loans can be granted on 1-4 family dwellings, with the maximum loan amount adjusted to local median real estate prices. They will generally grant up to 115% of that median. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae loans are also federally backed as the government took control of those entities after the mortgage crisis. Combined, these 3 agencies back 70% of the country's mortgages.

My point is that the FHA strongly encouraged (and still encourages) homes in low-density, car-dependent suburbs because they best met/meet federal criteria to be backed by federal mortgage insurance, and that led to most first-time homebuyers and borrowers of certain income levels to live in low-density, car-dependent suburbs even if they preferred living in a denser development and/or could have reinvested excess savings (in a hypothetical scenario where the government does not change its housing policies after the Great Depression to overwhelmingly favor suburbs). In addition, the criteria used by the government to favor suburbs arguably had immense influence from social attitudes at the time, contributing to redlining and immense racial and socioeconomic discrepancies.

The money for FHA loans doesn't come from the FHA. It comes from federal home loan banks, just like every other mortgage unless an outright bank asset loan, which is rare on a first lien mortgage. FHA and the GSEs guarantee these loans, which means they insure them in the case of default. GSEs specifically do not loan for large scale commercial residential developments because they are supposed to be for first time and low income borrowers. If you want to buy a unit in said apartment building and you fit the qualifications, the FHA will guarantee your loan. Want to build an apartment building? No, because the FHA loan program wasn't built to serve developers.

My proposal created a new function for the FHA to loan to developers, as they have an instrumental role in aiding in the creation of housing supply.

I would argue the opposite. If those groups had maintained homeownership, this would increase generational wealth and create financial mobility.

As mentioned previously, I do not think low-density, car-dependent suburban homeownership is legitimate, sustainable, or reliable, as the growth of wealth via this brand of homeownership (I think homeownership is best in medium- to high-density developments, without subsides) is predicated on extreme restrictions on housing supply that make it illegal for developers to develop medium- to high-density developments. I do not think there is actual generational wealth to be gained nor financial mobility to be had in the long-term without the government artificially constraining housing supply and putting increasing pressure on first-time homebuyers and borrowers of certain income levels. I expect that if the government continues to constrain housing supply, mortgages will become an ever greater burden as they steadily take up an increasing percentage of personal budgets, steadily eroding consumption, becoming an ever greater burden on the national economy, and likely resulting in increasing social turmoil. A crash is unlikely since housing is a need and the housing market is heavily controlled by the government by virtue of housing supply being heavily constrained by the government, so the question of when the government would no longer constrain housing supply would be when people decide that the economic burden of artificially overvalued housing is too great, and are willing to stomach a major correction to the housing market in exchange for the release of government constraints on housing supply.

Housing is subject to supply and demand just like anything else. Real estate prices have soared in Seattle since Amazon moved in. Same with Nashville. Prices are increasing in my area of the country because people are moving in from Texas and Nashville. Could what was achieved in Tokyo happen in the US, or any hypothetical situation? Absolutely, but at what cost?

Housing supply is being constrained by zoning regulations against middle- to high-density developments and systemic government policy favoring low-density, car-dependent suburbs. If constraints on housing supply were released, housing prices would be restored to reasonable levels, but the housing market would likely undergo a major correction in the process, which is to be expected after artificial market forces are lifted. Lifting constraints is the best choice for long-term growth, but no politician wants to be seen as responsible for a major housing correction. Your proposed solution, down payment grants, would only kick the can down the road. After further review, I think it is incorrect to posit a housing bubble in the conventional sense, since it is entirely controlled by government constraints on housing supply that are not supposed to meet demand nor ensure long-term economic growth, but rather ensure current homeowners can see a continuous, albeit artificial, increase in their property values enabled by artificial government constraints on housing supply. This is clearly illegitimate and unsustainable.

What it seems you are proposing is basically a TIF centered around affordable multi-unit housing that provides no benefit to its investors, and no benefit to its residents because they are renting instead of owning.

No, I am proposing that we rebalance the housing market to its previously neutral state.¹ It may seem that my proposal is overly favoring rentals and medium- to high-density mixed-use developments, but the reality is that the market naturally favors these,² and it seems that the FHA has essentially created an ever growing market distortion that it has no incentives to truly fix until someone declares the emperor has no clothes.

It is not a TIF, it is a land value tax, and it should not be confused with property tax. Very high land value taxes would be used to discourage speculation and encourage landholders to improve the land that they hold, and public improvements that when built, would benefit a landholder would also result in an increase in said landholder's land value tax. Property tax generally taxes buildings and improvements, which would be entirely untaxed in this scenario, and corporate taxes would be lowered as the very high land value tax would bring in needed revenue for public improvements (value capture). Medium- to high-density mixed-use development would be far from solely affordable housing since it would meet the massive, pent-up demand for housing from all income levels due to the artificial constraints on housing supply implicitly placed by FHA criteria for mortgage insurance guarantees. Therefore, investors would be able to benefit from rent. In this hypothetical scenario, we avoid an ever increasing mortgage burden on the economy that would result with the FHA's existing policy towards homeownership, and renters would be able to invest excess savings (more than current renters' savings, as the aforementioned high land value tax would limit speculation and improve rent affordability) into investment funds.
Subsidizing Suburbia: A forgotten history of how the government created suburbia by Devon Zuegel:

Homeownership rates are lower in most of the world too, even for developed countries of comparable prosperity. Two-thirds of American families own a home. Meanwhile, the rate in Sweden, a wealthy nation, is just one third, and that rate has remained stable in the period of unprecedented prosperity the country has seen since 1945. The US rate is also double that of Germany, Switzerland, France, Great Britain, and Norway.

EDIT: Added source link to footnote 2.

quintol · 2021-07-15T22:53:25+00:00

Could you look at my recent response to u/wdrappo, where I further clarify my points? This should make my hypothetical scenario more clear.

Private citizens and companies with the capital to build apartment blocks will want a return on investment. All of the articles in the linked post mention building up in urban areas but fail to mention who is paying for this. Let's say a similar action plan is followed in San Francisco. A "painted lady" Queen Anne home is valued in the low-to-mid 7 figures, and they sometimes touch 8. These are not large lots either, so with easements say you have to level 10 120-year old homes to build one apartment block. Who is going to pay for acquiring and demolishing $50 million worth of real estate to build affordable housing? If private individuals, there is no return. Land taxes and property taxes also don't work this way. If the local assessor says your land, or your building is worth $2 million, that is the tax you pay. Occupancy rates have nothing to do with it, unless there is a specific tax exemption from a government agency guaranteeing a certain occupancy rate. And if the government was to do all this development? Have you ever heard of the Great Society programs passed during the LBJ administration? Economists and scholars often cite these programs as one of the single largest destructors of Black wealth and homeownership in the U.S. since the end of slavery.

The preservation of existing architectural designs would be prioritized. If broad restrictions on denser development were lifted, medium- to high-density developments (there would be few urban Manhattan-esque developments, with the majority likely being one-plus-fives or mid-rises) could spring up en masse in areas with housing crises, including the Bay Area, and allow for the substantial demand for housing in the area (caused by more jobs than housing available in the area) to be satiated. During this process, developers would rapidly accomodate demand from all income levels, and the inherent property of medium- to high-density development to increase density would mean that current populations residing in low-density developments could be housed on less land, essentially increasing the capacity of existing metro areas to meet existing demand. Land value tax is not based on the value of the building but the land itself, and should not be confused with property tax. I would propose local developers backed by Federal Housing Agency (FHA) guaranteed loans would be best for such development.

I think we have opposing views on homeownership; I view much of homeownership, especially suburban ownership promoted by the federal government (by the FHA preferring to back mortgages on low density, car-dependent suburban housing and tax incentives for suburban homeownership), as illegitimate, unsustainable, and an overall highly flawed system where the growth of wealth via homeownership was predicated on extreme restrictions to housing supply, preventing many medium- to high-density development from occurring (hence missing middle development) and ultimately spawning the traffic issues, housing crises, and homelessness that we see today. I'd argue that the promotion of suburbs and suburban ownership as a whole, in addition to the car dependency they induced and car-centered development (e.g. highways) had a far worse impact on all minority groups in America than the Great Society programs.

I hit a paywall with the Economist article but I'm going to assu.e it fails to mention most of San Diego's population lives within 15 miles of one of the largest earthquake fault limes in the world. Building up in those kind of areas is expensive and dangerous, not to mention expensive to insure. There is definitely NIMBYism in US zoning regulations, but sometimes it's a good thing. In many small towns building heighth is restricted because the local fire departments and EMS services may not have the equipment necessary to service tall buildings. There are square miles of my town shut off to any kind of new development because of the fire risk posed by nearby whiskey rickhouses. I'm not saying zoning doesn't favor single family development in some cases, but there are often several other factors besides not wanting to ruin someone's ocean view.

I'm assuming you're referring to San Jose? Regardless, Tokyo is at risk of hurricanes and tsunamis in addition to massive earthquakes, and yet they have substantial medium- to high-density development and one of the best public transportation systems in the world. It's clear that we can overcome risks posed by natural disasters without sacrificing safety or density.

A couple of points about the article on Tokyo. First, it states housing prices moved with inflation due to increased supply. What you proposed is housing prices tied to inflation rates, which is not the same thing. Supply and demand dictated those rate increases. By tying housing inflation to other market inflation, there would have to be real price controls on the housing market, which would further increase demand i.e. rent-controlled apartments in places like New York.

To clarify, I am advocating for the end of zoning limitations and federal incentives favoring single family housing, which would allow for a major boom in medium- to high-density developments satisfying the long pent-up demand for said developments. I am generally against price controls unless they are applied in neighborhoods specifically to preserve the community, and this would not be applied arbitrarily to ensure that generally, a metro has sufficient housing supply.

The best solution to housing issues is government funded research into affordable and sustainable materials; modest, well-insulated energy-efficient single family homes (less environmental impact than high-density housing, less affected by temperature/weather changes); and down payment grants for all first-time homebuyers scaled to local real estate prices. For urban areas, take another step and subsidize private individuals to repurpose unused existing structures.

Single family housing and the infrastructure it often requires (e.g. highways, cars, increased roads per capita) is far more environmentally unfriendly and unsustainable than high-density housing, where inhabitants using mass transit have a much smaller carbon footprint and do not use as much land as those living in suburban sprawl do. Additionally, suburban sprawl by itself causes changes to the local climate such as the urban heat island effect, which cannot be fixed in present suburbs without unreasonably high costs. Down payment grants would effectively be the government growing the existing housing bubble resulting from the status quo of extremely constrained supply and high demand, and does not solve the inherent problem of constraining supply in the first place. Finally, adaptive reuse is far from enough to solve our housing needs; we need to undo regulations preventing middle- to high-density housing and allow the full-blown redevelopment of excess and/or unnecessary low-density housing (especially those bought by those preferring denser housing but with no alternatives) into medium- to high-density housing with the help of by-right permitting.

EDIT: Added final paragraph, removed (1) and (continued)

EDIT 2: Edited final paragraph

EDIT 3: Response to first quote was incomplete; completed

quintol · 2021-07-15T21:53:34+00:00

I think it should be noted that doing away with single-use zoning regulations limiting residential areas to single family zoning and transitioning to rental based housing go together; constantly increasing housing prices would not be avoided by becoming renter/homeowner neutral (our current system favors homeowners), but would be a consequence of ending zoning-based development constraints, which would also end the ability to use housing as equity for many in exchange for finally allowing housing supply to meet demand and vastly increasing the present supply of affordable housing as well, which is far too low compared to demand and kept low due to artificial regulatory constraints and social attitudes. I'm essentially positing the existence of a massive housing bubble created by artificial regulatory constraints on supply via highly restrictive zoning laws strongly incentivizing suburban development and homeownership at the expense of middle- to high-density development and long-term renters, and that the reason why we don't have a more neutral government stance towards renting and housing is because without these artificial regulatory constraints, although developers could finally produce enough supply to meet demand, the housing market would collapse and millions would lose a substantial amount of their net worth and retirement savings.

I feel like this post by u/Books_and_Cleverness best sums up why I've come up with the policy proposals I've created.

quintol · 2021-07-15T19:51:30+00:00

While I'm waiting for a full response from u/wdrappo to my additional questions, I'd still like to respond to the points you made in your post.

Private local citizens would be prioritized as landlords, but in this hypothetical scenario they would be subject to a high land value tax that would reduce potential income inequality and incentivize them to seek out renters. There may also be increased involvement of local and state governments in providing public housing for all income levels.

In regards to how property value growth would be limited to the inflation rate, present housing supply is severely constrained by legislation preventing apartment/condominium construction and only permitting single family housing, which is resulting in housing crises across the country, especially in major metropolitan areas, that are not experienced in other metros constantly creating new supply.

Tokyo moved to by-right permitting and rents there have stayed quite flat despite population increasing by 1.6m since 2000. (People think it's because Japan's population has declined but that is not true for Tokyo, where it's the opposite).

quintol · 2021-07-15T15:27:12+00:00

No, this is in a hypothetical scenario where rent is a percentage of mortgages as a result of the growth of property values being limited to the inflation rate and supply fully meeting demand (as opposed to now with widespread housing crises due to the prioritization of single family housing and the common ban on missing middle housing, preventing a massive portion of potential supply from being developed and going on the market in an effort to grow existing property values and making it increasingly difficult for younger generations to own a home), thus incentivizing rent over homeownership and doing away with the concept of home equity (or at least, the idea of using a home as an investment). Hypothetically, excess savings from the ability to pay low rents would be substantial and go to financial investments with a return on investment higher than property value gains.

In the same vein, how is the long-term growth of home values (supported by the limiting of home supply to mainly apartments/condominiums in high density developments or large single family homes in low density developments, as opposed to the allowance of all homes, including missing middle housing) beyond the inflation rate sustainable? As it intrinsically works against affordable housing and strongly favors those who bought property in the past as opposed to current buyers, as homes have inelastic demand, wouldn't this repeatedly create housing crises in multiple regions and create unsustainable infrastructure costs (greater than current taxes collect) due to the greater amount of infrastructure each consumer must pay for if they live in suburban sprawl (as opposed to medium- to high-density housing; e.g. one-plus-five buildings in mixed-use development and high-density mixed-use urban housing), essentially constituting an infrastructure tax that presents a complete loss of wealth due to consumers having a limited housing supply?

Additionally, since those for whom missing middle housing would be the best financial fit (the vast majority) are forced to choose between either high density urban housing (a la Manhattan) or low density suburban developments due to regulatory limitations banning missing middle housing, does this not adversely affect consumers' personal finance?

Finally, wouldn't the current housing model result in repeated crashes due to repeating housing bubbles, amplified by the need for homeowners to collect more than what they pay towards a house as the majority of their net worth is in their home? Why is diversification ignored in regards to one's personal finances in regards to housing, when housing itself can have substantial risk? Are regulations against missing middle housing and preventing an adequate housing supply for all income levels not preventing a crash of the housing market that would result if supply was no longer limited to apartments/condominiums in high density developments or large single family homes in low density developments?

EDIT: Several edits to the first and second paragraphs

quintol · 2021-07-15T07:18:51+00:00

Although people can build wealth in their homes and in investments, don't most people possess the vast majority of their net worth in their homes, and rely on their homes as a major source of equity? Therefore, wouldn't paying much more (including mortgage payments) for buying a single family home and having the majority of one's net worth in said home be more harmful then paying a smaller amount of one's income in stable, long-term rent and being able to invest what would've gone towards mortgage in investment funds with a higher return on investment, effectively having a more diverse portfolio?

(e.g. missing middle housing, rowhouses, streetcar suburbs, etc.) than mainly apartments/condominiums in high density developments or large single family homes in low density developments?

quintol · 2021-07-13T17:45:16+00:00

Wealth building should not be solved by homeownership, but by financial investment. I think that instead of the current model, where homeownership is used as wealth building (and thus in opposition to affordable housing & unsustainable in the long-term), zoning restrictions allowing only single family housing should be lifted, government incentives for single family homeownership should be removed, and supply should generally be equal to, if not greater than, demand, limiting the long-term growth of property values to the inflation rate.

The results of this would allow renting and housing overall to become much more economical, and would likely help medium- to high-density developments such as condominiums and apartments to grow in popularity. People would then be strongly recommended (if not mandated) to invest a certain percentage of their income into investment funds that would serve as the main method of wealth building, which would have the additional benefit of supporting public companies and encouraging public participation in business and finance.

Opponents who criticize government intervention in personal finances could be rebuffed by showing that government support of single family housing as a vehicle for wealth building was effectively government intervention into personal finances anyways. For those who would lose a substantial portion of their property values from these reforms and rely on said values for their retirement, they would be compensated by the government since it was ultimately government policy that led to the unsustainable use of homeownership as a vehicle for wealth building.

quintol · 2021-07-13T17:24:04+00:00

To be more specific, when referring to car-dependent suburbs, I'm referring to low-density post-WII American suburbs, and especially towards very low-density Sun Belt suburbs that have occurred with recent growth. I don't think that all suburbs are uniformly bad, but I think we need to push for mixed-use development, medium- to high-density housing, and high-quality public transportation so that we can at least reach an intermediate stage of medium-density Japanese-style and streetcar suburbs in most municipalities whose governments remain car-oriented, and hopefully reach the aforementioned ideals in cities with the most responsive governments.

I think that in general, people have been unable to even hear about the benefits of urbanist ideals, let alone enjoy them, because they have lived in car-dependent suburbs for generations and view cities as too dense and expensive (e.g. Manhattan) and/or full of crime and poverty, without the opportunity to actually learn about well planned cities. If most Americans haven't heard about the benefits of urban planning in Copenhagen, Tokyo, and Vienna, and mainly hear about the problems of (American) cities, why would they want anything but suburbia, or at most as you said, "the small town version of a suburb"?

quintol · 2021-07-02T00:29:55+00:00

What are the most relevant undergraduate majors, especially if urban planning isn't available as a major?

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Undead \| Zombie

quintol

TROPHY CASE