Comments
IlllIllIllIllIlllllI t1_j9jkp16 wrote
Whites move in? Gentrification
Whites move out? White Flight
Just can’t win.
[deleted] t1_j9jeiqr wrote
You've erected a straw man in focusing on the word "white". Sure, it was flashy and the author uses it to make a point that the class divide is often along racial lines. And I agree with you that sometimes it's not white but Asian or Indian or whatever that is doing the gentrifying.
Two things: One, maybe the author used "white" as an example because for this particular neighborhood it's accurate? And two, maybe the author intentionally decided to use "white" to avoid words like "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" in order to not sound too Marxist?
Anyway, race is clearly not the point of the article. If you want to attack it then be honest in your attack. Attack the main point and not the racial angle it uses sparingly.
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j9jkxhu wrote
"So often, it’s not just rich people moving in – it’s rich white people" is one of the 3 subheadings that is bold and in red. It stands out more than the text around it. This is done intentionally. Clearly the author places emphasis on this. I am treating their words with the same level of sincerity, seriousness, and thoroughness that they themselves are treating their own words. I quoted the author directly on their assertions and showed that the factual basis for their assertions were demonstrably false. Am I to ignore the words inside the article and instead criticize what the author was trying to say? How am I not being honest by contending directly with the words the author uses?
"...the deleterious consequences of both for race- and class-oppression" is a line in the concluding paragraph. Race and Class are treated rather equally in the article: the word "class" appears 5 times, "White" appears 3 times, "race" appears 1 time. This 5-4 ratio shows that the mentioning of Whites/race isn't some errant tangent. This is what the author believes, this what the author wrote, and this is what I am criticizing.
[deleted] t1_j9jzl13 wrote
Okay you're right, the author got the bit about race incorrect because it only applies to that one neighborhood so we should throw out all the other thoughts in that article?
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j9k0k48 wrote
You don't have to speak in hyperbole, no one is demanding that of you.
The author made some broad, sweeping statements that were easily shown to be false. If that is the case, what could be some other things that the author might have fudged for the sake of their argument?
Again, the author could have simply made the case for X or Y or Z policies on their own merit but they wanted to add some gusto behind the argument. This means including rectifying racial injustice as a part of their raison d'être. But getting some of the foundational aspects of your argument incorrect feels like the author was putting the cart before the horse.
Honestly articles like this are fairly boilerplate, dime a dozen. Academics love to churn this stuff out. A more interesting point of contention would be analyzing the intersection between the Big Tech, diverse workforces who work in Tech, the progressive ideology that these workers overwhelmingly endorse (such as being anti-gentrification), and actually gentrifying such places. Trying to manage and balance a diverse political coalition that is easily prone to in-fighting and whose material interests often come at the expense of other members in the group would be an interesting dynamic to analyze. But no one believes that they are the ones carrying out such societal ills, these workers probably think that they aren't gentrifying even though they are (maybe because they read articles like this and believe that its only gentrification when/if you're White).
[deleted] t1_j9k0uh5 wrote
>The author made some broad, sweeping statements that were easily shown to be false. If that is the case, what could be some other things that the author might have fudged for the sake of their argument?
Some of what the author said applies only to one specific neighborhood. In other neighborhoods, it doesn't apply.
So you'll attack the claim that whites are doing all the gentrification.
But that's not a claim that he made. Did he? I only see mention of this specific neighborhood with regards to race. And it's not even the important part of the article to my eye.
Is this not the very definition of attacking a straw man?
Edit: Also, it wasn't hyperbole, it was sarcasm, right?
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j9k2mjj wrote
"Unmentioned by Glass, though, is the 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬, especially in the US context. So often, it’s not just rich people moving in – it’s 𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞. When that happens, 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 inflects and compounds the power of capital."
This is the author's words that he wrote himself. He is placing emphasis on race himself. I am referencing the words that the author wrote.
You simply want it to not be an issue when the author brought it up as an issue. You say it is not even the important part of the article, despite the author repeatedly mentioning it. You are trying to convince me to not see the words in the article that the author wrote. You accuse me of attacking a strawman when I seek to discuss the author's exact words. Speaking of straws, I think you're grasping at them.
There is noting else that can be said on this topic.
Wireleast t1_j9jkyfa wrote
It’s literally one of the lead in assertions and factually incorrect.
trele_morele t1_j9h4tg9 wrote
What's the philosophical answer to the question of (land) entitlement? Who deserves to live on particular land? Historically, conquest has served as a non-philosophical assertion. Any other perspectives?
failure_of_a_cow t1_j9h9xjs wrote
> Any other perspectives?
Well the two that we're discussing here are money and birthright. I doubt that this question has an answer though, it probably has many.
trele_morele t1_j9hcbw2 wrote
Money I would think qualifies as financial conquest. A modern alternative to pure violence. Birthright is an interesting one.
failure_of_a_cow t1_j9hdbwo wrote
That's an interesting idea... it raises some new questions though. Usually, we condemn conquest as something that one person (or group) inflicts on another. Without their consent.
Money, and our economic system in general, could probably be characterized the same way for some people, but an awful lot of people who are financially conquered are willing participants in our economy and monetary system. They like money too, they just don't have enough of it. That's not really the same as an invasion.
[deleted] t1_j9huvdq wrote
[deleted]
failure_of_a_cow t1_j9i1u9s wrote
You're suggesting that some people seem willing, just because they know no alternative? Sure. I'll grant there are some of those too.
Regardless of indoctrination though, an enthusiastic defender of property rights is still an enthusiastic defender of property rights. And there are a lot of people like this. And so many of those are poor.
[deleted] t1_j9i48h4 wrote
[deleted]
Koraguz t1_j9hvk1z wrote
there are a lot of people that are unwilling participants and fucked over.
I don't think price gauging companies causing necessities to become expensive is willing, nor hedge funds helping skyrocket the cost of housing is willing either. and then there are the disabled who HAVE to push themselves past their limits to be able to afford to eat and live under a roof. also homeless and many that trip up in life and never manage to get back up because either a loan requires good credit, or there isn't housing low enough cost to get a single rung up, or jobs that don't want to have you because they want their graduate beginner positions to have more than 3 years experience.
If the option of not participating is homelessness and starvation, I'd argue most of us are doing it for survival, not because we are revelling in how nice it is can get an overprices coffee because every cafe wants to be Starbucks...
whornography t1_j9ineh1 wrote
Money is either a necessity or a luxury, depending on the amount.
People of lower SES don't "like money", they need it. They don't have an alternative but to participate in the economic system.
The wealthy like money. It benefits them and can be used to acquire desired objects and experiences. But even they are bound to the economic system, just in a less stringent capacity.
Tugalord t1_j9jji2b wrote
> an awful lot of people who are financially conquered are willing participants in our economy and monetary system
Lol... what a non-sequitur. You need to participate in money economy to not starve.
failure_of_a_cow t1_j9kt8b3 wrote
It's not a non-sequitur, I spelled out why that applies to the issue. I was clear on this point, I don't know how you could have possibly missed it. And merely participating does not make them willing.
Coconutman3000 t1_j9mpy7a wrote
While i get where you are coming from I fundamentally disagree with your last paragraph about how a lot of people are " willing citizens" . Unfortuantly it can not be said that many people are actually " willing" in fact it can be said said many people are coerced into participating or more specifically has coercive violence( specifically financial coercive violence) where many citizens feel like if they dont participate then they are worthless to said society and could lose their livilhood( ex. A young mother having to work for full time jobs to support her family and pay rent or else she and her family will be kicked out. ).
Plus it need to be considered that in our society we have been ideologically conditioned to believe that this reality is the only reality to fully satisfy us internally and that a lack of participath is equivalent to death of self. Even though ironically one might find ones self if one distances themselves from this monetary system if its possible.
failure_of_a_cow t1_j9n3k1l wrote
I had another reply very much like this, but it looks like it was deleted for some reason. This was my response. It seems applicable to your comment.
Coconutman3000 t1_j9q06oa wrote
I 've recently read your reply. While you could say that, while you do have a point that their are some people among the working-class that are willing participates, that is based on the framework of. Many who are " willingly participating" unfortunately still buys into the notion that they are " temporarily poor millionaire's." and that someday they will be the property owners themselves if they simply work hard and game the system. Which still pretty much based on the framework of Capitalistic Realism with the implication that the only way to have any gain within the current system is to play the game and play by the rules of the current system and embracing the ideological framework. Not Solidarity nor Community action but pure individual property rights. Combined this with the individualistic nature of Capitalism and yes you will get defenders of property.
Usually these individuals hope to gain(weather they know it or not) negative freedom( in which the article discusses) from property ownership in which they see themselves as being someday. Such as autonomy and personal egoist freedom. That's been the framework taught from a young age for many decades, especially with the Protestant Work ethics and other social phenomenon. Capitalism (especially Late Stage Capitalism), supports an individualistic framework where one must become the user of (as the article discussed) arbitrary power( by become a business/property owner) in order to gain " freedom." and independence. At the end though it simply makes you an active participant of said system. The defenders of property are also(which represents the sad state of our education to be frank) either unaware of how Class consciousness is essential to creating the nondominance culture and society that is discussed in the article. How it will help in terms of using the understanding how to develop and maintain an economic and social democracy that takes consideration for everyone and not mainly the property owner class.
The dream of being an entrepreneur is part of that ideological framework that in turn creates these types of people who would defend property. So I suggest not dismiss the influence of many years of ideological manufacturing of the masses and making many be either accepters and/or active participants of the system.
evolvaer t1_j9ii2ey wrote
Financial conquest is violence.
Mparker15 t1_j9jkubc wrote
I don't know how you are getting down voted for this. Pricing people out of their homes into unknown and probably worse living situations is definitely a violent act. And if you stay in your home or apartment after eviction the state will physically and violently remove you.
evolvaer t1_j9l730f wrote
Life long propaganda from living within the imperial core will give people automatic negative reactions to socialist teachings.
Its interesting when you reframe the violence of protests burning down institutions as in fact an act of self defense against the harm and violence perpetrated by institutions to the detriment of people.
Food and shelter insecurity is violence, as surely as an act of physical aggression.
Mparker15 t1_j9l7rmb wrote
All these misguided comments caused me to reflect about how the world's 3 biggest industries are financial services, construction, and real estate, which all use housing as one of their main commodities. The monetary interests of these industries are so prevalent that many people cannot see them for the scam they are and immediately shut down any discussion of any alternative.
ValyrianJedi t1_j9jjny5 wrote
What definition are you using?
evolvaer t1_j9l7c16 wrote
A good question, answered by another question.
When you define violence, what are you defining it as?
Food and shelter insecurity is how I define violence, as it leads to unwarranted suffering.
ValyrianJedi t1_j9lbig4 wrote
I've never seen a definition of violence that didn't involve a physical act of harming someone
evolvaer t1_j9mqw1v wrote
Is hunger not a physical act of harming some one?
cloake t1_j9j03c4 wrote
> conquest has served as a non-philosophical assertion.
It's not the most complicated philosophy but still one, through monopoly of force do we dictate who lives where.
IlllIllIllIllIlllllI t1_j9jkwjs wrote
The most fair answer civilized society has some up with in the modern era is money. Which seems a lot more impartial than racist ideals about keeping certain people out to preserve “culture” or whatever
rolyatm97 t1_j9hy4ri wrote
If you don’t think gentrification is a good thing, how can you think immigration is a good thing? The members of this community seem to be 1st or 2nd generation immigrants. They immigrated and changed a neighborhood. People see an opportunity to buy property in a nice neighborhood and move in. What’s the difference?
Gentrification is immigration plain and simple. You are either for both or neither.
Coomer-Boomer t1_j9qvff4 wrote
They're very different - two reasons, not exhaustive. First, immigration doesn't force natives to leave in the way gentrification opponents claim gentrification does. It's not the moving in people dislike about gentrification, but being pushed out.
Second, nationalism is legitimate in a way localism isn't. The borders of a part of town are frivolous compared to the borders of nations, both in practical respects and in terms of normal human bonds. Ironically, the opponent of gentrification is the person with the least solidarity - the fortunes of his neighborhood and neighbors improve but all he does is moan "Me, me, me!" Is it any wonder their neighbors are glad to trade the pro-squalor activists in for people who are pro-improvement?
Eokokok t1_j9h8upq wrote
What is the philosophical question here? If you do not own a property and are driven out by rising rent it does not seem philosophical, it's economical.
If you own a property and stay in place that seems to be getting way out of your income bracket yearly, because of stubbornness or family heirloom sentiments, and not sell to better your life elsewhere it's misguided feelings or lack of personal wealth management skills...
Funktownajin t1_j9hrlfx wrote
Your second part ignores the main reasons people don't want to leave -knowledge of the area, friends and family nearby, sense of community, having a job in the neighborhood. Calling it stubbornness and family heirloom sentiment (not quite sure what that means) really misses the mark almost completely.
[deleted] t1_j9hvigy wrote
[deleted]
Eokokok t1_j9j1hoz wrote
Gentrification is issue of the poor, so if you have property in a place that faces skyrocketing land value and decides to stay in such a place being poor for reasons you listed instead of selling it to improve your life it is definition stubborn choices.
It would be ok for everyone, you can stay and be significantly worse of than all your neighbours if it would not include endless outcry about how unjust it is that everyone around you is now better off...
Funktownajin t1_j9ksc5v wrote
Like i said i think you are way off the mark, not to mention the assumption that poor people own houses in the neighborhoods they live in.
[deleted] t1_j9jfu5x wrote
The author brought up the point of freedom from domination, positive rights, and negative rights. That's philosophy.
Mparker15 t1_j9jns3c wrote
It's interesting that you can completely separate economics and philosophy. Do you have no interest in thinking about material conditions in our world and how they can affect people in positive or negative ways?
[deleted] t1_j9hag1r wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9i5jqi wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9hp2dp wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9hryw9 wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j9ikemd wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[deleted] t1_j9hcobb wrote
[removed]
amador9 t1_j9idthu wrote
There is a neighborhood in a large Northern California city I am very familiar with. It was developed in the 1920’s and was working class white; mostly Catholic immigrants, until the 1940’s when Black shipyard workers began moving in. By 1960 it was mostly Black but it was mostly owner occupants and considered a good neighborhood. Between 1960 and 2000, a few Black families from the neighborhood began to buy up houses and the majority of the residents were Black renters with Black landlords. The housing stock may have declined a bit but it was still considered a good neighborhood. Beginning in 2000, white and Asian families began buying houses and moving in. This usually involved Black landlords evicting Black tenants who were generally unable to find rental housing they could afford in that neighborhood and had to move to less desirable neighborhoods. The white and Asians moving in were hardly rich. They were generally politically liberal and saw the diversity in the neighborhood as desirable. They were the marginal middle class who were buying in the only neighborhood they could afford. There is still a significant Black presence but they tend to be the more affluent homeowners. It is assumed that it will continue to become more white and Asian and more affluent. While one can view this as gentrification/colonialism it can also be seen as organic urban progression. Neighborhoods change in responses to multiple changes in the greater society. As can be expected, there will be winners and losers. The big losers now appear to be the Black renters who were forced out but the big winners were Black property owners.
[deleted] t1_j9jfk19 wrote
(That sounds like a very interesting racial diversification! Not the kind of gentrification that I've experienced! Cool to hear!)
From this comment and the one above, seems like too much discussion is about race. Race is just the most obvious visual aspect of gentrification. I worry that if we focus on it too much then we'll get bogged down in examples and counter examples that are all, frankly, kind of reductive. I don't think that people seeing each other as just members of a race. Like, if you're forced to move due to gentrification, you're upset about moving away from your neighbors that you love and not just about the color of their skin, right?
Which is why we need to stop tiptoeing around the idea of class. In some neighborhoods the whites are displacing the Latinos and in others it's the Indians displacing blacks. Whatever. In all cases, the rich are able to displace the poor when they feel like it because housing as an investment is opposed to housing as a right.
It's all just class struggle and we ought to not focus on race.
[deleted] t1_j9h1to5 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9hp5u8 wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j9ikamm wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Argue your Position
>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[deleted] t1_j9hlkli wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9h8x3n wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j9ik8jn wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Argue your Position
>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[deleted] t1_j9ho5h2 wrote
[removed]
mrmrmrj t1_j9hhqjk wrote
The only way to prevent gentrification is to forbid the poor from moving. That is prison.
[deleted] t1_j9jgz4v wrote
You make it out like the opposite of being forced to leave your neighborhood is being forced to stay in your neighborhood! It's a false dichotomy that you have committed here!
People want the ability to continue to live in their homes. And the ability to leave them. They want freedom.
Honestly, I can't believe that this intellectual dishonesty is present in a discussion on philosophy.
IlllIllIllIllIlllllI t1_j9jl6ju wrote
No one is forced to leave their community. I’m of course defining force as violent government aggression or threat thereof. But of course that’s precisely the force you WOULD need to prevent gentrification and force people from moving.
It’s morally abhorrent under virtually any philosophical framework.
[deleted] t1_j9jz3xx wrote
The force being used against the people is economic. It boils down to violent force because, in the end, the police will enforce it with violence. It might as well be a violent force.
Mparker15 t1_j9l3fav wrote
If you can no longer afford housing and are evicted the state will literally violently remove you. That is the end result of being priced out of your home.
mrmrmrj t1_j9jwol6 wrote
People have the freedom to change communities or they do not. I am saying that any attempt to finesse that fact is intellectually dishonest.
[deleted] t1_j9jyqyo wrote
Poor people want their community to improve without having to leave.
[deleted] t1_j9hyv1y wrote
[deleted]
mrmrmrj t1_j9i2whp wrote
Indian reservations were created by the tyrants in this metaphor. The Indians did not choose the land or choose to be relocated. If you believe the Indians were treated poorly, then you cannot endorse any kind of forced or delineated property ownership. Any version will eventually end in <insert group here> reservations.
[deleted] t1_j9i4hx5 wrote
[deleted]
failure_of_a_cow t1_j9hlpeo wrote
That's not true, we could also prevent the rich people from moving. Or we could section off areas and limit property ownership there to only people who belong to certain groups, perhaps certain income brackets. Or we could distribute housing by some method other than money, like a lottery or a beauty contest.
Whenever you say, "the only way..." you're running into dangerous territory.
mrmrmrj t1_j9hutla wrote
Preventing anyone from moving is tyranny. Limiting property ownership to certain types of people is feudalism.
[deleted] t1_j9hz2c6 wrote
[deleted]
failure_of_a_cow t1_j9hzwgx wrote
Limiting property ownership to certain types of people is an all-ism. There is no economic or political system which does not do this, except perhaps anarchism. And even that depends on how it's implemented.
Limiting ownership is an inevitable result of a limited supply of property.
As for what tyranny is, that's another subject entirely.
[deleted] t1_j9i6opr wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j9hvgfb wrote
[deleted]
failure_of_a_cow t1_j9hz48i wrote
Gosh. It's like alternatives to forbidding people from moving already exist.
[deleted] t1_j9i4qwb wrote
[deleted]
HoboHash t1_j9hy7i8 wrote
Are you fucking proposing segeraration base on income?
failure_of_a_cow t1_j9hykai wrote
... What? I made no proposals, I said that the parent's logic was suspect. Frankly, poor.
[deleted] t1_j9i72m4 wrote
[deleted]
failure_of_a_cow t1_j9ia3av wrote
The case for gentrification is usually something in terms of economic development. The notion that we shouldn't halt development, halt progress, just because some people lose out. Other people gain from that same progress, and it advances both the neighborhood and society as a whole.
Some people also make property rights arguments in favor of gentrification, I mentioned this is another comment. Basically: our system rewards those who have the most money, and gentrification is simply one example of that. And this is good, because our system is good. Or at least better than all other options. (people who make this kind of argument never actually examine all other options)
[deleted] t1_j9iai79 wrote
[deleted]
sagmag t1_j9hnl8o wrote
The sketchy places you don't want to go at night have low rents as a result.
As a result, young people and diverse communities who (traditionally) have less free capital, and start up businesses (particularly restaurants) can afford to live there.
The abundance of young people drives bars and other hang-out oriented businesses to move in.
The new bars and restaurants draw attention from a more affluent community.
"Cool" people recognize the potential in the neighborhood start to move in, driving more investment in the growing cultural scene.
Now a thriving neighborhood with things to do and see and eat, "rich white people" move to be close to, what is now becoming, one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the city.
Prices go up. Poor people leave. Restaurants cant afford rent and are replaced by national chains. The neighborhood completes its cycle from sketchy to boring.
Such is the way of things. Does it suck? Sure. Am I going to stop looking for the newest ethnically authentic restaurants to try food at? Am I going to not go to the cool new bar my friend heard about? No.
This is the problem with this sort of argument. Unfortunately there are things that just...aren't great. However, there's also nothing you can do about them. Next we'll have an article about how badly designed human knees are. Well...its true. It's not an ideal piece of equipment. That's not going to stop the next generation being born with knees.
[deleted] t1_j9jg8kt wrote
> there's also nothing you can do about them.
Probably some peasant working a king's field said the same, centuries ago. As did an American slave in a cotton field 200 years ago.
They were both proven wrong. Will you one day be proven wrong, too? I hope so!
Mparker15 t1_j9jn6id wrote
They are already proven wrong by the successful existence of rent control, public housing, and decommodification of shelter that many other cities have implemented with great success. The top 3 global industries are financial services, construction, and real estate, which all directly feed off the buying and selling of buildings and land. These markets and their monetary interests shape our experience with housing in every conceivable way, but some people can't see past that influence.
Funktownajin t1_j9hsi0c wrote
However, there's nothing you can do about them.
Sounds like you've thought of nothing and you're all out of ideas . There's quite a few things that can be done, most prominently rent control. I'm not sure how you figured that out...
ArticDweller t1_j9ii4ib wrote
Rent control is a tried and tested way to cause failure in a housing market and stagnate urban areas
Funktownajin t1_j9ik3f5 wrote
Rent control keeps vulnerable people from being displaced, which is the issue with gentrification. What causes housing market failure and urban stagnation isn't primarily rent control, it's a bunch of other policies that stem from the days of segregation and zoning laws to prevent changes to neighborhoods.
ArticDweller t1_j9ikwgj wrote
I agree with you that zoning laws are heinous. I disagree with you on rent control, there’s a reason market economies work and it’d be pretty weird if they didn’t work for this one thing. Price controls cause shortages, full stop.
subzero112001 t1_j9i6rhk wrote
> There's quite a few things that can be done, most prominently rent control.
How vague and simultaneously useless. Good job thinking of "ideas".
People want equality and equity while ignoring the fact that everyone isn't the same. And no matter how hard you try, you'll never get equal results. If you give people freedom, they'll segregate themselves into different castes over time.
Funktownajin t1_j9i8ue7 wrote
They use rent control in lots of places to avoid mass evictions genius, it is in fact a big deal.
[deleted] t1_j9ifygi wrote
[deleted]
subzero112001 t1_j9igbfd wrote
You do realize that if a landlord cannot increase rent to match inflation, then the landlord will be unable to fix anything wrong with the residence right?
Funktownajin t1_j9igjow wrote
Man i think you can answer your own question here, do your own research on rent control. And yes i saw you wrote a whole different response, deleted it and rewrote it. This new response isn't any better....
subzero112001 t1_j9jodow wrote
Good job not answering the question.
Funktownajin t1_j9jriy4 wrote
rent control doesn't mean not being able to fix anything, the question was loaded hyperbole from the beginning. So you need to do your own research.
subzero112001 t1_j9nbm0m wrote
Why do you keep responding if you're not gonna answer the question?
Funktownajin t1_j9p0sh8 wrote
I just did answer your question, it wasn't much of a question though...just hyperbole, like i said.
subzero112001 t1_j9rx6nb wrote
A "Yes it is, not it's not" retort does not constitute as answering the question. Again, why do you keep responding if you're not gonna answer the question?
Funktownajin t1_j9rxig0 wrote
The question had a false premise, are you really this stupid that you can't read or reason?
subzero112001 t1_j9y34cc wrote
Well if you’re not gonna answer the question you should probably stop responding.
Mparker15 t1_j9jmd7f wrote
This sub is not very open minded for being into philosophy. Some people can't comprehend any level of decommodifying housing even with real world examples like Austria's long running public housing strategy.
Overbaron t1_j9iuuyg wrote
I find it interesting in the context of ”gentrification” that the discussion often posits that some neighbourhoods should remain poor forever, sort of like outdoor museums where you can see the poor in their natural habitat.
[deleted] t1_j9jgeal wrote
I don't think that the poor are wishing to stay poor! They just want to stay in their neighborhood while it improves!
ValyrianJedi t1_j9jkhj1 wrote
Then it doesn't improve...
[deleted] t1_j9jzeb8 wrote
That's how capitalism works, yes. But we don't have to do capitalism.
Coomer-Boomer t1_j9qvrbg wrote
What alternatives aren't just as bad or worse i regards to the displacement of people? At least with gentrification the displacement is to a good end.
[deleted] t1_j9rli6k wrote
When the gentrification begins and the people in the neighborhood are too poor to live there, instead of having them move, just give them money so that they can continue to live there.
Coomer-Boomer t1_j9toqwz wrote
The landlords would be happy with the subsidy, but it doesn't do much for the renter (except encourage them to move where the cash gets more). I guess the subsidized housing could drive out the would be gentrifiers, but then everybody's worse off.
[deleted] t1_j9ttw3r wrote
I didn't mean to give them the money to pay higher rent. I meant to give them the money to own the homes. The previous landlords will receive on compensation as we transition away from landlording.
ValyrianJedi t1_j9k00pk wrote
Then the neighborhood doesn't improve anymore again.
[deleted] t1_j9k10mj wrote
Again, that's only the case if we continue with capitalism for housing.
ValyrianJedi t1_j9k15vt wrote
No, I'm saying that eliminating capitalism from housing would also keep neighborhoods from improving.
[deleted] t1_j9k2iyr wrote
I don't believe that.
ValyrianJedi t1_j9k3nfm wrote
The vast majority of improvements made to neighborhoods come from financial incentives. People aren't opening new shops and restaurants and businesses for the heck of it, they are doing it because there is money to be made when people with higher incomes move there. If people with low incomes all stayed those things wouldn't open because there wouldn't be money there to support them... And in terms of improvements to the houses themselves, a massive number of those happen because they see the neighborhood growing and think that they can buy low then eventually sell high. Even of people who are just improving and upgrading things because they want to have improved things, a whole lot wouldn't do so if those improvements weren't reflected in the value of the house. Spending $100k remodeling your kitchen and bathrooms makes a lot more sense when it increases the home value $80-100k. Not nearly as many people would do it if it was just a sunk cost that you never recouped.
[deleted] t1_j9kwr6c wrote
Everything that you say makes sense if you assume capitalism. Switch to a different economic system and your argument becomes nonsense. Agreed?
ValyrianJedi t1_j9kzo3c wrote
Swapping away from capitalism doesn't make businesses open in places that they don't have customers, or make people eager to spend large chunks of money they won't get back
[deleted] t1_j9lk1xy wrote
Even listen to yourself. You start with "swap away from capitalism" and then you go right into consumerism and corporations. Like, you could even go one full sentence without fall back on capitalism again.
The indoctrination was successful.
ValyrianJedi t1_j9lkg66 wrote
Dude. Do you think that other forms of economies don't have people buying things or shops or something? What on earth are you on about
Overbaron t1_j9kg6b9 wrote
How does a neighborhood improve while it’s demographics remain the same?
[deleted] t1_j9kwkbh wrote
Are you ask how a neighborhood gets better while the population remains Latino? Lol.
Or if you're ask how it gets better while they remain poor, the answer is that you give them money so that they stop being poor.
Overbaron t1_j9nw52u wrote
Also ”demographics” refers to a whole lot of other factors than race, although for Americans it’s usually the number one statistic of interest.
Overbaron t1_j9lbwq3 wrote
So make the neighborhood have more money to stop them from being poor? That’s a genius idea.
[deleted] t1_j9linmi wrote
Thanks!
RabidusRex t1_j9iywm4 wrote
Lobsters were once considered to be filthy creatures, and only 'the poors' were unlucky enough to have to actually eat them.
Even our food gets gentrified. The philosophical implications are profound.
[deleted] t1_j9jfo86 wrote
Eating oysters used to unite rich and poor in New York.
What is it about seafood?! 😆
HoboHash t1_j9i20hq wrote
I guess there are NIMBY in all tax brackets
Bkwrzdub t1_j9i2dky wrote
Shocker huh
saucecat2 t1_j9jjlxr wrote
The only thing worse than gentrification is no gentrification.
[deleted] t1_j9hzvsg wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j9ik83y wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Clarkeprops t1_j9ivf9s wrote
Does anyone take offense that this is a negative term against white people that doesn’t really apply in many places? In toronto, many white people are being pushed out by rising house prices due to foreign ownership. Over 50% of the city wasn’t born here and rising. Is that still gentrification?
Mparker15 t1_j9l419l wrote
Yes the negative effects of gentrification are a class issue that are often also a racial issue because of how closely linked class and race have been historically. They aren't mutually exclusive
[deleted] t1_j9lh2hg wrote
[deleted]
Clarkeprops t1_j9liefx wrote
I was under the expression that the etymology of Gentrification had something to do with gentile, but it seems like it comes from Gentry, which is just a (historically white) social class. A bunch of Chinese nationals buying up a condo block is still technically gentrification.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j9i2klj wrote
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
MasticatingElephant t1_j9i8448 wrote
In the longer term, I don’t think that humanity’s needs will ultimately be met by capitalism. But in the shorter term, while it’s still with us, isn’t it true that new developments provide funding to older neighborhoods? Higher property values lead to higher taxes, new developments pay development impact fees (paying their own share of public services, which older developments frequently don’t do), they create new businesses, etc.
Should we just leave poor neighborhoods poor until post-scarcity is upon us? What’s the end game here?
> No one should have to depend on another’s arbitrary benevolence for the basic good of home and community
That’s fair, but taken to the extreme, doesn’t this also mean that poorer neighborhoods shouldn’t have to depend on the largesse of the tax money from other parts of the city?
How are they supposed to get “less poor”? How are they supposed to get more investment?
[deleted] t1_j9icryx wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9ipncp wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j9ipw1v wrote
[deleted]
3HEX t1_j9iyi72 wrote
Rich people care about their neighbourhood. Poor just want to eat.
IlllIllIllIllIlllllI t1_j9jkj6a wrote
Saying that certain people belong in certain places and have “their” neighborhoods vs the “other” neighborhoods is deeply problematic. It’s the same rationalization that whites used when complaining about people of color moving into their neighborhoods.
No one has any right to a certain space. If others are willing to pay more than you to live somewhere, you have precisely zero moral ground to live there instead of them. Complains of gentrification largely boil down to racist qualms of having diverse spaces. Opponents of gentrification are, more often than not, trash people with thinly coated racist beliefs who hide behind dog whistles of “preserving their culture” and “maintaining community.”
Mparker15 t1_j9l4m0x wrote
Being able to afford to continue living near your family, friends, and job without being forced out economically is not a dog whistle. Your comment however is full of dog whistles.
Also you missed your double standard of claiming no one has any right to a space while implying that anyone has the right to that space just because they have more money. The mental gymnastics you are doing here are incredible.
plummbob t1_j9jv4zd wrote
>Before the city council changed the rules, Mission Playground was a public good open to all. After the rules changed, it became in part a privately held commodity, open only to those with the knowledge and means to pay for it.
This is where the analysis starts to fall apart.
​
Lets recap how the land was previously allocated by residents:
>If there wasn’t enough space for everyone, some played while others watched from the sidelines. Once one team scored, the losing team would trade places with those who’d been on the sidelines. Sooner or later, everyone got a chance to play.
​
So we have some scarce resource and we need a way to allocate it amongst consumers. Not everybody can use it at once, its limited in scope, and people will want to make sure its use is maximized during peak times.
​
Imagine a simple player model:
You have some time budget on how long you can just be out there, T, some time on the field K, and a likelihood that you'll be picked to play, S. And utility gained from playing U(K/T).
​
So your condition is ensuring that U(K/T) = S(K/T), that the benefit to you from playing always at least has to be equal to the likelihood and time of you actually playing the game. If U(K/T) < S(K/T), then you'll leave and do something else. If U(K/T) >S(K/T), then you'll wait till its your turn.
​
The problem with this is if demand for the field increases, there are more people on the sidelines, so the likelihood of getting picked falls, and the time spent on the sideline rises. S shrinks, T grows. So you'd have to somehow magically get way more utility from playing a smaller amount.
​
That isn't sustainable.
​
A permit simplifies things. Imagine permit costs C, you have some friends F to split the cost with, and so your spending, P, is P = C/F. Since its just you and your friends, there is no waiting on the sidelines, S is 100%, and you spend all the time on the field, so K= T, so now we have
U(K) = C/F. As long as the utility gained from playing soccer at least equals the individual share of the permit costs, you'll get the permit.
​
​
The author is heading in the wrong direction. It was never really a "public" good, it functioned as a private good where its both excludable and rivalrous --, and its allocation was fragile, dependent on some really circumstantial rules that people tacitly agreed to because demand for the field was relatively low, and the cost of abiding by the time was also low. But as demand grows, these rules would break down and we would need a different way to allocate it to people -- a way that is more visible and clear to all.
​
>then it seems that what the protestors were fundamentally objecting to was the practice of treating housing as just a commodity. For when housing is treated as just a commodity, residential landlords have a right to exclude tenants from their homes whenever they can no longer afford whatever rent the landlord demands. Writ large, this right of exclusion produces displacement and housing insecurity
​
The rest of the article is basically not-answering the basic question:
How do landlords retain price setting power? Do all landlords have this power? Does a landlord in no-where Wisconsin have the same market power as a landlord in The Mission? Why, why not? If landlord surplus is rising, how come other landlords are entering to capture that excess profit?
Why don't the people who are renting buy a home to protect themselves from cost inflation? Can they? Why or why not? Why did that lady rent for years after watching her rent rise? etc.
​
​
You gotta answer those questions before trying to your hand a policy proposal. Because if you get those answers wrong, the solution derived from it would also be wrong.
[deleted] t1_j9hxd1h wrote
[removed]
Yashugan00 t1_j9ja936 wrote
London ULEZ zone does exactly that. Can't afford a new car right now: pay through the nose and be pushed out
torj18 t1_j9jrpp1 wrote
I loveeeee me some gentrification
crodr014 t1_j9knh22 wrote
Remove real estate as a form of investment then. Why would you rent to low income in a good market area when you could charge more to more wealthy people.
Or could turn USA into a communist country with designated living quarters for everyone that look exactly the same.
Another solution, goverment susbsidied housing like the massive tiny apartments in hong kong where a bedroom is literally just a bed.
Mparker15 t1_j9l5d0t wrote
You don't have to imagine a solution. Look at Austria's long running successful public housing in Vienna that is roughly half the cost of living in a major city elsewhere
less_unique_username t1_j9ku3ce wrote
Or a George-style land value tax. (Overview for those unfamiliar with the concept)
COUser93 t1_j9lk67p wrote
The anti-progressive progressive movement attacking gentrification again.
Jblake1982 t1_j9mm4qh wrote
It’s a good thing. Cleans up shit neighborhoods. We need more of it.
[deleted] t1_j9h4sy0 wrote
[removed]
cookerg t1_j9hwwz2 wrote
Oh, well!!!
I mean, if it harms people, of course, we all agree that's bad....
But if it also vexes philosophers, OMG!! - I mean, it's shocking that we've let it go on so long!!!!!!
surfcorker t1_j9hhk33 wrote
Capitalism cannot afford philosophy. Or morality. Or ethics.
velvykat5731 t1_j9i5zcq wrote
Are you saying this in a celebratory or a condemning way? Because it's partially true, capitalism doesn't stop because of ethics, but I personally condemn this as I believe the well-being of all of us should prevail over the unnecessary luxuries of a few.
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j9ggdpf wrote
The article states that "Since the 1960s, gentrification has become ubiquitous" and that "So often, it’s not just rich people moving in – it’s rich White people".
I looked up the historical demographic breakdown of San Francisco: in 1960, it was 72.7% White and in 2020 it is 39.1%. The historical demography of most American cities follow this same pattern. "Non-Hispanic Whites made up 59% of the residents of Chicago in 1970, falling to just 31.7% in 2010". In Atlanta, Whites made up 48.4% of the population in 1970, 31% in 1990, and has risen to only to 38.4% in 2010. A few examples among many.
The author stating that Gentrification started in 1960 leads the reader to believe that there was massive influx of rich White people moving into these historically non-white urban centers but the exact opposite happened in the 1960s and 70s. Of course, as we all know this as White Flight. The author would be correct in stating that "Since the 1960s, gentrification has become ubiquitous" if they were to include non-Whites moving into White areas, but it is quite obvious that they would not assert such a thing. That is not how we colloquially used the word Gentrification. But this means the original assertion is factually incorrect. So why would they say such a thing?
It is done so to make the history of these events appear to cohere seamlessly with ideological priors, to make it easier to digest, to imbue passion within the reader to call for change. But history is a messy, fractal thing. By limiting ourselves to only a portion of history as to cohere seamlessly with our ideological priors we limit our understanding of such things. We must expand our understanding of such things as to craft better policy. This is philosophy subreddit after all, we have a love of wisdom.
In particular situations, such as the expansion of the tech sector in San Francisco, you have settled communities experienced a sort of widescale economic eviction. A rising tide is supposed to lift all boats but these peoples find themselves drowning under the waters of high rent. But it would be dishonest and unhelpful to place the blame solely on "rich White people" - the tech industry is very diverse and full of different nationalities. These are the people who are moving into these communities. The same kind of historical argument used on White people in these regards to gentrification doesn't work against Indian or East Asian software developers. This is a point to ponder, that needs to be addressed.
One could advocate for the continued expansion of public housing, demanding cheaper rent, asking for more funding for better public transportation all on their own virtues without having to consult with "History". I support all of these policies. I understand, zoning laws and tax brackets are technical issues and don't drive political action quite like ethnic revanchism.