3 ms·
The idea that several forms of social influx (immigration vs gentrification) have some things in common despite being received differently along a political con
by wwweston 8y ago
The idea that several forms of social influx (immigration vs gentrification) have some things in common despite being received differently along a political continuum is probably worth some examination.
But I'd start by looking at whether "flood" or "deluge" are justified not in terms of positive/negative connotation, but whether they accurately represent the scale of what's going on.
IIRC, post-civil-war in-migration to the US hasn't ever resulted in more than 15% of the total population being immigrants. The CIA World Factbook says the US had 3.9 migrants per 1000 citizens in 2017. Wikipedia says there's a recent rate of about 1 million immigrants per year, about half of which are changing status for people already here.
I'm less sure where to get observations about the portion/influx of tech in the Bay Area or SF itself. But if I were guessing, I'd bet tech pushes up to 20-25% of employmees and activity, and that the influx over the last decade (or in the 90s) is a considerably steeper curve.
One might also consider some qualitative factors. An influx of people of average or perhaps even lower than average means primarily represents an impact on (a) competition in the labor force and (b) demand. Those two things ought to cancel each other out in terms of general economic impacts (or perhaps even work in tandem to drive growth), except where there are supply bottlenecks... say, real estate/housing, especially in a geographically constrained area. So, one might expect the impacts to be outsized in a place like San Francisco vs the United States at large (which has plenty of places with modest population destiny). An influx of people of average to higher-than-average means (say, workers in a field commanding a larger salary than many past residents) would massively magnify this problem.
So... perhaps there are good reasons to treat the volatility and dynamics of tech-focused in-migration to SF/Bay as distinct from the volatility and dynamics of immigration to the US.
- deogeo 8y ago> Wikipedia says there's a recent rate of about 1 million immigrants per year, about half of which are changing status for people already here. Would that mean they weren't counted as immigrants when they first arrived, because they had the wrong 'status'? Or are they counted twice, first when they arrive, and again when they change status? Edit: It occurred to me, immigration to the US is probably concentrated in the south, so the "15% of total US population being immigrant" is not the most relevant statistic to compare to.
- solidsnack9000 8y agoI wonder why people have the conversation this way at all. Don’t we have freedom of movement within the United States? Don’t we believe the union is a good thing? If a city can’t grow to accommodate new and successful industries — despite lavish tax revenue — it seems like policy failure, plain and simple.