Neo mentioned Quillette, City Journal, and The Federalist. The first and third are online online. City Journal has a strong online presence, but it’s also a quarterly physical magazine that’s the handsomest publication I’ve ever seen.

Another quarterly that I rate even higher for content is the Claremont Review of Books.

Didn’t exist except for gauzy lines in speeches. IIRC, Ralph David Abernathy and James Farmer had some criticisms of the direction taken by black politics after 1968. AFAIK, Bayard Rustin was the only person of consequence in King’s circle who forthrightly rejected the use of race patronage in the labor market, higher education, and other venues. The only (black) public officials who’ve rejected it have been Republicans, AFAIK. As far as the professoriate and the like, there are a number of figures, but all are considered dissidents to a degree and have taken a pounding from purveyors of the Official Idea in academe.

I’d refer you to a conversation Ed Koch had with Joseph Rauh in 1971, where Rauh was indignant that Koch should even suggest we eschew racial preference schemes. Spinning the roulette wheel, I’m putting my money on the idea that for Rauh, Stanley Levison, and Jack Greenberg, the goal all along was a system of race patronage administered by the courts and administrative agencies.

I rather like Quillette, City Journal, and sometimes The Federalist. One can find them online, though.

Yes, there are enormous transaction costs and the time to clear the market may be decades or even centuries. But the behavior of customers will tell you quite clearly what they value and where it is located.

Another point — everyone has a different algorithm of what matters and how much. Available jobs, cost of living, weather, crime, schools, recreation, sports, politics, entertainment, culture, lifestyle and attitudes, religion, family, friends …..

The notion that there should be a single calculation that applies to everyone with a particular weighting for each factor is ridiculous.

I always have to stifle a laugh when someone who lives in NYC tells me why. They are always quick to mention the museums and Broadway. I tell them that I can fly into NYC and see both over a weekend without having to put up with all the awfulness the other 363 days of the year. And sometimes I ask when they last went to a theater or one of those museums. Often, it’s been years. Some magazine writers may think they are an important part of “livability”, but the actual behavior of the vast majority of those who live there says otherwise.

On food – the choices, both grocery store and restaurant, are so much greater than when I was a kid. I like that.
On friends – I’m white and have my ‘old’ mostly, but not all, white friends from childhood, and have picked up all manner of people as I’ve worked and lived. I do enjoy that diversity.

But as to the supposed benefits of diversity in the workplace, I don’t see it. Smart hardworking people are in all cultures. Not having a culture represented doesn’t mean what you have is inferior. It boils down to diversity for diversity’s sake as far as I can tell.

Incentives matter.

There’s a road map to suppressing street crime, suppressing school disorder, improving the circulation of the labor market and housing markets, ending the retreat from the labor market on the part of the able-bodied working age population, and reducing the observable decay in the built environment of poor neighborhoods. Your problem is that your decision-making class has no interest in implementing it and most people do not care because the problems do not affect them in a way they can perceive.