I don't think our society will face meaningful change unless there are physical consequences (read: jail) to doing terrible-human-being stuff like this. The executives will just go off with their cushy $20M severance paychecks and exploit some other group of people in a slightly different way.
I will add that part of this is what you say, but I think part also has to do with our lack of empathy for 'losers' and 'criminals'.
Most of the people being subjected to this had jail as the other option.
> "I was just following incentives" is becoming the new Nuremberg defense.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19709730
I'm clearly not the only one who has had this thought...
Blog post on this sort of issue in academia: http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2018/10/02/no-its-not-the-inc...
Also seen on HN: "if I don't take this opportunity, the next guy will anyway"
<cynic>It may also have been God...</cynic>
I agree. We've been using that excuse for too long. In the 50's William Levitt, the country's largest home builder and the originator of the modern suburb, said exactly that when asked why he built white only communities.
"If we sell one house to a Negro family, 90 to 95 percent of our white customers will not buy into the community."
"As a Jew, I have no room in my heart for racial prejudice. But the plain fact is that most whites prefer not to live in mixed communities. This attitude may be wrong morally, and someday it may change. I hope it will."
In other words: I know it's wrong, but I'm just doing what my customers want.
It's another way of saying "All I care about is the money I get". If the price is high enough, his conscious could be bought. Sure, maybe he feels bad for hurting a group of people, and his Jewish ancestry shows he knows what that's like to be the short end of the stick. But this is the opposite of taking the high road. It's about as impactful as saying "Thoughts and prayers to those people I displaced, buuuttt... it turns out it's way more beneficial for me if I just roll with this, so.. sorrryyyy."
The "You can't blame me for selling out because you would do the same thing" argument is an overrated defense.
He did more than just use that excuse, he played the "I can't be racist because I'm a Jew" card.
His reference to "white customers" doesn't even exclude Jews, to begin with. Like, in 1950's America, did Jews eagerly move into communities with large numbers of blacks, in stark contrast to "whites"?
But I agree with you that "I can't be racist because I'm a Jew" is ridiculous, and that real estate profiteering off of racism is abhorent regardless of who is doing it.
In my friend's home town, the federal government has deemed it to be "too white", and is trying to build a 500 unit housing complex, and bus in people from 80 miles away to live there.
And to anyone who loves talking about how enlightened they are, ask yourself if YOU would choose to live next to government housing for 500+ low income people. Of course you wouldn't.
Also low income people need to live somewhere, and how exactly are they "busing" in people to live there? I'm pretty sure your story is missing some details. Can you link us to a local article on it so we can find out more for ourselves?
Actually, forget who the people are. Would you be ok with the federal government forcibly disrupting your community and bypassing local governance, to build buildings that nobody asked for, and inviting displaced strangers into your community?
And their rationale for this is punitive. They target communities that are deemed to be too homogenous.
They do this all around Chicago. The federal government engages in what is essentially balkanization. And people are justified in not being happy about it.
A private group sued the county after they "collected $52 million in federal development grants by falsely certifying in the grant paperwork that it had analyzed impediments to fair housing."
There was a federal development grant that required the county to conduct an assessment of it's zoning policies to determine whether those zoning policies prevented developers from building affordable housing. Many counties have policies like that--minimum square footage, minimum acreage etc...
The county lied, said they had conducted this analysis, and collected $52 million. As punishment they were forced to pay back some of the money, and issue permits for 750 affordable homes. Not housing projects. The federal government didn't build any homes, they didn't bus anyone in from 80 miles away.
And the primary motivating force for this settlement were local advocacy groups who were arguing against overly restrictive zoning by local government. In fact this entire situation is an example of government overreach in exactly the opposite direction. The local government created a problem, and the Federal government stepped in to provide redress to local petitioners.
...why not?
And since you think it would be so beneficial to live in or near one, I am still wondering why you don't consider moving there. Maybe you can just admit that there are real liabilities to living in an area like that.
Do you need to see a heat map to see the crime rates and violence? Do you think that is a conspiracy theory? Do you enjoy being assaulted and burglarized?
I don't hate these people, I don't blame them for their plight. But they are still more likely to be dangerous.
Would you drop your kids off at a daycare center in a prison, or a drug rehab clinic? Most of the people are probably still good, but a larger proportion of them will be dangerous.
Poor people are forced to live there because that is the only affordable place. These places require better public housing and public service rights.
You are putting the cart before the horse. It is the other way around.
And so, you can put these people in wealthy suburbs, but it won't actually transform them into the residents of those suburbs.
The commute sucks. We need public housing closer to public transit and employment centers.