Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ValyrianJedi t1_j9jkhj1 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in The harms of gentrification | The exclusion of poorer people from their own neighbourhoods is not just a social problem but a philosophical one by ADefiniteDescription

Then it doesn't improve...

5

[deleted] t1_j9jzeb8 wrote

That's how capitalism works, yes. But we don't have to do capitalism.

2

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.

2

[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.

−1

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.

1

[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.

1

ValyrianJedi t1_j9k00pk wrote

Then the neighborhood doesn't improve anymore again.

1

[deleted] t1_j9k10mj wrote

Again, that's only the case if we continue with capitalism for housing.

2

ValyrianJedi t1_j9k15vt wrote

No, I'm saying that eliminating capitalism from housing would also keep neighborhoods from improving.

1

[deleted] t1_j9k2iyr wrote

I don't believe that.

3

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.

3

[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?

2

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

2

[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.

1

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

2