In our studies thus far regarding the New York City urban landscape, we were able to attribute the widening inequality gap to a multitude of issues. These issues included urban renewal, gentrification, and community control. Further investigation of these problems leads to one root cause, unequal division of political power. Though equal rights have been extended to all on paper and representation comes in many forms (the vote, the right to organize and protest, interest groups) historically oppressed minorities continue to exist as a disadvantaged group.
In the readings, disadvantaged groups were limited by their oppressors politically, economically, and socially. For example, women were made subservient to their husbands through domestic roles and as a result became dependents. They served as emotional support, child care, and physical pleasure, but often did not receive reciprocated service from their spouses. People involuntarily excluded from the work place were made dependents on the welfare system, where their basic rights were infringed upon because of their dependence. Racism barred equally and sometimes more qualified minority candidates from employment. In these roles, it is difficult to gain a footing in politics because as a disadvantaged group your voice is made less significant.
In a previous reading, the ghetto firehouse closures targeted poorer neighborhoods as a grander scheme to force them out. Wealthier neighborhoods, with a stronger political force were able to have that firehouses reopened even though fires more often affected ghettos. Their basic rights to services were purposefully withheld and some residents had no choice but to flee. Neighborhoods fighting gentrification tried pushing for affordable units in new developments. However, these units don’t reflect the true need of the group and costs of goods rise as businesses begin catering to the newcomers. The original residents were forced out as they moved to more affordable neighborhoods. Even though this seemed like a policy victory the force of gentrification undermined the original goal.
Though these problems appear hopeless in the sense that one group wins and another continues to suffer with a limited ability of backlash, I don’t believe the poor can be forced out of the city. In the readings, it said the wealthy classes owned the means of production and profitted off of the labor of the working class. The wealthy are therefore dependent on the poor and middle class. If the lower classes organized and refused to sell their service then their concerns would be more respected since they would gain the upper hand of the dependent- dependee relationship. If the poor were forced out, no one would be left to fill the roles of menial and low skilled jobs. Their income levels would not allow them to move to middle class suburban outskirts, much less afford to travel to work every day. I think that the rich cannot exist if there is no lower group to exploit, but there is a limit to how much you can take advantage of them before they revolt.
Discussion Question: What is the limit of gentrification, urban renewal, and displacement that the city can experience before it is no longer functional?
Can disadvantaged groups and the wealthy ever exist on a level playing field in a capitalistic, neoliberal society?
