I think the only solution is for the affluent to buy new middle income homes in economically mixed neighborhoods, pretend like they're *not* wealthy, donate their extra income to public schools (without expectation of any improvements because white supremacy), and live quiet lives of self-abnegation until death. Simple!
There is also a brand of, “I don’t want to be a CPA, I want to “make art.” leftism. Kids are attracted to the bohemianness but end up resenting all the economic limitations it puts on their life.
Note: “Make art” leftism includes artists, writers, adjuncts, the people who take great pains to let you know they work for a non-profit, etc.
I read this article in the LA times and found is fascinating, especially about all the requirements that Mexico has for people getting residency permits (high income, no voting rights or rights to welfare). Every country wants rich people, not poor people, even Mexico. People may not like it, but it is reality.
This story shows that people don't like outsiders moving into their communities and changing them in ways they didn't want and cannot control.
I think it's one of the fundamental principals of the woke religion that for certain groups of white people, there is no way to be a good person. Not unlike most sects of Christianity, we are all sinners and fall short of grace.
But there's no woke Jesus to offer us salvation. There's no way to expiate the original sin of whiteness except to dig a hole, lie in it and die.
The problem with that is that people get tired of participating in a story where they're always the bad guy. If everything you do is wrong, there's no incentive to do anything right and so you may as well do what you want and screw everything else.
It's a fundamentally bad sign when affluent Americans can't afford to live in places where affluent Americans live. The real problem here is that our housing policy is an absolute shitshow. Like, the entirety of San Francisco should be upzoned--if it had the population density of Paris, its population would be 2.5 million (right now it's under a million.)
There's this idea that density means a thousand Manhattans, all over the country--when it reality it means replacing 1 and 2 story buildings with 4-6 story ones.
An answer coming from Britain that I'm guessing would satisfy liberal critics: they should do as I've done and move to a smallish semi-rural village with right-wing politics and sanctify it with their left-wing ideas. My own migration's from a traditionally Labour-voting post-industrial city to a village/town not far away which has never returned anything but Tory MPs. Simply by living here, as a beacon of liberal goodness radiating metropolitan values, I make the place turn from blue to red, the polarity of those colours being reversed across the Atlantic.
The displaced? Who can no longer afford houses being bought by work-from-home types in media jobs? Why, they'll have to move to the cities for work, where these unenlightened types will be immersed in left-wing city values and turn from blue to red themselves. Everyone's a winner, as long as they're on my side.
This is a social movement that was applauded in the Obama years, I remember, in Virginia where tech workers made it a Democrat state. There's no sympathy for the rich but nor is there any for the rural white. At best they can be cured; if displacement from their lives, their families and their culture is necessary, then do it. Better than them squatting malevolently out in the Boonies voting Trump. Or so runs the liberal view.
If you live in a neighborhood and you use the tools of zoning and regulation to preserve the current state of that neighborhood, you’re guilty of being a NIMBY.
——-
Affluent people could just stay where they are and accept change. Maybe that’s unrealistic, but in that case having this discussion at all is pointless. Affluent people can and do live wherever they want and there really isn’t anything we can do to stop it. But if this is a question about hypothetical ideal behavior of the well-off, then that’s my answer.
Not to be that guy but I think this is the natural result of gross over reliance on philosophical deconstruction as a basis of political thought. It's an inherently negative undertaking and while there are times it can provide some insight, it also leads to lazy thinking and a complete loss of vision.
I really don’t know anything about the pros/cons of gentrification. Certainly in my hometown in Hartford, CT, neighborhoods were targeted for upgrading or rebuilding or what have you. It worked for a while it seemed but for one reason or another it was unsustainable. As a city, I always thought it had a lot to offer. Three hospitals, 3 colleges and a university, parks and a real downtown. Just couldn’t get its act together.
I think the only solution is for the affluent to buy new middle income homes in economically mixed neighborhoods, pretend like they're *not* wealthy, donate their extra income to public schools (without expectation of any improvements because white supremacy), and live quiet lives of self-abnegation until death. Simple!
Suprised they havent done system like carbon offsets. A gentrifier tax to move in to neighborhood.
There is also a brand of, “I don’t want to be a CPA, I want to “make art.” leftism. Kids are attracted to the bohemianness but end up resenting all the economic limitations it puts on their life.
Note: “Make art” leftism includes artists, writers, adjuncts, the people who take great pains to let you know they work for a non-profit, etc.
I read this article in the LA times and found is fascinating, especially about all the requirements that Mexico has for people getting residency permits (high income, no voting rights or rights to welfare). Every country wants rich people, not poor people, even Mexico. People may not like it, but it is reality.
This story shows that people don't like outsiders moving into their communities and changing them in ways they didn't want and cannot control.
I think it's one of the fundamental principals of the woke religion that for certain groups of white people, there is no way to be a good person. Not unlike most sects of Christianity, we are all sinners and fall short of grace.
But there's no woke Jesus to offer us salvation. There's no way to expiate the original sin of whiteness except to dig a hole, lie in it and die.
The problem with that is that people get tired of participating in a story where they're always the bad guy. If everything you do is wrong, there's no incentive to do anything right and so you may as well do what you want and screw everything else.
It's a fundamentally bad sign when affluent Americans can't afford to live in places where affluent Americans live. The real problem here is that our housing policy is an absolute shitshow. Like, the entirety of San Francisco should be upzoned--if it had the population density of Paris, its population would be 2.5 million (right now it's under a million.)
There's this idea that density means a thousand Manhattans, all over the country--when it reality it means replacing 1 and 2 story buildings with 4-6 story ones.
Who is this "we" that is going to work through what "we want" from the well-to-do?
and then what?
An answer coming from Britain that I'm guessing would satisfy liberal critics: they should do as I've done and move to a smallish semi-rural village with right-wing politics and sanctify it with their left-wing ideas. My own migration's from a traditionally Labour-voting post-industrial city to a village/town not far away which has never returned anything but Tory MPs. Simply by living here, as a beacon of liberal goodness radiating metropolitan values, I make the place turn from blue to red, the polarity of those colours being reversed across the Atlantic.
The displaced? Who can no longer afford houses being bought by work-from-home types in media jobs? Why, they'll have to move to the cities for work, where these unenlightened types will be immersed in left-wing city values and turn from blue to red themselves. Everyone's a winner, as long as they're on my side.
This is a social movement that was applauded in the Obama years, I remember, in Virginia where tech workers made it a Democrat state. There's no sympathy for the rich but nor is there any for the rural white. At best they can be cured; if displacement from their lives, their families and their culture is necessary, then do it. Better than them squatting malevolently out in the Boonies voting Trump. Or so runs the liberal view.
If you live in a neighborhood and you use the tools of zoning and regulation to preserve the current state of that neighborhood, you’re guilty of being a NIMBY.
——-
Affluent people could just stay where they are and accept change. Maybe that’s unrealistic, but in that case having this discussion at all is pointless. Affluent people can and do live wherever they want and there really isn’t anything we can do to stop it. But if this is a question about hypothetical ideal behavior of the well-off, then that’s my answer.
Where should the affluent live? Wherever there is easy access for all the illegals to do their mowing, cleaning, cooking, washing, etc etc
Not to be that guy but I think this is the natural result of gross over reliance on philosophical deconstruction as a basis of political thought. It's an inherently negative undertaking and while there are times it can provide some insight, it also leads to lazy thinking and a complete loss of vision.
I really don’t know anything about the pros/cons of gentrification. Certainly in my hometown in Hartford, CT, neighborhoods were targeted for upgrading or rebuilding or what have you. It worked for a while it seemed but for one reason or another it was unsustainable. As a city, I always thought it had a lot to offer. Three hospitals, 3 colleges and a university, parks and a real downtown. Just couldn’t get its act together.