4 ms·

Firstly, "white flight" is not due to "people [moving] out of the city because the burden it is placing on them does not match the value of the services they ar

by nsfmc 16y ago

Firstly, "white flight" is not due to "people [moving] out of the city because the burden it is placing on them does not match the value of the services they are receiving." The most correct explanation is that "it's complicated" and has to do with issues of class, mobility and race, but has little to do with the city "failing to provide" in fact, the reason white flight exists is because it is possible to engage the city without actually living in the city. A good example of this is detroit in the past hundred or so years. I love that this article is essentially predicated on the idea that you should retain an american salary and live in a depressed economy where that is disproportionately large in relation to the average. This sort of white flight actively diminishes the tax base and local revenue in a negative feedback cycle more significantly than the increasing population of "poorer people." I mean, if you want to leave the country, by all means, but don't expect it to take care of you once you're gone. I'm reminded me of the closing paragraphs of a recent [NYT poll][survey] on the Tea Party movement: > ...nearly three-quarters of those who favor smaller government said they would prefer it even if it meant spending on domestic programs would be cut. > But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security — the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on “waste.” > Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits. > Others could not explain the contradiction. > “That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.” [survey]: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
I'm not replying to all the mis-characterizations of my article -- aside from saying I'm not racist nor planning on moving out of the country any time soon. But I found your observations very interesting. It IS complicated, and (I think) still a matter of debate why people actually leave a city. I don't claim to know the answer, I was just wondering if those generally-agreed-upon trends would amount to the same kind of exodus seen in the cities over the past few decades. Particularly I liked this phrase you used: because it is possible to engage the city without actually living in the city This would seem to be the basis for cities like Washington, D.C. threatening to tax commuters for "allowing" them to come to work in the city. Perhaps also this is the basis for the U.S. continuing to tax citizens even if they don't live in the U.S. or ever visit. Question: does the internet allow us to "engage" the rest of the world to the extent necessary to make this geographic proximity less important than it was 20 years ago? And for those who wondered, I can't remember all the countries this startup was dealing with. Their business model was providing an internet portal for Americans looking to retire/live overseas and get the most out of their remaining savings and income. Costa Rica comes to mind. As does Chile and Brazil. If I remember correctly, one of the services they provided was a annual survey of countries and how friendly they were to American ex-pats. Also lots of advertising from resort and retirement communities from all over the world, along with real-estate listings, business opportunities, etc. It looked like a cool idea, but I didn't really think about the larger trends it was based on until reading the ex-pat tax article on HN a few days back.
- pw0ncakes 16y ago
  People leave cities because a mixture of zoning regulations and high real estate prices lead to a scenario where the city becomes a place of work and only work. Car culture leads to a loss of locality and continuity (you can go from A to B and not give a damn about, or interact with, any of the points between them). The city starts losing people, and a death spiral begins as it turns into a "5 o'clock town". The balance of amenity vs. inconvenience/expense drives people to the suburbs. Throw in a bit of white racism (although that's not a major factor anymore) and "white flight" is what you get, along with "inner city" ruin. One major cause of this is that real estate prices are "sticky downward"; they skyrocket easily (Bay Area, early 90s) in an economic boom, but don't decline fast enough along when the market softens; people become unduly attached to real estate (as opposed to other investments) and hold out forever. This process kills a city, and you'd expect that to depress real estate prices and bring back equilibrium, but the price movement that occurs is too little, too late. If you want to buy a house in the ghettos of Chicago's South Side you will still have to pay at least half a million for many of them.
- edster 16y ago
  Detroit (like many big cities) already taxes commuters. If you work in the city, you pay 1.5% income tax to the city. In the extreme case of Detroit, a huge percentage of the city tax revenues come from people who have no ability to be represented in the city. (The whole taxation without representation thing) As Detroit learned, thinking that people will continue to engage the city without living there is only true to a point. In this area, business has moved to Troy and Southfield and Novi. Most people I know go into the actual city of Detroit a couple of times a year, mostly to go to a ball game or casino. People don't go there to shop or socialize.
edster 16y ago
You assert that white flight has to do with issues of class, mobility and race. However, that's only true to the extent of the real reason why you would "Flee" one place for another. It boils down to basic animal instincts to protect and provide for yourself and your family. My parent's were one of the "Fleers" of Detroit, moving into the far suburbs in 1970, as a direct result of the race riots of the late '60s. I think the author presents a great question. If the place where you are living makes it difficult to provide for your family, I think many will consider a move. I doubt SA will be the primary destination mainly because of the safety issues. I guess we will see what happens with California. If any flight happens in the near future it will be from there to an equally safe but a more financially secure state. Like with many fashion trends, I think the US is following behind CA into an unsustainable financial future, we're just a little behind.
xiaoma 16y ago
In my experience, most middle-class parents who "flee" a city on the way down do so in order to put their children into a better school. I don't know the exact situation in the US, but I'm willing to bet that it's a fairly universal trend.

by nsfmc 16y ago

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

I'm not replying to all the mis-characterizations of my article -- aside from saying I'm not racist nor planning on moving out of the country any time soon. But I found your observations very interesting. It IS complicated, and (I think) still a matter of debate why people actually leave a city. I don't claim to know the answer, I was just wondering if those generally-agreed-upon trends would amount to the same kind of exodus seen in the cities over the past few decades. Particularly I liked this phrase you used: because it is possible to engage the city without actually living in the city This would seem to be the basis for cities like Washington, D.C. threatening to tax commuters for "allowing" them to come to work in the city. Perhaps also this is the basis for the U.S. continuing to tax citizens even if they don't live in the U.S. or ever visit. Question: does the internet allow us to "engage" the rest of the world to the extent necessary to make this geographic proximity less important than it was 20 years ago? And for those who wondered, I can't remember all the countries this startup was dealing with. Their business model was providing an internet portal for Americans looking to retire/live overseas and get the most out of their remaining savings and income. Costa Rica comes to mind. As does Chile and Brazil. If I remember correctly, one of the services they provided was a annual survey of countries and how friendly they were to American ex-pats. Also lots of advertising from resort and retirement communities from all over the world, along with real-estate listings, business opportunities, etc. It looked like a cool idea, but I didn't really think about the larger trends it was based on until reading the ex-pat tax article on HN a few days back.

pw0ncakes 16y ago
People leave cities because a mixture of zoning regulations and high real estate prices lead to a scenario where the city becomes a place of work and only work. Car culture leads to a loss of locality and continuity (you can go from A to B and not give a damn about, or interact with, any of the points between them). The city starts losing people, and a death spiral begins as it turns into a "5 o'clock town". The balance of amenity vs. inconvenience/expense drives people to the suburbs. Throw in a bit of white racism (although that's not a major factor anymore) and "white flight" is what you get, along with "inner city" ruin. One major cause of this is that real estate prices are "sticky downward"; they skyrocket easily (Bay Area, early 90s) in an economic boom, but don't decline fast enough along when the market softens; people become unduly attached to real estate (as opposed to other investments) and hold out forever. This process kills a city, and you'd expect that to depress real estate prices and bring back equilibrium, but the price movement that occurs is too little, too late. If you want to buy a house in the ghettos of Chicago's South Side you will still have to pay at least half a million for many of them.
edster 16y ago
Detroit (like many big cities) already taxes commuters. If you work in the city, you pay 1.5% income tax to the city. In the extreme case of Detroit, a huge percentage of the city tax revenues come from people who have no ability to be represented in the city. (The whole taxation without representation thing) As Detroit learned, thinking that people will continue to engage the city without living there is only true to a point. In this area, business has moved to Troy and Southfield and Novi. Most people I know go into the actual city of Detroit a couple of times a year, mostly to go to a ball game or casino. People don't go there to shop or socialize.

edster 16y ago

You assert that white flight has to do with issues of class, mobility and race. However, that's only true to the extent of the real reason why you would "Flee" one place for another. It boils down to basic animal instincts to protect and provide for yourself and your family. My parent's were one of the "Fleers" of Detroit, moving into the far suburbs in 1970, as a direct result of the race riots of the late '60s. I think the author presents a great question. If the place where you are living makes it difficult to provide for your family, I think many will consider a move. I doubt SA will be the primary destination mainly because of the safety issues. I guess we will see what happens with California. If any flight happens in the near future it will be from there to an equally safe but a more financially secure state. Like with many fashion trends, I think the US is following behind CA into an unsustainable financial future, we're just a little behind.

xiaoma 16y ago

In my experience, most middle-class parents who "flee" a city on the way down do so in order to put their children into a better school. I don't know the exact situation in the US, but I'm willing to bet that it's a fairly universal trend.