| Gentrification by definition is bimodal and polarizing to the opposite extremes. What you are describing is more the aggregate standard of living increasing. I think the 2 are correlated though. The tell-tale sign of gentrification is increased homeless people and blights in areas that simultaneously have wealthier people becoming wealthier. While there are bigger extremes, the aggregate and average wealth also increases. I also agree about government getting out of the way but I wouldn't say that there's nothing wrong with gentrification. Personally, my theory is that anything that generally increases prosperity also generally increases gentrification. It is easy to see why once we understand 2 observations: 1) Human abilities, willpower, motivation, etc, follow a Gaussian distribution (bell curve). Intelligence, health, motivation, charisma, etc. 2) Modern civilization has amplifiers that create leverage. These include technology, education, and access to capital. Take a bell curve and multiply it with an amplifier. A motivated person has access to the Internet to learn whatever they want and financing to create an online business. Modern society provides the tools to greatly expand your life if you so choose. However, few do. Without those tools a gifted individual can not achieve that much more than their neighbors. The difference between a caveman who is naturally gifted with health, intelligence, and is motivated; and caveman who is not so blessed is not that significant. Even if they wanted to, there isn't much they can do to dramatically improve their condition. They might be able to improve it a little bit but not that much compared to their peers. If you take those same 2 people and place them in modern civilization, the gifted and motivated individual can accomplish far more, perhaps achieving 1000x more wealth than their peers. The only way to get rid of gentrification is to get rid of any form of leverage or to collectively deploy force to redistribute wealth -- neither of which I think is a good idea. Doing so means getting rid of anything that increases aggregate standard of living. We would have to give up education, technology, access to capital, etc. Gentrification would be gone, but everyone would be equally poor. With that being said, I see it as the natural consequence of progress and so I'm not concerned about it from that angle but I wouldn't say I don't see it as a problem. Class warfare being one of the bigger symptoms of gentrification and it can have devastating effects when governments go through revolutions. Revolutions tend to result in massive destructions of wealth and human life. So I definitely see gentrification as a bad thing with some nasty side effects, but I also see that prosperity is increasing. |