However, human needs have an expiration date and often cannot wait for the market to make sense.
| That assumes rational actors in local government
No it doesn't, if you can build enough power you can force local governments to enact these kinds of reforms.
All politicians can be pressured if you know where to push.
On the other hand, you could bet on "rational activity" from landlords and developers—aka greedy self-interest.
So, sure, you might get a conscientious grassroots group to apply political pressure for rent control when it's not in their own self-interest. But you can 100% count on developers and landlords to be greedy, and I'd much rather channel that group into the outcome I want while I wait and hope for the former.
Again, are you talking about SFBA? Because I thought we addressed that.
This is a very SFBA thing to say.
| Look who overwhelmingly applies pressure
Yeah, I'm not talking about those people.
Poor and working people have mobilized plenty of times before. That's been constant throughout modern history and only in the past few decades have we had an ahistorical low period of organizing activity. I expect that lull to end in the coming years. In many ways it already has.
I'm not sure how it's a very SFBA thing to point out that the people who have a voice in local politics are the people who haven't been displaced?
> Poor and working people have mobilized plenty of times before
This would require them working in their own rational self-interest too, though -- which (a) there isn't much evidence for, and (b) kinda negates your earlier argument about assuming rational actors.
Displacement far enough that they are outside of the local political jurisdiction is specific to there. In places like Peoria, it's just further economic immiseration within Peoria. Most of America is not being gentrified, rents are just rising. There's a difference.
| (a) there isn't much evidence for
There is plenty of evidence for that. You might just have a recency bias.
| negates your earlier argument about assuming rational actors
I don't put people mobilizing into the ideological framework of "the market". I don't put much faith into the ideological framework of markets generally. I find it only slightly more useful of a tool of understanding social forces than, say, astrology.
Importantly, I'm not talking about what will happen by virtue of some outside force or guarantee of history. I'm talking about we need to make happen by force of will.
Peoria has a 50%+ homeownership rate. Most of the people voting locally are not facing rising rents, let alone rents at all.
> There is plenty of evidence for that. You might just have a recency bias.
> I don't put people mobilizing into the ideological framework of "the market".
Ah, I see, you don’t actually care about whether people act in their own self-interest, you just don’t like capital-E Economics and are using this as an excuse to throw out all of our understanding that people respond to incentives.
“The market” is not the only ideological framework that assumes rational actors. Do you have an alternate model of non-rational humans that you are assuming when you’re talking about making things happen by “people mobilizing”? Are they somehow not considering their own self-interest?
> Importantly, I'm not talking about what will happen by virtue of some outside force or guarantee of history
Of course. But those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.
Ha! Right back atcha, kid.