privilege   7539

« earlier    

Why Is There a Housing Crisis? | Opinion | East Bay Express
"The Bay Area's outrageous housing prices have led to howls of protest. Average rents have shot up by half during the last five years. Rents and house prices are the highest of any metropolitan area in the country and among the most unaffordable in the world. This is not just true of San Francisco but applies to the entire Bay region — now twelve counties and 8.5 million people, according to the US Census.

According to mainstream policy shops and planners, such as Gabriel Metcalf, president and CEO of the pro-urban growth organization SPUR, the housing crisis is caused by activists and neighborhood residents who oppose more market-rate housing development. Their solution is to allow developers to build more freely.

But while it's true that we need to expand the region's housing supply, building more housing cannot solve the problem as long as demand is out of control, as it is today. There is simply no way housing could have been built quickly enough to avoid the price spike of the current boom.

Three basic forces are driving the Bay Area's housing prices upward: growth, affluence, and inequality. Three other things make matters worse: finance, business cycles, and geography. All of these operate on the demand side of the equation, and demand is the key to the runaway housing market.

The prime mover of housing prices is economic growth. The Bay Area has been booming for the last five years, creating more than 500,000 new jobs on a base of 3 million. This is the global capital of tech, the world's most dynamic industry, and all those jobs have drawn in thousands of newcomers looking for housing. Moreover, tech delivers huge profits and pays high salaries and wages, as do other key sectors, like biomedical and finance. The Bay Area's per capita income has long been one of the highest in the country, and high incomes give people the wherewithal to pay top dollar for housing.

On top of this, income distribution is highly unequal, and wealth inequality is even worse, allowing the upper classes to put additional pressure on the market for good housing in favored locations. The Bay Area has one of the highest indexes of income inequality of any region, caused principally by the high salaries of the top 20 percent of earners. As for wealth, the Bay Area has more millionaires per capita than any other US metro and can claim 45 of the 400 richest people in the United States, second only to New York City.

Most people understand these essential drivers of the housing market, if not how extreme they are in the Bay region. But much more lies behind the runaway rents and sale prices of late. We need to think outside the box of simple supply and demand and look further at a trio of conditions shaping demand: credit and capital, boom and bust cycles, and the spatial preferences of the elite.

First, housing is a big-ticket item that normally requires a mortgage, and an excess of credit will exaggerate people's ability to purchase houses. California had the most overheated mortgage markets during the housing bubble of the 2000s, and our financial institutions have not been substantially reformed. Finance is subject to dramatic swings, and the pressure becomes unbearable at the peak of the cycle. Furthermore, footloose capital from around the world has once again been flooding into the Bay Area in search of high returns, whether as venture investments in hot start-ups, stock holdings in tech giants, or purchases of mortgage bonds. All the wealth in tech is not generated locally, nor is all housing demand.

Second, the housing market does not behave like eBay because supply is slow to adjust to demand. It takes a long time to build new units and most people stay in the same residence for years. Hence, only a small percentage of total housing stock comes on the market in any year — normally less than 5 percent — and markets suffer from intense bottlenecks. As expansive demand chases limited supply over the course of a business cycle, prices accelerate ahead of new building. Speculators and landlords intensify the pressure as they buy properties, evict tenants, and displace people in anticipation of even higher rents. The good news is that booms go bust, sooner or later. Construction will overshoot the market, as it always does, and then prices will fall by 10 to 20 percent, as usual.

Third, housing markets are badly distorted by the geography of privilege and power. If the nouveaux riches of the tech world want to live in San Francisco (even if they commute to Silicon Valley), they have the means to outbid working stiffs, families, artists, and the poor; the result, as we've seen, is a city that has become richer and whiter with remarkable speed. And that's just the tip of the iceberg: The greatest distortion to housing markets is the demand by the wealthy for exclusive, leafy, space-eating suburbs from Palo Alto to Orinda. These favored enclaves reduce overall housing supply by using low-density zoning to block the high-rises and apartments that provide moderate priced homes (not to mention low-income public housing).

So is there no recourse? Since the biggest sources of the housing crisis lie in the general conditions of contemporary capitalism — the tech boom, gross inequality, frothy finance, boom and bust cycles, and the power of the elites — local reforms can only do so much. Without a major political upheaval for financial control, higher taxes, equality, and more public spending, we are in for perennial housing crises. The housing market can never heal itself under existing conditions.

But some things can be done locally. Rent control with reasonable annual increases works quite well to dampen overheated markets. Eviction controls are critical, along with other restrictions on speculation. Demands for set-asides for low-income units are another proven strategy, along with development fees. Land trusts have worked well for open space protection in the Bay Area, and could work for housing, but will require major funding. And a real commitment of earmarking money for low-income housing by the federal government — on a scale to match the money going to highways — is a must.

New housing will have to be built, as well. But developers are profit-seekers, so don't expect them to be innocent bearers of what people need. It is absolutely necessary to question developers and city planners over what is to be built, how high, how big, and where. A livable city demands good design, historic preservation, neighborhood protections, mixed use, and social diversity, among other things, and figuring out what those things are should be a collective, democratic and, yes, conflictual process of politics and public debate. Nonetheless, opposing all new building, greater density, and neighborhood change is not a viable policy, and we cannot cling to the idea that our town or neighborhood will remain the same in a dynamic urban system.

Conservative critics, of course, denounce all popular efforts to control runaway housing costs, displacement, speculation, and bad planning as unnatural violations of some "natural law" of perfect markets. No one should be fooled by such fantasies. The real "market distortions" propelling the housing crisis are inequality, speculation, financial bloat, tax havens, and more. The day when the runaway privileges of bankers, builders, speculators, wealthy suburbanites, and the rest are reined in — that's the day the housing crisis will be over.

Richard Walker."
housing  california  richardwalker  2016  speculation  inequality  growth  affluence  geography  economics  bayarea  power  privilege  capitalism  rent  rentcontrol  eviction 
2 hours ago by robertogreco
What Changes When the Presidential Field Is Full of Mothers
They are offered the benefits of youth itself, no matter their age. It doesn’t matter whether they have kids or how they raise kids; these men who want to lead us get to be kids.
politics  privilege  2020 
2 days ago by anandthakker
RT : The great at dinner speaking about and always paying it forward to society.
privilege  DTS19  from twitter_favs
7 days ago by whykay
Adactio: Journal—Split
The people who make the web vs. the people who are excluded from making the web.
html  css  javascript  design  equity  privilege  inclusion  gatekeeping 
8 days ago by Aulim
Privileged | By Kyle Korver
he fact that black Americans are more than five times as likely to be incarcerated as white Americans is wrong. The fact that black Americans are more than twice as likely to live in poverty as white Americans is wrong. The fact that black unemployment rates nationally are double that of overall unemployment rates is wrong. The fact that black imprisonment rates for drug charges are almost six times higher nationally than white imprisonment rates for drug charges is wrong. The fact that black Americans own approximately one-tenth of the wealth that white Americans own is wrong.

The fact that inequality is built so deeply into so many of our most trusted institutions is wrong.

And I believe it’s the responsibility of anyone on the privileged end of those inequalities to help make things right.

So if you don’t want to know anything about me, outside of basketball, then listen — I get it. But if you do want to know something? Know I believe that.
2019-04  racism  race  society  privilege 
9 days ago by Weaverbird
Kyle Korver/The Players' Tribune, April 8, 2019.
race  sports  nba  basketball  privilege 
10 days ago by markcoddington
LEVY: Streamlined city council still full of hot air | Toronto Sun
amazing before & after here

I’m convinced the raison d’etre for these windbags is to promote their pro-union, anti-car, free-spending, addict-enabling, transit-obstructing, anti-white supremacy oppression agendas wherever else they can.

I’m convinced the raison d’etre for these windbags is to promote their pro-union, anti-car, free-spending, addict-enabling, transit-obstructing, anti-white virtue signallers wherever else they can.
torontosun  conservatives  topoli  whitesupremacy  whiteness  privilege  wtf 
16 days ago by shadowspar
What Makes a Fair College Admissions Process? | JSTOR Daily
"Move Away from Meritocracy
Nadirah Farah Foley

Especially in the wake of the recent news of a coordinated bribery scheme, many people seem to agree our selective college admissions process is broken. There is far less consensus, however, about why we think it’s broken, and what a better, fairer admissions process would look like. Some think that the process would be fair if it were conducted without special considerations for legacy students, development cases, or athletic recruitment. Others go further, focusing on the myriad mundane ways—aside from bribery and donations—that the system allows privileged people to leverage their resources to secure and perpetuate their advantages. But I contend the process is inherently unfair because it is based on meritocratic principles designed to produce unequal outcomes. A truly fair system would reject meritocratic logics and instead operate on the principle that high-quality education is not a reward for the few, but a right of the many.

Our current process, in which applicants are stratified into a hierarchical higher education landscape, takes a meritocratic ideology as its foundational premise. Meritocracy, the term popularized by British sociologist Michael Young’s 1958 The Rise of the Meritocracy, is typically imagined as a system in which all have equal opportunity to compete on a “level playing field” on the basis of “talent” and “ability,” and all are rewarded equitably based on their “merit.” While this system sounds fair at first blush, a meritocratic ideology poses two problems, either of which should be sufficient cause to critically question it, and perhaps abandon it entirely.

First, upholding meritocracy necessarily entails accepting and upholding inequality. In the case of college admissions, we currently have a system in which some schools have more resources, are more prestigious, and are deemed “better” than others, and those schools have limited seats. We try to allocate those seats “fairly,” on the basis of demonstrated past success and evaluations of future potential. It’s far from a perfect system, but we can rationalize it as ideologically consistent with a meritocratic ideal of equal opportunity and reward for individual talent, effort, and ability. But perhaps, rather than focusing on who “deserves” the “best” schooling, our societal commitment should be to making a high-quality education available to all. Such a commitment would require a rejection of the stratification and inequality presupposed by a meritocratic system and lead us to question whether a stratified society—and assignment to places in an unequal education system—could ever be just.

Second, even if one were inclined to find inequality and stratification acceptable, the reality is that we are so far from the ideals of equal opportunity and a level playing field that the unfairness is glaringly obvious. As sociologist Jonathan Mijs argues, opportunities for demonstrating merit are far from equally distributed. In the United States, where racial residential segregation and local control of schools combine to disproportionately relegate nonwhite (especially black) students to underfunded schools, the claim that anything approaching equal opportunity exists is laughable. Our emphasis on standardized tests, which have roots in racist, ableist, eugenicist science, evinces a narrow understanding of what intelligence is or could be. Holistic admissions evaluations, which provide necessary latitude to consider students’ contexts and lived experiences, also provide privileged applicants another opportunity to show off well-filled extracurricular profiles and essays carefully coached and edited by counselors and consultants. In sum, our current admissions process is—top to bottom—built to misrecognize privilege as “merit,” and thus advantage the already advantaged. To say wealthy white applicants are gaming the system belies the fact that they’re really just playing the game—a game in which only they have full access to the equipment. Perhaps the way to fix this is not to try to change the rules, but to stop playing the meritocratic game entirely.

If that seems a drastic proposal, let me try to convince you it’s a necessary one. We could try to work within the current system, striking the policies that are most obviously and egregiously unfair: legacy, donor admissions, early decision, recruitment of athletes in country club sports. While an improvement, this does nothing to address the fact that even with those components stripped out, the process still falls far short of fairness, because our very metrics of merit are skewed toward privilege. We could try to calibrate for disadvantage, but that’s essentially what holistic evaluation tries to do now—and it’s not enough. Meritocracy is an arms race, one in which the privileged are always better equipped.

We could, as many scholars have proposed, move toward a lottery, which would go a long way toward making explicit the role of luck in college admissions. But I’m concerned by the way some thinkers discuss a potential admissions lottery. Proponents of a lottery often suggest that there should be some baseline level of “merit” in order to enter the lottery. Such a formulation of the lottery doesn’t entail a rejection of our metrics of merit, meaning it would likely reproduce existing inequalities. To avoid that, a lottery would need to not use simple random selection, but instead be carefully calibrated to ensure the resulting class is not just representative of the pool (in which wealthy white students are overrepresented), but of graduating high school students. That could be achieved by assigning different weights to students depending on their background, or by using a form of stratified random selection, in which the applicant pool would be divided into smaller pools based on, for example, demographic factors, and a certain number of students would be accepted at random from each pool.

The lottery is an exciting idea, but one likely to run into legal challenges. And beyond that, it doesn’t do enough to address the unfairness inherent in our unequal education system. I think we need to go a step further than asking what constitutes a fair admissions process, and instead ask what constitutes a fair society. We should recognize that our college admissions process is merely holding a mirror up to our society, reflecting how competitive, individualistic, unequal, and unfair the United States is. A truly radical solution would require the reorganization of our entire class structure and the redistribution of resources, thus obviating the need for such a high-stakes college application process.

It seems that we cling to meritocracy as a way of clinging to some hope of a better life in an increasingly unequal world. But rather than investing our hope in a fairer admissions system, I think we should dream bigger, and invest our hope in a more just society—one in which we live in community rather than competition. That might look like taking up Harvard professor Lani Guinier’s call to emphasize “democratic merit,” or it might look like dispensing with merit—and its attendant acceptance of deserved inequality—entirely.

Everyone deserves access to education. A fair admissions system would have that as a core premise and reject ostensibly just, “meritocratic” inequalities."
juliepark  christineyano  nadirahfarahfoley  2019  admissions  colleges  universities  meritocracy  lottery  collegeadmissions  highered  highereducation  merit  inequality  academia  academics  education  school  schooling  us  firness  laniguinier  democracy  privilege  jonathanmills  race  racism  michaelyoung 
19 days ago by robertogreco
Does Homework Work? - The Atlantic
“The origin for this was general parental dissatisfaction, which not surprisingly was coming from a particular demographic,” Schneider says. “Middle-class white parents tend to be more vocal about concerns about homework … They feel entitled enough to voice their opinions.”
school  education  teaching  privilege 
20 days ago by craniac

« earlier    

related tags

$5  &  000  2016  2018  2019-04  2019  2020  3013  601  9/11  @aoc  @melissatweets  abdulelsayed  academia  academics  access  accountability  admissions  affluence  afghanistan  alexandercockburn  alexandriaocasiocortez  allies  american  analysis  anandgiridharadas  and  andrewsullivan  anti-feminism  anxiety  aoc  apps  arrest  atheism  bags  barackobama  barometer  basketball  bayarea  berniesanders  bias  bigotry  binary  blacklivesmatter  blairism  book  books  bounties  boys  breach  breaches  bribery  bu  bug  bugs  business  california  cambridge-ma  capitalism  carolynmccarthy  centrify  challenges  charitableindustrialcomplex  charity  cheating  check  chelseamanning  child-development  children  christineyano  cisco  cities  civics  class  classics  coc  coding  college-admissions  college  collegeadmissions  colleges  columbus  community  competition  competitiveness  concepts  conservatives  corporatocracy  course.use  credentials  critical  css  culture  currentaffairs  cv  cve-2018-18264  cyrus'  daisyverduzcoreyes  damselindistress  dancing  debate  dei  democracy  democrats  design  dfir  discrimination  diversity  djed-press  dnc  documentary  domestic_terrorism  donaldtrump  doubleunion  dts19  dubois  economics  education  elevation  elitism  elizabeth_warren  elizabethwarren  entitlement  eoy.lists  equity  escalation  essay  ethnicity  eulabiss  eviction  evictions  examples  facebook  featured  feminism  files  firness  firsthand  fixes  for  foreignpolicy  found  fraud  free  friendship  gadsby  gatekeeping  gender  geog107  geography  google  gop  gopbatshittery  grahamgreene  growth  hacking  hannah  harassment  harvard  harvardsquare  healthcare  hella-ibrahim  here  highered  highereducation  history  hn  homeless  homophobia  housing  how_to  htb  html  huge  humor  hybridization  idaptive  identity  immigration  in  inclusion  incrementalism  individualism  inequality  insulin  iraq  isn’t  italian  jamelle-bouie  javascript  jit  jobs  jonathanmills  juliepark  justiceforjanitors  k8s  kathrynroos  keybase  knitting  kubernetes  kylekorver  labour  laniguinier  latin  learning  least  legacy  legacyadmissions  lgbt  lgbtq  linux  lists  livingwage  lottery  louis  lovefirst  macos  maga  male  margarethagerman  masculinity  mckinsey  media  meetings  melissamackenzie  mensrights  merit  meritocracy  methods  metoo  michaelyoung  mikepence  miley  millennials  minimumwage  misogyny  mitchdaniels  mmiwg2  modesty  mom  monicadiaz  motivation  mra  multics  nadirahfarahfoley  nathanrobinson  native_american  nativeamericans  nba  nbc  neoliberalism  new  news  newswire  noahberlatsky  nonbinary  notokay  notredame  nyt  of  on  online  online_culture  op-ed  oregon  oxford  oxycontin  parenting  password  patch  patriotact  pays  pence  pentesting  personalessay  petebuttigieg  philanthropicindustrialcomplex  photo  podcast  point  policestate  politics  posts  poverty  power  presentations  presidential-elections  privacy  privateschools  privileged  problems  programming  progress  progressive  protenus  protest  race  racisim  racism  racists  ranking  rapeculture  raptitude  rassismus  recovery  relationships  religion  rent  rentcontrol  rfra  rhodesscholar  richardwalker  rights  rome  root  rossdouthat  rpg  ruby-hamad  russellwestbrook  saltlakecity  saltzer  sats  scams  scandals  school  schooling  schools  schroeder  scottritter  search  security  segregation  self-belief  sexism  sexualassault  siliconvalley  skll  slides  social.justice  socialjustice  socialmedia  socialmobility  society  software  solutions  southbend-in  spark  speculation  sport  sports  standardizedtesting  stories  sysdig  tactics  tatianatmac  teaching  tech  technology  testing  thabosefolosha  thatcherism  thenation  toblog  topoli  torontosun  transphobia  trends  trump  trust  twitter  universities  unix  updates  urban  us-pres  us  usa  utahjazz  value  varsityblues  vice  video  vulnerability  wank  war  waronwomen  wealth  web  webex  weed  white-feminism  white  white_privilege  whitefolkwork  whiteness  whiteprivilege  whitesupremacists  whitesupremacy  whitetears  wildlife  windows  winnie-dunn  with  women  work  worth  writable  wtf  yesallwomen  youngmichael  zero  zonealarm  “woke” 

Copy this bookmark: