4 ms·
I read the entire article, and it just drops that conclusion out of nowhere. It offers nothing to support the second part: no data, no arguments, not even a hyp
by Camillo 7y ago
I read the entire article, and it just drops that conclusion out of nowhere. It offers nothing to support the second part: no data, no arguments, not even a hypothesis.
At best you can say that the reduction in middle-class rents didn't immediately cause a reduction in lower-class rents. Why is that an argument against? Is it inherently bad to improve middle-class living conditions?
I honestly fail to see the left-wing case for taking the side of wealthy, unproductive landlords against middle-class workers engaged in productive occupations.
- abalone 7y agoHuh? Just some of the data it offers: Seattle’s “Central District, which was more than 70% black in 1970, has long since become a majority white neighborhood, with blacks comprising less than 15% of the current population. A long-standing trend of displacement and gentrification continues unabated by redevelopment, with the District coming in second citywide for the most home teardowns for new construction since 2015.” It clearly describes displacement and gentrification as harmful to what you refer to as “lower-class” people. Finally you end on an unsupported political talking point that paints a false dichotomy. Progressives are concerned about the most vulnerable people, including “workers engaged in productive occupations” who are displaced by wealthier gentrifiers of working class neighborhoods.
- Camillo 7y agoWhat does a demographic transition that started in the 70s and has "long since" taken hold have to do with recent construction? That's not even an argument, it's pure sleight of hand. It only seems convincing to you because you are already convinced.