4 ms·

How do we choose who has to sacrifice? Isn’t one group bearing the brunt of sacrifice the very definition of inequality. Often times it could be a rich person

How do we choose who has to sacrifice? Isn’t one group bearing the brunt of sacrifice the very definition of inequality. Often times it could be a rich person defending his property name but it could just add easily be a poor family. I’m no NIMBY but often times the solution isn’t easy because it has to be fair.

mavhc 5y ago
If you own a house you're probably not poor
pas 5y ago
The dead simple solution to gentrification (the unfair pricing out of the locals) is to mandate building houses that are basically a strict superset of the already present ones. Which allows the locals to stay in the neighborhood with very similar conditions (eg. similar rent for years). Naturally this means that developments will be big to absorb these costs.
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  What would life be like if we had adopted those kind of policies in the middle ages? Hmm Things change over time. Whether it be 10 years or 100 years. Arguing about character of a neighborhood is somewhat nonsensical IMO.
cbozeman 5y ago
> How do we choose who has to sacrifice? The people who want to hold the moral high ground have to also accept the suffering and sacrifice that go with it. "Doing the right thing" has a cost to it. That's exactly why I call these people out. They want to be seen as good people, but aren't willing to suffer the burden that goodness requires. > Isn’t one group bearing the brunt of sacrifice the very definition of inequality. No, it isn't, because I'm talking about voluntarily sacrificing for your community in the pursuit of a higher good than your own personal enrichment and the enrichment of your children. > Often times it could be a rich person defending his property name but it could just add easily be a poor family. Define "rich". Define "poor". When I was a young child, people who could afford to eat three meals a day were "rich". Today, I define "poor" as being unable to eat at a restaurant every day of the week and not being able to afford a first-class flight. It's an ever-sliding scale based on your own income, and everyone's comfortable sacrificing more - or less - than someone else.

mavhc 5y ago

If you own a house you're probably not poor

pas 5y ago

The dead simple solution to gentrification (the unfair pricing out of the locals) is to mandate building houses that are basically a strict superset of the already present ones. Which allows the locals to stay in the neighborhood with very similar conditions (eg. similar rent for years). Naturally this means that developments will be big to absorb these costs.

adam_arthur 5y ago
What would life be like if we had adopted those kind of policies in the middle ages? Hmm Things change over time. Whether it be 10 years or 100 years. Arguing about character of a neighborhood is somewhat nonsensical IMO.

cbozeman 5y ago

> How do we choose who has to sacrifice? The people who want to hold the moral high ground have to also accept the suffering and sacrifice that go with it. "Doing the right thing" has a cost to it. That's exactly why I call these people out. They want to be seen as good people, but aren't willing to suffer the burden that goodness requires. > Isn’t one group bearing the brunt of sacrifice the very definition of inequality. No, it isn't, because I'm talking about voluntarily sacrificing for your community in the pursuit of a higher good than your own personal enrichment and the enrichment of your children. > Often times it could be a rich person defending his property name but it could just add easily be a poor family. Define "rich". Define "poor". When I was a young child, people who could afford to eat three meals a day were "rich". Today, I define "poor" as being unable to eat at a restaurant every day of the week and not being able to afford a first-class flight. It's an ever-sliding scale based on your own income, and everyone's comfortable sacrificing more - or less - than someone else.