Wednesday, August 23, 2017


 Monogamy is not a description of a relationship. It is a description of a reproductive strategy.

 Polyamory is default for prepubescent children and non-adults and should be encouraged with the usual precautions for STDs.  Encouraging monoamory among non-breeders or deferred breeders is generally toxic. In societies where women breed shortly after puberty other standards apply but given modern contraception strategies for men and women polyamory should be the rule until parenting is contemplated.  I am not talking hetero only here especially prepubescent and early teen sexuality.  Sow your wild oats to your hearts content on any infertile ground of either gender to determine what kind of sexuality makes sense for ones settled years. 

 Most couples contemplating children hetero or homo are monogamous as a tried and proven stable environment for raising children. It is not the only way but polygamy as usually practiced one male several females is usually abusive and single parenting is outrageously difficult, but possible.

 If no children are planned monoamory may well be toxic. 
 Sexual responsibility involves radical respect for one's partners. That means no sex until all partners think it is a good idea.  Recreational sex is no exception to this general moral precept and is complicated by the evolutionary and socially reinforced expectation by women especially to associate sex with a commitment to relationship building.  Relationship building is less important to men generally and women who plan to defer childbearing or eschew it altogether.  Nonetheless it should be considered by both partners in any sexual relationship. 

 Taking the next step to parenting means preventing pregnancy until again all partners think they are ready for the responsibility of raising children financially, emotionally, and with the social support including medical that constitutes responsible parenting.u

I have recently been informed that a "Core tri" polyamorous is becoming a reasonable child raising alternative.  Since I am only perpherially in the polyamory world I can only comment.  

I don't see monogamy as genetic. I see it as a strongly reinforced social value. In other words nurture rather than nature. The fact that historically and prehistorically a two parent family seemed to be the only way most of the people could succeed in producing a replacement quota of adults strongly insured that the leaders who could afford to play around would preach monogamy, and believers would buy it, but as soon as the man can afford it he will play around in one way or another. They don't call prostitution the oldest profession for nothing. Or if you are rich enough you can hire massage therapists of one sex or another to accomplish the same purpose.

I am one of those preaching and practicing monogamy as long as dependent children are involved as I think that is still produces the best results as measured by high functioning adults. There are exceptions, but for every bootstrap street kid that makes it there are hundreds and maybe thousands that don't. If I were writing the laws marriage would be a commitment to any resulting children, natural or adopted, and in a divorce the only lawyer allowed would be an advocate for the children. Unfortunately the churches write the laws for both and the current disaster is the result.

However, for those who chose to accept responsibility for children whether in the usual way or by adoption, a stable family commonly reinforced by sexual bonding is an important value for society to reinforce.  Unfortunately both civil and religious mores are far behind the curve on this critical issue. 

I would like to see "marriage" as permission for sex completely thrown out of both civil and religious laws.  The state would create family unions to protect those who choose to form families for the purpose of raising children.  Religions might want to restrict "marriage" to those couples with a family union license from the state.  These unions would be structured to protect the family unity with a bias toward protecting the children in the event of a separation of the adults in the union. 

Social units not involving children can be handled better via contractual arrangements, pre-nups, visitation rights, wills, etc.  I doubt that religions would want to be involved in blessing such arrangements.  

I have no interest in solving the problem of irresponsible sexual behavior. All I am interested in solving is the problem of unplanned pregnancies and other STDs. It is quite clear that proper education in the advantages of contraception, monogamy or at least limited promiscuity, respect for ones sexual partner, and the importance of both partners being ready financially, emotionally, and socially for parenting, is effective in producing stable families, usually later in life. Teens will have sex. This is normal mammalian behavior. Giving them the information they need to have responsible sex is extremely effective in producing responsible sexual behavior.

This is why I mentioned the UU OWL curriculum. Our Whole Lives which has been around in earlier forms for over 30 years has been extremely effective in producing stable and loving families which produce planned children usually at an appropriate time in their lives. The pair bond is formed early, built on and stabilized with responsible sexuality. When the pair is ready for children they simply delete the chosen contraceptive. The stability of the pair bond is not an issue. It formed naturally at an appropriate age, survived the temptations of promiscuity, probably some tough times in the late stages of education when values and mores are tested, and survived. I can think of no stronger base for a family.

Teens and pre-teens who have used the curriculum have been followed and the results are noted above. It works. Abstinence is not part of the program but radical respect for sexual partners is. The result is monogamy and an incredibly stable pair bond. I know of a few families from the program or its equivalent who now have teenagers that they are encouraging to follow the same program. When it gets noisy in the bedroom, the parents get that "I remember that" look of great pleasure, and later there is frequently another noisy bedroom in the house. The teens are already discussing when the best time for children will be and planning their lives around that time. It is a given for them that the pair bond will last until then. It probably will.

It is called religious wishful thinking. There may be a few around who keep their penises dry, but even those who claim to do so seem to find ways of succumbing to their natural instincts.

Abstinence absent masturbation is a joke. Abstinence with masturbation is unusual. Monogamy, while certainly a worthy ideal, is an unnatural aberration for males of most species, particularly the human species. Whores, rent-a-boys, and the new wife are so common as to be considered to be the norm. Throw porn into the mix and even regulators do it.

"Substantive lying to anybody is wrong. It injures the other and is a disaster for self image. One can't hurt self or society much more grievously.

Adultery is a different issue. There are many workable forms of parenting. And to a greater extent marriage without the intent of children. Consensual open marriages. Open mistresses and concubines with the knowledge if not the blessing of the wife isn't even a biblical sin. About the only moral issue is the ability and willingness to provide proper support to the mother of any resulting children.

Adultery without spousal consent is certainly a moral issue, but with contraception and STD prevention it is probably one of the most common moral failings around. Religious or secular. And if you factor in serial monogamy as a moral failing, which I do especially with children involved, statistics are ugly for religious and secular alike, something like 30% for religious couples and 20% secular."

Pair bonded parents provide the most stable platform for child raising, particularly when both parents are committed to the child raising process. The dad provider, mom caregiver paradigm is a holdover from the patriarchal religious past, and provides an unbalanced role image for the children. Far better is two parents sharing the providing and the nurturing.
 "Every atheist I know has extremely well developed and usually fairly strict moral standards with regard to sex. Without trying to speak for all atheists, I only know a few well enough to discuss sexual morality, the common thread seems to be radical respect for the feelings and integrity of the partner, and an absolute prohibition of non-consensual sex. Most heterosexual atheists consider sex with the intent to create children to be a commitment to the family to remain together at least until the children are old enough to understand any separation.

Sorry, the problem here is that I do not buy into Paul's idea of sexual responsibility from 1 Corinthians 7:8-9. Paraphrasing a bit: Since I am an ugly misanthrope who isn't getting any, nobody else is going to get any either, and if they take the marriage route they better not enjoy that.

For me sexual responsibility involves radical respect for one's partner. That means no sex until both partners think it is a good idea. It means preventing pregnancy until again both partners think they are ready for the responsibility of raising children financially, emotionally, and with the social support including medical that constitutes responsible parenting. Preventing the possible transmission of STD's is usually not an issue if both partners have the same ideas about responsible sexuality. But if one has had irresponsible sex in the past that may be a consideration until medical testing confirms freedom from STDs.

This normally results in monogamy long before the monogamy is blessed by some church, but if the bond fails, as occasionally happens in spite of sexual bonding, it will happen early and before children are involved. Then the result will be serial monogamy usually on the second try.

Will it work for everybody? Of course not, but it works a lot better than denying the pair bonding efficacy of long term sexuality. And it works a lot better than trying to deny the stiffie. It seems that not even priests can do that reliably. As my favorite T-shirt says: Got a stiffie wear a Jiffy (brand condom.) The stiffie will win every time particularly if she or in some cases he is interested. It is called being mammalian.

Sunday, July 30, 2017

Blood Drive FAQ

  • You save several lives. 
  • You get a short nap.
  • You get a free lunch. 
  • You learn needles aren't scary.  ---  Where is the downside? 
    • After the mandatory 15 minute R&R at the canteen (the free lunch) even first time donors are usually able to return to normal activities with no problems. Take a bottle of water and some energy food from the canteen and administer liberally. 
    • A sudden loss of blood occasionally causes a stimulation of the brain that can cause light-headedness or an endorphin high depending on the person. (I am ready to take on the nearest tiger.)  If light-headed, water and rest with head low usually solves the problem. If it lasts for more than a few minutes send for help from the donation center. 
    • People will ask about the Coban wrap on your elbow.  Tell them that you just saved a few lives and that they can too with a wave at the drive table.
    • The actual donation takes 5-10 minutes normally.   
    • Preparation and paperwork is about a half hour.  
    • Save time in the donation process by filling out the eligibility questionaire (when available) on your mobile device on the day you plan to donate.
    • The 15 minute free lunch makes an hour a good bet.  Double Red and apheresis take longer but you already know that.

    • Tattoos, acupuncture and piercings: no deferral in many states for licensed single use facilities.  One year otherwise.
    • Medically controlled diabetes and high blood pressure: generally no deferral. 
    • MSM - Men who have had sex with other men and partners: One year deferral since last contact.  NO LONGER LIFETIME!!!!  YAY!!! You are welcome.   A long hard battle by many friends. 
    • MAD COWS - Military and residents in UK late 80s and certain others in Europe at that time are still deferred.  We are working on it.  Note that blood drives always need non-donor volunteers. 

    • If you have been told by a blood collection agency or other medical professional not to donate blood,  get clearance from that professional before scheduling an appointment.  Some changes in eligibility have been noted above. 

    Saturday, July 29, 2017

    Fortune Cookies

     All time fortune cookie:
    The great pleasure in life 
    is doing what people say you cannot do.

     Fortune cookie of the week:
    A person of words and not of deeds
    is like a garden full of weeds.

     Watching the sunrise outdoors statistically increases your odds of having a good day. And needing a nap after lunch. Firefox.7.11.17

     My candle burns at both its ends;
    It will not last the night;
    But, ah, my foes and oh, my friends--
    It gives a lovely light.
    Edna St. Vincent Millay  

     The plural of anecdote is not data. :)

    Friday, July 28, 2017

    Solar Roof Tile Demonstration Project

     Now that Tesla's new Solar Tile System is actually working on a couple of real roofs, anybody considering a new roof, especially on new construction, should get on the list now!  If you need the new roof sooner cheap asphault with conventional solar at the same time should be considered.  If you don't need a new roof get solar anyway before the incentives run out in 2019.  The money you save is huge.  

     A hidden savings of a solar house in sunny, hot climates--that is most of the West--is that the 40% will be on the south and or west side and use most of the sun's energy for power and the rest of the roof radiates or vents heat. The savings on AC costs are huge. With solar on only half of my south and west facing roof our house stays cool on the hottest 100+ degree days (Mediterranean climate, cool nights.) The convection wind in my attic as the heat blows out of the East (hot) vent is actually strong at the roof peak. 

     Tesla (Solar City) has a perfect demonstration project for their cooperation with utilities right in their back yard.  There is a fallow suburban solar farm in West San Jose, Santa Clara, and Cupertino that is waiting to be developed.  

      The area was developed as single family large homes in the 1950s and most of the homes are oriented east-west with large south facing pitched roofs many of which are in need of new roofing.  All are grid connected and there are several PG&E substations that can site industrial Powerpack load management systems to deal with the solar hockey stick in the evening.

     Tesla should combine with PG&E to offer free south roof replacement using the just announced attractive solar tiles.  Each roof would generate a large excess of peak power on 263 (average per year) sunny days even if the homeowner is given free power in exchange for the roof easement.  Tesla and PG&E might also consider offering a Powerwall  to each homeowner to provide distributed management of the hockey stick peak reducing the distribution losses.  Off peak power and weather backup would still be provided by PG&E from current wind and conventional generation.  

     The whole project could be phased in as tiles become available on a worst roof first basis, with early load managed installations heavily advertised by both Tesla and PG&E to build local and remote demand. Regular solar panels could also be installed as an interim solution.  

     A suburban solar farm has none of the environmental, visual, and distribution issues of a remote solar installation, and the maintenance infrastructure is already in place.  

     Disclaimer: I am a minor stockholder in Tesla and am not a candidate for the program as I already have solar power.  

    Literacy Is a Political Disability

    The Nation
    • In a study of literacy among 20 ‘high income’ countries; US ranked 12th
    • Illiteracy has become such a serious problem in our country that 44 million adults are now unable to read a simple story to their children
    • 50% of adults cannot read a book written at an eighth grade level
    • 45 million are functionally illiterate and read below a 5th grade level
    • 44% of the American adults do not read a book in a year
    • 6 out of 10 households do not buy a single book in a year
     Tweets and memes scrolling under the news are current political currency.  They are all that the voters can understand.

     Trying to articulate spell out a policy idea in words small enough for the votors is a lost cause.  Likewise trying to prove a meme or tweet is a lie in one meme or tweet.  Lies gather no moss.  The truth accretes moss of literacy until it is invisible to even mainstream media these days.  

    Monday, July 24, 2017

    Collection Post for Basic Income and Living Wages

    This post is a working collection of blue road thinking on UBI and LW.  It is subject to additions, editing and other annoyances.  A more readable version an be found at which is also a work in progress but updated as comments and careful thinking refine the blue road thinking here.

    Once again a guest post to start things off.  

    July 19, 2015 at 4:43am

    The biggest reason I support UBI (Universal Basic Income) has nothing to do with our possible automated future, as labor becomes less essential, or at least as we need much less of it, though that's a great reason to support it. It's not even about eliminating poverty or making the unemployment rate a non-issue, though those are very good reasons too.

    The reason I want a UBI is to make work at least -technically- optional. I want this because so long as work is not optional, so long as it is mandatory, it is coercive. I want UBI so that every low wage worker whose boss screws them on hours, who reprimands them for taking sick days, who asks them to work too fast in unsafe conditions (see the current fast-food lawsuit), every young employee whose boss secretly grabs their ass while no one is looking, who's constantly making lewd comments, or racist comments, or any other sort of hateful bullshit... So that every employee who finds themselves trapped in the fiefdom of some petty little tyrant of a boss, which is actually The Majority Of Low End Workers, so that they can say:


    So that they can really, truly, meaningfully walk the fuck away. And not have it mean they end up on the streets or their kids starve or they find themselves turning tricks to keep the water running and the lights on. Or for that matter just ending up in yet another job with a slightly different petty tyrant. And they can do this, deal with this, without having to deal with lawyers or Union Reps, who though are better than -not- having them it'd be nicer to just be able to do it ourselves. Because if -enough- of them (us) say 'NO' to this petty fucking bullshit, then firms will be forced to stop letting the petty bullshit happen (those who fail to will simply not get workers), and work in general will end up less awful for everyone.

    Because the ability to say 'NO' to someone who's actively abusing you... that should be pretty high on the list of 'Liberties' worth defending. In my mind.

    GDP is ultimately people buying goods and services from other people. Somebody has to flip those burgers the basic income recipients are buying. 
    Since low income people spend locally and buy from people they know (not robots) the income from outside the local economy stays in the local economy and all are better off. The multiplier effect of the basic income or entry wage dollar is nearly 3 times. That is, the burger flipper who is paid somewhat more than the basic income or hesh wouldn't work, spends most of herm income on local goods and services, creating more local demand for those goods and services.   Also some basic income recipients will use their time to pursue a dream of artisan goods production, a local service like a band or restaurant or performance venue.  Some will succeed and generate more local income. 

    Eliminating corporate welfare in the form of support for inadequate wages for minimum wage workers would be the first step to a more equitable distribution of the GDP.  Instead of welfare to supplement inadequate earned income each adult citizen or green card holder would be provided with one half the income necessary for housing, medical care, education,  and local transportation for a family if married, less if single.  This assumes that a two parent household is preferred for raising children.  Single mothers would be encouraged to partner up with an interested co-parent of any gender to form a family unit enabling the larger per person payment. 

    Eliminating welfare with all its administrative costs would more than pay for the BI for those unable to work or have better things to do with their time than unskilled minimum wage labor. Those with better things to do will probably provide taxes and purchase goods and services which will cover their BI. Everybody wants to start a restaurant, or write a graphic novel, or sing a song. Some of them would actually succeed if they didn't have to worry about feeding the family first.

    It wouldn't take much transfer of wealth from the hoarders to have a profound effect on the GDP. If the corporate welfare queens had to compete for unskilled labor with a UBI minimum wage laws would be anachronistic. Market wages and working conditions for unskilled labor in a competitive market for those willing to work at those jobs would move even unskilled laborers into the low middle class.

    The economic argument for a UBI is that it is outside money to low income people who spend locally for necessities provided by mainly other low income people. The bodega proprietor, (there would be food trucks on every corner) and other neighborhood business would thrive and economic benefits would trickle UP to landlords, food truck lessors, food truck builders, etc. They might even buy a solar food truck with a Powerwall 2 from Tesla if they are really successful.

    Another opportunity for recipients of UBI would be intermittent garage sales of art, crafts, artisnal foods, etc.  Advertising would be social media to regular customers who would avoid the gallery markup and have the same choices.

     About those "worthless idlers" living off the UBI as couch potatoes.

     People work. Even if it is only knitting at a boring meeting, and some of it will rise to saleable art. I am caregiver and supporter for a disabled person who assumes household chores and does them well even though hesh does not need to and does not get paid explicitly for them. Unpaid volunteer workers now could choose to be idle but work anyway. Why would that not become a way of life for those with no saleable skills? Also most people I know in the class of comfortable retired people are still working hard at something paid or otherwise. Only the trust funders are sailing and golfing their lives away.

    Some work will be more useful economically than other work and it will be paid. Many "unskilled" jobs which need human attention will be filled inexpensively (to the employer) since they will be optional and provide incremental income for a slightly better life style. Those that do it well will necessarily be paid more as the market will be competitive. 

    The few couch potatoes living off the stipend are probably just as well off the streets and not making trouble to survive. They still are consumers that drive the economy. They still eat, buy couches, TVs, and pay rent. If we make the "idle" comfortable enough to live a decent, if not easy, life what they do with their life is of no consequence to society.

    Work for income or medical insurance is almost by definition meaningless, whether it is on an assembly line, coding for a rich guy, or flipping burgers. What the progressive left (no relationship to the Neolib democratic party) wants is optional work, where basic income, medical care and education as far as they qualify are rights and any work for supplemental income (taxed) is chosen in a competitive market where skills are rewarded and "Take this Job and shove it"--thanks Nyah Wynne--is a given for meaningless work.
    If basic needs are covered people will work at something meaningful to them whether it is needlework, carving, artisans of all kinds, even coders and inventors. If the work is saleable they get extra income to support the local economy and the Government. If not they can try harder or learn to do something else but in any event they subsist and don't die and will work at something saleable or not. 

    Those who want to work will have plenty of opportunities under UBI. There are many jobs that require human input. But a job, which is working for someone else will be only one option, and an option at that. Employers will have to compete on working conditions as well as pay to attract those who wish to work for others if basic needs are covered by UBI. If a restaurant owner or retailer needs people, hesh will have to make the job more attractive than opening a lunchroom or storefront shop. 

    Job availability will exceed demand, given the "Be your own boss" drive most people have. If a tradesperson with a truck can supplement UBI working for herm neighbors the job premium would have to be very attractive to drag herm across town instead. Keep in mind that any income above UBI is disposable income in the economic sense.

     A note on what basic income would cover. UBI would be based on the needs of a family of whatever size is considered optimal by the goverment split between 2 adult citizens independent of relationship status or child care choices.   Basic housing, basic food, a local bus pass, HMO premiums and public education costs would be included. Infrastructure, and government costs would be abbsorbed by the government.

     See Maslow needs pyramid. Once physiological and safety needs are met (UBI and Medicare for all) and you find a friend or two, prestige and accomplishment become critical human psychological needs. Or why Grandma Moses learned to paint and why rednecks whittle.

    Assuming UBI and Medicare for All, now dead rural suburbs will become vibrant villages of local commerce and art most of which will generate excess funds for local amenities. UBI is an external source of resources for the community which will be subject to the economic multiplier by those providing services to the UBI recipients.  Assuming an income tax the multiplier will be reduced a bit from a pure subsistence economy, but if the tax rate is progressive the reduction in the multiplier should be minimal for in community services as these services will be provided on narrow margins as the providers will be recipients of UBI as well.   

    Social Security and Medicare for ALL.
    Social Security at $1200/Mo Grandfathers Grandfathered in at current rate. No Cap on Social Security Taxes and Medicaid payments. Work optional till dead. All income taxed. Self employment income taxed once.  

    Merge Federal SSA, Welfare, Unemployment, and let employees sort themselves out. 


    J'Carlin said...
    Why it is worth the daily slog through facebook.
    J'Carlin said...
    I learned about the TTJASI from a mentor at Pan Am. His advice: As soon as you save up enough "Fuck You Money" you can begin to do your job right. In a sense privilege, and/or another livable income in the family gives the same work freedom as FYM which is after all a relative term, but UBI puts a safety net under all who wish to "do their job right."
    J'Carlin said...
    Nyah Wynne Yes! Definitely. That's probably my number 2 top reason, in part because it's talked about very little. There are huge numbers of activities that people can engage in that are of real meaningful value to society that don't translate well into market value. Experimenting with art is a major one. Art sometimes pays off, sometimes doesn't, but all too often ends up either compromising itself in order to sell better or having to be fit into someone's spare time while they work some non-career, low end, dead-end job to survive. Other things include many sort of research, as finding grants can be as troublesome as trying to fund art. Care of children and the elderly sometimes pays but only if the ones being cared for can pay. In fact any sort of general service to the community tends to be deeply undervalued. The market values service to people according to their ability to pay, so serving the needs of 100 poor people is worth less than serving the whims of 1 wealthy person. There are all manner of truly valuable activities one can engage in that the market deems worthless.

    UBI and Economics (Collection Post)

     GDP is ultimately people buying goods and services from other people. Somebody has to flip those burgers the basic income recipients are buying. 
    Since low income people spend locally and buy from people they know (not robots) the income from outside the local economy stays in the local economy and all are better off.  The multiplier effect of the basic income dollar for a relatively closed local economy without box stores or Franchises to siphon off money is nearly 3 times.  The burger flipper in a local lunchroom who is paid somewhat more than the basic income or hesh wouldn't work, spends most of herm income including UBI on local goods and services employing other local workers, creating more local demand for those goods and services and more workers to produce and vend them.  
     Assuming UBI and Medicare for All, now dead urban and rural suburbs will become vibrant villages of local commerce and art most of which will generate excess funds for local amenities. UBI is an external source of resources for the community which will be subject to the economic multiplier by those providing services to the UBI recipients.  Dispersal would solve the "BMR" housing issue as only those needing to be close to cities would compete for high end suburbs and high density city housing.  Note that minimum wage jobs in high density areas would no longer be attractive to distant UBI recipients.  There are many things they could do with the costs in time and money of a multi-hour commute. 

     National box stores and franchises subsidize low prices with subsistence wages.  The only outside money to generate a multiplier is welfare which combined with subsistence wages makes artificially low prices necessary and the multiplier is close to negative. With UBI subsistence employees would be hard to find, and working conditions would have upgraded to attract employees.  Wages could still be low, but equal low wages at local businesses would allow them to compete on price and service effectively and low income people tend to buy from people they know.  With the geographic dispersal of low income UBI recipients box stores would be restricted to the mobile middle class and above. 

     Some basic income recipients will use their time to pursue a dream of artisan goods production; a local service like a band, restaurant, or performance venue; or a mercantile service.  Some will succeed and become tourist magnets generating outside dollars for the community. 

     Assuming an income tax the multiplier will be reduced a bit from a pure subsistence economy, but if the tax rate is progressive the reduction in the multiplier should be minimal for in community services as these services will be provided on narrow margins as the providers will be recipients of UBI as well.   

    From Facebook:

    FC It's all great until you examine the macroeconomic effects....
    J'C PUOSU Throw out a macro effect other than fucking the oligarchy that will be a problem .

    FC Hyperinflation?
     Particularly, hyperinflation of pricing on necessities that have a strict supply constraint.

    Mind you, this is NOT a "don't" argument. This IS a "can't handwave at it" argument, or more like a "don't cut off your nose to spite your face" argument.
    J'C How? UBI is spent on goods and services locally that generate taxable income. The only necessity that I can think of with supply constraints are medical care and drugs which come under the category of fuck the oligarchy. The rest of the world seems to do better with that constrained resource than we do. I am open to other suggestions.
    FC Off the top of my head, it's partially a simple supply/demand dynamic, particularly aimed at something with a very limited supply (most notably, physical space).
    I don't want to be too strong in my criticism because I AM a UBI crank, but I also don't want to blindly run into something likely to have a spiraling pattern.
    J'C Limited space, for housing as an example, is a political not an economic problem. With UBI now dead suburbs and exurbs would be viable for artisans, self employed, and couch potatoes. All create taxable revenue for suppliers of goods and services who would follow them. There would be plenty of space in existing cities for corporate and government employee housing. Facebook is showing how to build a city in a suburb in spite of the political NIMBY flak.
    Limited space, for housing as an example, is a political not an economic problem.

    Top 5th Percentile Mobility for the Rich and the Poor.

    Stop Pretending You're Not Rich 
    New York Times

     The difference between the rich and the poor in the top 19% (excluding the 1%.) collectively referred to in some circles as "Gentry" as in gentirfication is significant in ways the above piece totally ignores and significantly affects the mobility of the next 30%. The meritocracy Reeves sneers at is in fact a reality for the poor getting into the Gentry and for the top school-top job nuveau Gentry and is probably a major cause of the rich losing their place there. The top fifth does not rule. They do protect their privilege with the help of those who do. There are major holes in their safety net in both directions however. 

     Poor by my definition is an attitude not an amount of income. The poor distinguish between wants and needs and buy wants only when they can afford them from current excess resources. They retain that attitude even when they make it into the Gentry.  Many of the gentry were poor once, and still live like it other than eating better. They still save something for the next meal that might not be as good. Depression era parents are classic examples for the new gentry. I grew up in a house where "Hide-a-bed Hash" was generic for saving for a luxury purchase.  That Gentry is smart poor people with decent jobs who watch their expenditures, chose their homes carefully and use their mortgage and tax deductions, 401ks, IRAs, and 529s to provide for their future. They may have a low end status car but they drive it to COSTCO from their good school neighborhood which they got to by buying before the kids were school age into a gentrifying neighborhood with bad schools; trading up with low end purchases in upcoming neighborhoods; and building equity. Cheap home prepared meals are their main nourishment (everybody cooks), and thrift stores and their closet their source of clothes. Entertainment is online, TV, reading and home grown music, with music lessons the only luxury. 

     Rich people buy what they want where they want to buy without regard to resources at any income level.  They generally have a relatively high debt to income ratio, and are frequently a couple of paychecks or a major financial setback away from losing their place in the Gentry.   

     I would suggest that your "different gentry" ie. the good school-good job gentry is a relatively small part of the gentry we are talking about.   They grew up feeling rich even though their parents are probably in the poor gentry or even in the achieving poor in next 30%. This privilege is reinforced especially in the top schools where they mingle as equals with rich kids and the good job gives them the income level to buy directly into the Gentry particularly when both partners (generic) work at high level jobs as most do early in their careers. The Mrs. degree is fairly rare in the top colleges as only driven achievers can get past the glass ceiling in the admissions department.   

      The mortgage deduction provides minimal tax relief for the rich but is a major source of mobility for the working poor. A maxed out mortgage is a debt trap for the rich who can't maintain a rich person's income level as they believe they can.   A 1.1 million dollar house with a million dollar mortgage works only if income stays above $150K. That same house with a conforming mortgage works at $60K. Flipped up several times from a house in a poor but stable neighborhood. This flip up is usually primarily for schools, but works even better for the childless as public school taxes are low in high end developments where private schools are the norm for families with children. At $60K a conforming mortgage deduction reduces taxes significantly. Even if mortgage insurance is needed for the first house.

      If you are at $150K that Yale legacy preference Reeves toots is worth less than a HS All American in any sport or talent and is worth even less if the kid barely meets the academic threshold. Education is the great equalizer in the top 19% and many of the top schools are "need blind" for admissions so that any student qualifying, admittedly a tiny percent of any population, can qualify for entry into the 19% regardless of family income if the field of study is chosen carefully. Only the rich can afford worthless majors.