I disagree... everyone should have special rights to their birthplace.
Not supporting those already results in the exactly the kind of gentrification that people are complaining about. CA is desirable land, the people that most support it (aka homegrown Californians still in place) should be the ones living there. Let the incoming masses pay a toll to provide for the people of the state they wish to live in.
Who at this point lives on a piece of land that wasn't taken from someone else at some point?
Zoom out a few generations and the constant around the world is people moving. Why should this imagined right start now?
People deserve the right of self determination but not the right to being unaffected by change. Using "gentrification" as a dirty word and assuming that means it's bad doesn't make it true. People complain about change, that's that. This country is nearly entirely composed of people who moved because of change. Change isn't going to stop, trying to enforce constancy tends to make the change worse. (i.e. social programs and housing cost management can make inequality worse rather than better because it fucks with supply and demand of labor)
everyone should have special rights to their birthplace
Inherited entitlements–and the authority enforcing them–are a huge source of inequality both at the top and at the bottom.
You are right, gentrification is not inherently bad. But the homogeneity of people it brings in is.
And while there has always been a certain amount of migration it has never affected so many in the world at once, and within such short timespans, as to consider it a constant. (Unless you're looking back millenia). Most-to-all of the major cities of the past 2000 years have stayed in the same place: Rome, London, Beijing...
Only because there is a homogeneity in the upper echelons. For now. Soon you will see rich people from immigrant backgrounds and this point does nor hold.
Unless by homogeneity you mean against poor people specifically. But in general we want homogeneity in high living standards as the target, as in no people who are poor not by exclusion, but by lack thereof.
We need then to define "poor" properly, not by what you can afford or other relative wealth measure, but by some threshold where living standards and opportunities are available and good enough.
Any relative measure will be a lie sooner or later.
Suppose we have a "poor" person who does not earn much, but has many important ends met by state, e.g. good education and job opportunities, reasonable housing and health care, nourishment etc. Such a person should not be considered truly poor.
Obviously this is not really compatible with market economy which will increase price for required (income inelastic demand - housing has about 0.2 for renters, health services probably slightly negative, food in general is about 0.5 in US but curve is bathtub for some categories) goods and services until the costs are barely bearable or just beyond bearable.
Comments
I disagree... everyone should have special rights to their birthplace.
Not supporting those already results in the exactly the kind of gentrification that people are complaining about. CA is desirable land, the people that most support it (aka homegrown Californians still in place) should be the ones living there. Let the incoming masses pay a toll to provide for the people of the state they wish to live in.
Are you guests, or conquerors?
Who at this point lives on a piece of land that wasn't taken from someone else at some point?
Zoom out a few generations and the constant around the world is people moving. Why should this imagined right start now?
People deserve the right of self determination but not the right to being unaffected by change. Using "gentrification" as a dirty word and assuming that means it's bad doesn't make it true. People complain about change, that's that. This country is nearly entirely composed of people who moved because of change. Change isn't going to stop, trying to enforce constancy tends to make the change worse. (i.e. social programs and housing cost management can make inequality worse rather than better because it fucks with supply and demand of labor)
Inherited entitlements–and the authority enforcing them–are a huge source of inequality both at the top and at the bottom.
"Who at this point lives on a piece of land that wasn't taken from someone else at some point?"
The people on Pitcairn Island. Parts of Cape Verde, I think. And Bermuda.
Iceland got their country back.
These small examples don't weaken your argument in any way.
You are right, gentrification is not inherently bad. But the homogeneity of people it brings in is.
And while there has always been a certain amount of migration it has never affected so many in the world at once, and within such short timespans, as to consider it a constant. (Unless you're looking back millenia). Most-to-all of the major cities of the past 2000 years have stayed in the same place: Rome, London, Beijing...
Only because there is a homogeneity in the upper echelons. For now. Soon you will see rich people from immigrant backgrounds and this point does nor hold.
Unless by homogeneity you mean against poor people specifically. But in general we want homogeneity in high living standards as the target, as in no people who are poor not by exclusion, but by lack thereof.
We need then to define "poor" properly, not by what you can afford or other relative wealth measure, but by some threshold where living standards and opportunities are available and good enough. Any relative measure will be a lie sooner or later.
Suppose we have a "poor" person who does not earn much, but has many important ends met by state, e.g. good education and job opportunities, reasonable housing and health care, nourishment etc. Such a person should not be considered truly poor.
Obviously this is not really compatible with market economy which will increase price for required (income inelastic demand - housing has about 0.2 for renters, health services probably slightly negative, food in general is about 0.5 in US but curve is bathtub for some categories) goods and services until the costs are barely bearable or just beyond bearable.