Mar
10
Post #6- Nick Djamalidinov
March 10, 2015 | Leave a Comment
Today’s articles analyzed the relationship between residence and income inequality. The first article from the Washington Post, dealt with the idea of zoning and I felt was the main article to focus on. Another article on CNN talked about 40 Riverside, a condo built for rich buyers and lower income renters. AEI had an article that critiqued the Financial Times Analysis of income inequality and weak housing recovery. The NY Daily News article focused on income inequality in New York City and reminded me of a previous article that talked about the viability of income inequality in our city.
The policies easing zoning restrictions were introduced in this article as an opportunity for people to build high price house for the “yuppies” and other rich people. Naturally, progressives attacked it as a tool for gentrification and deepening inequality. The article however, disagreed, claiming that these new policies could help the poor because it would ease the provisions of zoning that limit the total amount of housing that could exist in an area and the presence of low-cost housing in certain areas. I happen to agree with that because like he said, housing prices would go down as more housing becomes available. The concern about gentrification is fair and very plausible but I think the benefit would be worth the risk. I have heard there a lot of vacant houses and a lot of homeless in the United States because the housing prices are too high and people cannot afford them. I think easing zoning restrictions could give people a chance to buy low-cost housing. It would however take a lot of action to limit the gentrification of certain places.
The article about 40 Riverside had me thinking very deeply about the implications of separate systems for different tenants based on economic class basically. I understand that the people who buy the condos pay more and should receive amenities and it would be unfair for renting tenants to get all the perks while playing considerably less. But I also see the revival of separate but equal here and how embarrassing and degrading it must feel to be treated as a second class citizen in your own building. A counter-balancing point in the article was that this gives lower income individuals a chance to live in a nice neighborhood and enjoy those privileges like nicer schools and overall better environment. But I am thinking about how one of the causes of unhappiness is being presented with all these amazing things you cant have.
The financial times ascribed the income inequality to the poor housing recovery. James Pethoukokis disagreed and broke down the flaws in the financial times article’s argument. He said that cities like San Fransisco were brain hubs and attracted tech companies who in turn attracted a tech geniuses who generated more jobs. I took his entire analysis to mean that the weak housing markets being consistent with higher income disparity is a correlation not a causation. It would be fair to assume that cities like San Fransisco would be doing better if they really were attracting tech companies and creating jobs. I didn’t like how he seemed to say struggling cities don’t have any options besides attracting tech companies.
I actually liked the NY Daily News Article a lot. I had to admit that it hit some very good points about why expanding the welfare state is a bad idea. It communicated to me at first that we should not help the poor directly and it almost seemed to justify poverty. One of the best points I took away from the article was that local welfare states are practically useless. Rather than help the poor it just attracts more poverty and does not lift people out. It made sense that poor people would want to move to cities that treat the poor better. That is why I liked his next point, that welfare state should be handled at the federal level. It does not allow rich people to just move away because it is nation wide and does not encourage poor people to move to one location. This article also reminded me of the social mobility of New York City. The one redeeming point for the rampant inequality is that social mobility gives a New York City child 10% chance of being prosperous.
