To set the scene, "poor" means middle class and below, but not quite rich enough, to be able to get a mortgage. Or facing any other obstables to a mortgage suc

To set the scene, "poor" means middle class and below, but not quite rich enough, to be able to get a mortgage. Or facing any other obstables to a mortgage such as career stability or being self-employed. I think typically "poor" people move in when the prices are just about affordable in the area. There they settle, have families, have their friends, support network, schools, jobs, community, etc. It all seems very reasonable. And then the rents go up, and up, and up, and up... faster than income. So they are forced to move away to a new place where they don't know anybody and have no connections. They settle down in the new place. Children go to a new school. Community programs are scrapped in the old place and re-founded in the new place. Keep in touch with old friends by phone, but in-person friends have to be made anew. Do it all over again. Get really settled in. And then the rents in the new place go up, and up, and up, and up... faster than income again. So they are forced to move again. I think there's a fair moral argument for it being an injustice that "poor" people are not able to settle in any area except the most deprived areas where it's possible to project will stay deprived for decades to come. There's always a substantial chance that wherever they land, if it's a reasonable place that they can afford, conditions will change, and they will be gradually squeezed until they are priced out and forced to reset their lives again somewhere else. Being able to settle long-term in some reasonable place is arguably a significant moral imperative in the design of society. This is one of many possible metrics for evaluating what "works" or "doesn't work". And almost everyone's income drops a lot when they become elderly. Stability of place is really important for the elderly. It's sad when they have to leave to a place where they have nobody.