5 ms·

People were living there and now they can't afford to live there. Why would they be happy about economic forces that do nothing but push them to the margins? It

People were living there and now they can't afford to live there. Why would they be happy about economic forces that do nothing but push them to the margins? It's empathy, not """moral outrage""" which is just a politically correct phrase for "contentious political issues I want to dismiss".

Domenic_S 10y ago
Assuming you're talking about the rising cost of housing, how is that Snap's fault? These people who can't afford to live there -- either they owned their dwelling (in which case they can still afford to live there because nothing's changed) or they rented (in which case the landlord is to blame, because his costs didn't change).
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  > either they owned their dwelling (in which case they can still afford to live there because nothing's changed) One nit with this: when the price of your house goes up, local governments have a tendency to reassess it to their benefit and massively increase your property tax bill. So it's possible to own your home outright but still get pushed out of it by your local government's taxation practices. > in which case the landlord is to blame, because his costs didn't change 1) See above: the landlord's costs potentially do go up significantly. 2) See the frequent advice here recommending against "cost-plus" pricing.
  - pchristensen 10y ago
    > it's possible to own your home outright but still get pushed out of it by your local government's taxation practices. This is not a problem in California: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(197...
    - JoshTriplett 10y ago
      True, though I've also seen several discussions here about other problems that proposition causes (mostly by making the market far less liquid).
      - Kalium 10y ago
        It also does a lot of starve local governments of funding, with all the problems that come from that.
      - pchristensen 10y ago
        Oh, Prop 13 causes HUGE problems. But CA homeowners being forced out by rising taxes isn't a problem.
  - Domenic_S 10y ago
    Sibling comment explains why point 1 is not relevant in CA. But: > 2) See the frequent advice here recommending against "cost-plus" pricing. This is essentially my point -- it's logically and ethically inconsistent to blame Snap for raising prices AND excuse landlords for adjusting prices to meet demand.
    - ebola1717 10y ago
      People who criticize gentrification usually don't excuse the landlord. In fact, most community orgs that fight gentrification target their protests against the landlords. In NYC, for example, it's usually targeted at landlords forcing tenants out of rent-controlled units, and developers that replace low or mixed income housing with fully luxury buildings.
- danharaj 10y ago
  The problem is structural, not the result of one actor's actions.
- Apocryphon 10y ago
  > or they rented (in which case the landlord is to blame, because his costs didn't change) Maybe, given the example of the Bay Area's housing crisis, tech companies should have the moral responsibility in spending part of their lobbying budget to at least try to change local zoning laws. If not for the benefit of the preexisting residents whose lives have been affected by their presence, at least for their own employees who struggle to find affordable housing.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  While you can't be responsible for everything people around you do, some actions have pretty predictable consequences. One should get blamed for them.
Dylan16807 10y ago
Let's step back from this specific situation for a moment. If there's a place that's cheaper to live because it's sketchy and full of crime, what do you do? Should it stay that way?
- danharaj 10y ago
  The bitter thing about gentrification is that as the median income of the residents increases, suddenly all the municipal services get much, much better while corporations start dumping money into the neighborhood. Meanwhile the residents are pushed out to a more marginalized community which in turn will be neglected until it is profitable to invest in it. Don't forget, too, that these neighborhoods aren't so sketchy because of natural forces. It was policy that created them and immiserated their residents. It's a structural feature.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    "money makes services better" isn't because of policy. So what policies would you change? What actually is the answer?
mywittyname 10y ago
Snap and its employees need to go somewhere. Someone is going to be displaced by the billions of dollars they generate suddenly being dumped into a local economy. If not Venice, then some other relatively cheap area.

Domenic_S 10y ago

Assuming you're talking about the rising cost of housing, how is that Snap's fault? These people who can't afford to live there -- either they owned their dwelling (in which case they can still afford to live there because nothing's changed) or they rented (in which case the landlord is to blame, because his costs didn't change).

JoshTriplett 10y ago
> either they owned their dwelling (in which case they can still afford to live there because nothing's changed) One nit with this: when the price of your house goes up, local governments have a tendency to reassess it to their benefit and massively increase your property tax bill. So it's possible to own your home outright but still get pushed out of it by your local government's taxation practices. > in which case the landlord is to blame, because his costs didn't change 1) See above: the landlord's costs potentially do go up significantly. 2) See the frequent advice here recommending against "cost-plus" pricing.
- pchristensen 10y ago
  > it's possible to own your home outright but still get pushed out of it by your local government's taxation practices. This is not a problem in California: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(197...
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    True, though I've also seen several discussions here about other problems that proposition causes (mostly by making the market far less liquid).
    - Kalium 10y ago
      It also does a lot of starve local governments of funding, with all the problems that come from that.
    - pchristensen 10y ago
      Oh, Prop 13 causes HUGE problems. But CA homeowners being forced out by rising taxes isn't a problem.
- Domenic_S 10y ago
  Sibling comment explains why point 1 is not relevant in CA. But: > 2) See the frequent advice here recommending against "cost-plus" pricing. This is essentially my point -- it's logically and ethically inconsistent to blame Snap for raising prices AND excuse landlords for adjusting prices to meet demand.
  - ebola1717 10y ago
    People who criticize gentrification usually don't excuse the landlord. In fact, most community orgs that fight gentrification target their protests against the landlords. In NYC, for example, it's usually targeted at landlords forcing tenants out of rent-controlled units, and developers that replace low or mixed income housing with fully luxury buildings.
danharaj 10y ago
The problem is structural, not the result of one actor's actions.
Apocryphon 10y ago
> or they rented (in which case the landlord is to blame, because his costs didn't change) Maybe, given the example of the Bay Area's housing crisis, tech companies should have the moral responsibility in spending part of their lobbying budget to at least try to change local zoning laws. If not for the benefit of the preexisting residents whose lives have been affected by their presence, at least for their own employees who struggle to find affordable housing.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
While you can't be responsible for everything people around you do, some actions have pretty predictable consequences. One should get blamed for them.

Dylan16807 10y ago

Let's step back from this specific situation for a moment. If there's a place that's cheaper to live because it's sketchy and full of crime, what do you do? Should it stay that way?

danharaj 10y ago
The bitter thing about gentrification is that as the median income of the residents increases, suddenly all the municipal services get much, much better while corporations start dumping money into the neighborhood. Meanwhile the residents are pushed out to a more marginalized community which in turn will be neglected until it is profitable to invest in it. Don't forget, too, that these neighborhoods aren't so sketchy because of natural forces. It was policy that created them and immiserated their residents. It's a structural feature.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  "money makes services better" isn't because of policy. So what policies would you change? What actually is the answer?

mywittyname 10y ago

Snap and its employees need to go somewhere. Someone is going to be displaced by the billions of dollars they generate suddenly being dumped into a local economy. If not Venice, then some other relatively cheap area.