1 Like
Majority+Minority=…
“But . . . but . . . in Queens NY one neighborhood gentriifed that means Compton LA and houndreds of other nieghborhoods did not go to Hell”
is false and you know it.
Falsely claiming that I am ignoring something does not make your argument true.
False accusations about your opponent never make your arguments true.
They never have, and yet, it is persistentlty your favorite tactic.
It’s not one neighborhood. Does it make it easier for you to win arguments by reducing the argument to absurdity? New York City pricing people out because people are buying in poor areas. You ignoring that fact is persistently something….
You are not my opponent.
Well let’s see . . .
According to MS Copilot (which is sometimes correct)
As people acquired wealth and resources throughout history, they often sought new opportunities and improved living conditions by moving to different areas. This phenomenon isn’t unique to America in the mid and late 20th century—it’s been a common aspect of human behavior for centuries.
From the urbanization trends in the 1600s and 1700s . . .
(More in a bit)
So,
Your question was “Why didn’t those people stay in those neighborhoods? Why did they move away?”
I am not sure. Whatever it is, for many centuries it has been human nature to seek bigger better housing, more space etc. as one grows wealthier. It has been happeneing for centuries. It has always been this way/ It is not new.
Two things are new however:
a.) In the 1960s 70s and 80s the US government began doing things never done before (adopting new policues refading welfare spending, crime, education etc,)
b.) For the first time in all human history “people moving out” promptly meant neighbrhoods going to hell.
People have been “moving out” for centuries andneighborhhod never went to hell before. The only time they ever went to hell was when we started adopting those policies.
Logically it appears “moving out” did not cause the neighborhoods to go to hell, but maybe “adopting the new policies” did.
1 Like
Moving not due to invasion is a post industrial phenomenon. So about 150 years old. And even then it took decades for a middle class to be sufficiently established to allow moving. The real calculation should really be post Great Depression or even post war.
Thing 1 (moving out) has been happening for centuries (millenia??) in every country and culture . . . . it never led to rotten nieghborhoods.
Thing 2 (The Ameican welfare state, socilal promotion in schools. “reforms” in the judicial system etc.) is brand new an never happened before . . . it was followed immediately by rotten neighborhoods.
Logically, rotten neighborhoods are not caused by Thing 1 but might be caused by Thing 2.
Local and State regulations are the killers. That is why there are large differences in the median price for homes between States. Those states with more available land and less regulation have lower median prices than those states with less available land and more regulation.
They need to make a streak of good choice without any setbacks. When you are poor you can’t as easily endure set back after setback.
Wealth allows you to make multiple mistakes and still come out on top.
No it hasn’t. Outside of an invading force. Movement wasn’t a thing and the truth is that you have no proving your assertion that it has been a Thing for millennia and never turned into a rotten of neighborhoods or even centuries. The middle class moves. There was of course movement to get work and mass migration (which was also usually caused by some sort of strife) but we are not there yet.
We need to establish parameters. Real ones not imaginary ones.
So moving as we know it today has been a thing for about a century. Maybe a bit longer.
That’s because those states are trying to get people to come. Once they come the prices will spike. just look at Atlanta and its surrounding areas. Pittsburgh too.
The median price is driven by demand. Yes of course states who want people to come and live there will try to reduce regulation to increase housing etc but once the people come then prices spike just as badly.
Yes, median price is driven by demand, but…
If excessive regulation reduces available house inventory then demand will exceed supply and median prices will be high.
If on the other hand, if there is plenty of available land and minimal regulations, then supply would easily be able to keep up with demand. The result would be a lower median price.
Texas is a prime example. Population growth is exploding, yet median house prices remain low when compared to East and West coast states, that are heavily regulated.
This happened in Austin.
1 Like
Maybe but what regulations should we get rid of? I kind of like building codes and such to make sure I get a quality product. If not quality it gives me the legal recourse to address the deficiencies
1 Like
There were some very specific reasons why families, especially whites families, started moving out of cities in the 1950s and 60s. White Flight was a thing. Starting with Brown v BOE in 54, the expansion of the highway system, the GI Bill, blacks moving from the south to larger cities in the north … all of those were factors as to why white families moved away, leaving large economic and social voids, ie urban decay. Redlining and mortgage discrimination further hindered the ability of black families to purchase homes in desirable locations. This is all to say, there are historical reasons why certain places “went to hell” in the wake of suburban expansion. This all had effects in the real estate and housing markets.
1 Like
I’m not sure that’s true.
What about the Great Migration?
I don’t think that’s true at all.
On top of what?
No it isn’t. That isn’t what happened in Austin at all.
