Yeah, but you're taking the Luddite view. Displacement is inevitable and also necessary. It's dwarfed by the benefits. San Francisco is different from Austin, both in scale and speed of gentrification -- and I do think it's a shame that such a cool city is changing so quickly. But San Francisco has changed drastically before and that's part of what makes it interesting. I'm in the middle. Family's been in Austin for about 65 years, and I've grown up watching Austin institutions that I loved disappear because they can't compete. But I also appreciate, say, having an international airport. I appreciate everything UT has done for Austin. We're a major cultural center and so on.I was pretty sure that was you? I seem to remember something like that. Anyway, the point is, someone acting as a gentrifier even if they don't intend to isn't going to directly experience the problems associated with gentrification, because they are on the positive end. What a gentrifier perceives as good for them and good for the area is pretty well aligned with what the previous residents see as problematic things that force them out.
Perhaps more of the neoluddism of Peter Frase & al. Displacement is neither inevitable nor necessary, and the benefits of displacement are received by the displacers, not the displaced. There exist alternatives, but they often aren't feasible within capitalism. The Luddites were right about their own situation: they did experience hardship as a direct result of new technologies. Yes, society eventually moved on and labor requirements were reduced in that specific sector, but a lot of people suffered in the meantime. In the case of the Luddites whose labor was displaced by machines, it may have been better to reduce working hours first instead of abruptly employing fewer people. In the case of gentrified neighborhoods, it's probably better to increase the available housing, wages, and social services, rather than hike rents and evict.Yeah, but you're taking the Luddite view. Displacement is inevitable and also necessary. It's dwarfed by the benefits.
I don't know about that. If you take displacement as an inevitable side effect of migration (empirically) and migration as a necessary human function... Not always, not by any means. Short term/long term, also. Gradual changes are mostly better than instant ones. But we don't always get a choice. I have a lot of big thoughts about the changing nature of structural unemployment (and structural displacement, as is the case here) which can be summarized thus: in the 21st century, it's not going away; in fact it will intensify, and that intensification is caused by factors that in the long run will be very, very good for us. In the short term, people get hurt, because that's what structural changes do. The locals in San Francisco are getting hurt. One solution is careful government intervention to mitigate (but not stop!) the effects of the changing structure. In this case, that's zoning laws, housing controls, wages and so on in San Francisco. I'm not against that by any means, as long as it seeks rather to smooth the trend, not reverse it.Displacement is neither inevitable nor necessary
and the benefits of displacement are received by the displacers, not the displaced.
The Luddites were right about their own situation: they did experience hardship as a direct result of new technologies. Yes, society eventually moved on and labor requirements were reduced in that specific sector, but a lot of people suffered in the meantime. In the case of the Luddites whose labor was displaced by machines, it may have been better to reduce working hours first instead of abruptly employing fewer people.