Hacker News Reader

Comment by giantg2 | Hacker News Reader

"And it’s best for everyone..."

How exactly is it best for the well-off? I'm curious what pros and cons it would have for them.

Where I live, the hospital is struggling to hire nurses due to the lack of housing options. That's not even the 'low income' bracket. Teachers struggle to find housing as well. Those are both things that high income people need, especially the former.

Restaurants are shutting down for want of workers. Because they can't afford it.

Low income workers provide valuable services in our communities. Telling them they can't live where they work creates all kinds of problems, both social and environmental - they often drive in to do those jobs, creating more pollution and traffic.

Especially along the restaurant line, it seems the rich people would rather be stingy than pay people enough to perform those services and live in the same community. It seems that being able to pay the lowest possible is still a benefit to the rich, even if it's detrimental to society.

One practical benefit for the well-off is having people in close proximity who can staff their local restaurants, shops, schools, etc.

It's much easier to hire and retain staff for your business when your pool of potential employees isn't a 30+ minute bus ride away.

For the well-off residents, it means better and more consistent service at their neighborhood grocery, coffee shop, restaurant, pharmacy, etc.

That can be good. I guess many of the cities I've lived in or near had cheaper housing within 30 minutes of most areas.

Social cohesion and avoidance of class warfare.

Historically, the decline of most late-stage empires was triggered by spiraling economic bifurcation.

Sometimes, it's better to be less wealthy but on top of an ordered country vs more wealthy and without the rule of law as society breaks down.

That's good for society. I doubt that many of the moderately wealthy would really be a cause of this. It seems the ultrawealthy are the main cause in the downfall of empires, as they hold the most influence and become leeches off the people working. And now we democratize those negative decisions via things like REITs, so everyone's 401k is part of the problem.

It promotes empathy with and reduces bias against those of different racial and economic backgrounds, for one. It’s easier for stereotypes to take hold in highly segregated environments because you don’t get much interaction with those outside your own groups.

I mean, that's good for society. But that's not a benefit for the well off who rely on their "network" (aka nepotism and cronyism).

When there's no more food to eat, the poor will always turn to eating the rich, if we want to take this to the extreme (or, well, when there's nowhere left to live, they'll live inside the rich, I guess?).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com