6 ms·

There is no such thing as "locals getting screwed" in this scenario. We live in a free country, where people sometimes choose to move. In fact, when the demand

There is no such thing as "locals getting screwed" in this scenario. We live in a free country, where people sometimes choose to move. In fact, when the demand for housing in an area goes up, often locals profit handsomely. Unfortunately, "I was here first" sounds a lot like "fuck you, I got mine". And it's not gonna fly.

RC_ITR 6y ago
Listen, nearly everyone largely agrees that wealth inequality at the current US level is bad. Wealthy people moving to low-cost areas (and thus raising cost of living) accelerates inequality for a few reasons. 1) Unlike you scenario, many working-class people in places like Sedona can only afford to rent their homes (25% of total, give or take in Sedona). These people incur huge monetary costs in being forced to move / switch jobs / etc. 2) Moving causes people to lose social capital. Laugh all you want, but going from a tight-knit neighborhood of peers to a new town of strangers creates costs, at least in the short term. No one to watch your kids, no one to give you a ride if your car breaks down, etc. 3) Even for those who stay, they lose power, since their new wealthy residents likely have better lobbying sway (e.g., the new bus to the airport causes service to decrease to job centers, etc.) I don't disagree that certain locals benefit from gentrification (parent comment made the same point), but your capitalism-enabled lack of empathy for those who don't benefit is why people are warming to the ideas of socialism. So if you don't want that, I'd tread carefully & try to be a bit more empathetic.
- dcow 6y ago
  So if simply moving creates inequality, then what do people do? Stay in their hometown their entire life? Sounds like you need to revise the game, not hate the player.
  - bumby 6y ago
    “Revising the game” is exactly what the GP commentator was warning about. Push the inequality far enough and the social contract will likely get changed. So you asked what can you do? I’m not saying don’t move to the area you want, but make conscious choices that help reduce the inequalities that may drive those inequalities. Maybe don’t be riled up about high density housing bringing down your property values. Maybe support local businesses even though it costs more. Maybe vote for higher taxes that provide better schools even if you don’t have kids. Love how much father your income goes in that new town? Maybe donate just a portion of it to help provide a safety net for “locals” who may otherwise be negatively impacted by the “out-of-towners”. And maybe you do all those types of things already. But the tone of your comment comes across as, “Welp, what choice do I have but to myopically try to get the most out of this hustle??”
    - dcow 6y ago
      I’m not sure how you got that tone from my comment. Things like better funding for schools and not treating property like an investment vehicle are exactly the type of game changing tactics we need to consider collectively enforcing as local communities, hence my suggestion to revise the game not hate the players. The comment I responded too is suggesting that people [moving] are the problem and while there may be some implicit moral responsibility expected of those who relocate when their income would be higher than average in their new location, the problem, to me, seems systemic.
      - bumby 6y ago
        Sorry if I misinterpreted, maybe it’s just the loaded phrase used as a quip that threw me off. I agree, the way forward is to revise the structure and incentives. However, I don’t want to completely absolve individuals of moral responsibility just because they’re playing within the rules of “the game”
  - RC_ITR 6y ago
    Maybe make the choice to move to established residential areas with infrastructure and housing to support growing populations instead of water-parched small communities near natural wonders? Alternatively, those wealthy people could use their wealth to build civic infrastructure (e.g., better roads, better school, housing for working class people) to mitigate the negative externalities of their move. But generally, those wealthy movers are moving to escape urbanism and would be loathe to do those very 'urban' things. Again, I don't disagree with you that in the current American system, 'I've got mine, f** you' is a totally acceptable way to approach moving to a new community, but to put it in words you used, "It's not going to fly" at least not in the long term.
- mring33621 6y ago
  I'm OK with "ideas of socialism," I think. Especially regarding UBI and universal medical care. But, I also think that it's better to be in a growing area than a static or declining area. I'll never understand anti-gentrifiers. As an adult human being, it is your responsiblility to adapt and decide what is best for yourself and your dependents. No one owes you an unchanging landscape.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    "I'll never understand anti-gentrifiers." I think the main point is being forced out of your life-long home due to increased costs or taxes. Or the destruction of the local cultures/customs through change in local government policies. If you want an extreme example, you can look at the way that cult in Oregon took over a county/town in the 80s or 90s. Nothing legally wrong with it (the population segment with the highest numbers won; not talking the biological attack), but it did make the existing residents subject to their will and angry. The whole situation (on both sides) was mostly out of a lack of acceptance for other people and their life choices. I think we see this same sort of paradigm with people wanting changes that benefit them but might be detrimental to others in their "communities" (we don't really act like neighbors anymore) without meaningful discussion.
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      The key is assimilation. If you move into a place with the goal of becoming one of the community and understanding and blending into the local culture and economy, people will be a lot more accepting. If you expect everyone to get out of your way, expect them to fight back.
      - mavelikara 6y ago
        > The key is assimilation. Agreed, but it goes both ways. "We welcome your money, but please keep your opinions to yourself", isn't a great way to assimilate new migrants. Also, see top comment by Mark Watson.
        6y ago
- almost_usual 6y ago
  > Wealthy people moving to low-cost areas (and thus raising cost of living) accelerates inequality for a few reasons. Low cost _desirable_ areas.
- waheoo 6y ago
  What people are warming to the ideas of socialism exactly? The woke left? Lol.
  - anoonmoose 6y ago
    What a lazy, unnecessary, unproductive comment. I'll not defend myself; HN would be better if both our comments get removed.
    - waheoo 6y ago
      Defend yourself from what? It's a valid question. But go ahead, dismiss instead of engage. You're suggesting swaths of people are warming up to socialism. What you don't realise is swaths of adults are waking up to these screaming children who are about to get smacked.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  I’m pretty sure there is economic research showing that movement actually decreases inequality.
  - randcraw 6y ago
    Source please. I can see how increased demand for property in an area would increase inequality but not the reverse. When the cost of living rises but you're not invested in the parts of the market which gain from higher valuation, you're going to lose ground until either you can't compete or you buy in. And if you can buy in, great. But I suspect few locals have the capital or professional skills to ante up.
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      Geographic mobility is a key term it seems https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v80n2/v80n2p1.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v80n2/v80n2p1.html https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/labor-mobility.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/labor-mob...
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    Movement by whom, the poor or the rich?

RC_ITR 6y ago

Listen, nearly everyone largely agrees that wealth inequality at the current US level is bad. Wealthy people moving to low-cost areas (and thus raising cost of living) accelerates inequality for a few reasons. 1) Unlike you scenario, many working-class people in places like Sedona can only afford to rent their homes (25% of total, give or take in Sedona). These people incur huge monetary costs in being forced to move / switch jobs / etc. 2) Moving causes people to lose social capital. Laugh all you want, but going from a tight-knit neighborhood of peers to a new town of strangers creates costs, at least in the short term. No one to watch your kids, no one to give you a ride if your car breaks down, etc. 3) Even for those who stay, they lose power, since their new wealthy residents likely have better lobbying sway (e.g., the new bus to the airport causes service to decrease to job centers, etc.) I don't disagree that certain locals benefit from gentrification (parent comment made the same point), but your capitalism-enabled lack of empathy for those who don't benefit is why people are warming to the ideas of socialism. So if you don't want that, I'd tread carefully & try to be a bit more empathetic.

dcow 6y ago
So if simply moving creates inequality, then what do people do? Stay in their hometown their entire life? Sounds like you need to revise the game, not hate the player.
- bumby 6y ago
  “Revising the game” is exactly what the GP commentator was warning about. Push the inequality far enough and the social contract will likely get changed. So you asked what can you do? I’m not saying don’t move to the area you want, but make conscious choices that help reduce the inequalities that may drive those inequalities. Maybe don’t be riled up about high density housing bringing down your property values. Maybe support local businesses even though it costs more. Maybe vote for higher taxes that provide better schools even if you don’t have kids. Love how much father your income goes in that new town? Maybe donate just a portion of it to help provide a safety net for “locals” who may otherwise be negatively impacted by the “out-of-towners”. And maybe you do all those types of things already. But the tone of your comment comes across as, “Welp, what choice do I have but to myopically try to get the most out of this hustle??”
  - dcow 6y ago
    I’m not sure how you got that tone from my comment. Things like better funding for schools and not treating property like an investment vehicle are exactly the type of game changing tactics we need to consider collectively enforcing as local communities, hence my suggestion to revise the game not hate the players. The comment I responded too is suggesting that people [moving] are the problem and while there may be some implicit moral responsibility expected of those who relocate when their income would be higher than average in their new location, the problem, to me, seems systemic.
    - bumby 6y ago
      Sorry if I misinterpreted, maybe it’s just the loaded phrase used as a quip that threw me off. I agree, the way forward is to revise the structure and incentives. However, I don’t want to completely absolve individuals of moral responsibility just because they’re playing within the rules of “the game”
- RC_ITR 6y ago
  Maybe make the choice to move to established residential areas with infrastructure and housing to support growing populations instead of water-parched small communities near natural wonders? Alternatively, those wealthy people could use their wealth to build civic infrastructure (e.g., better roads, better school, housing for working class people) to mitigate the negative externalities of their move. But generally, those wealthy movers are moving to escape urbanism and would be loathe to do those very 'urban' things. Again, I don't disagree with you that in the current American system, 'I've got mine, f** you' is a totally acceptable way to approach moving to a new community, but to put it in words you used, "It's not going to fly" at least not in the long term.
mring33621 6y ago
I'm OK with "ideas of socialism," I think. Especially regarding UBI and universal medical care. But, I also think that it's better to be in a growing area than a static or declining area. I'll never understand anti-gentrifiers. As an adult human being, it is your responsiblility to adapt and decide what is best for yourself and your dependents. No one owes you an unchanging landscape.
- giantg2 6y ago
  "I'll never understand anti-gentrifiers." I think the main point is being forced out of your life-long home due to increased costs or taxes. Or the destruction of the local cultures/customs through change in local government policies. If you want an extreme example, you can look at the way that cult in Oregon took over a county/town in the 80s or 90s. Nothing legally wrong with it (the population segment with the highest numbers won; not talking the biological attack), but it did make the existing residents subject to their will and angry. The whole situation (on both sides) was mostly out of a lack of acceptance for other people and their life choices. I think we see this same sort of paradigm with people wanting changes that benefit them but might be detrimental to others in their "communities" (we don't really act like neighbors anymore) without meaningful discussion.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    The key is assimilation. If you move into a place with the goal of becoming one of the community and understanding and blending into the local culture and economy, people will be a lot more accepting. If you expect everyone to get out of your way, expect them to fight back.
    - mavelikara 6y ago
      > The key is assimilation. Agreed, but it goes both ways. "We welcome your money, but please keep your opinions to yourself", isn't a great way to assimilate new migrants. Also, see top comment by Mark Watson.
      - 6y ago
almost_usual 6y ago
> Wealthy people moving to low-cost areas (and thus raising cost of living) accelerates inequality for a few reasons. Low cost _desirable_ areas.
waheoo 6y ago
What people are warming to the ideas of socialism exactly? The woke left? Lol.
- anoonmoose 6y ago
  What a lazy, unnecessary, unproductive comment. I'll not defend myself; HN would be better if both our comments get removed.
  - waheoo 6y ago
    Defend yourself from what? It's a valid question. But go ahead, dismiss instead of engage. You're suggesting swaths of people are warming up to socialism. What you don't realise is swaths of adults are waking up to these screaming children who are about to get smacked.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
I’m pretty sure there is economic research showing that movement actually decreases inequality.
- randcraw 6y ago
  Source please. I can see how increased demand for property in an area would increase inequality but not the reverse. When the cost of living rises but you're not invested in the parts of the market which gain from higher valuation, you're going to lose ground until either you can't compete or you buy in. And if you can buy in, great. But I suspect few locals have the capital or professional skills to ante up.
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    Geographic mobility is a key term it seems https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v80n2/v80n2p1.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v80n2/v80n2p1.html https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/labor-mobility.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/labor-mob...
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Movement by whom, the poor or the rich?