[thomastjeffery]

That's what happens when the low-income job market is dominated by the service industry. When wealth gets geographically concentrated, low-income workers have to follow it, and can't.

The worst part is that the wealth isn't getting concentrated into the hands of people: it's getting concentrated into the hands of landowners.

* If you are poor and pay rent, you're fucked

* If you are poor, but own your home, you are just OK; but would be better off if services were cheaper and more available (as a result of poor renters not being fucked)

* If you are rich, but pay rent, you are just OK, but would be better off if rent was lower (and poor renters wouldn't be fucked. Win-win!)

*If you are rich and own your home, then you are lucky enough to be the problem. Even so, you would be better off if rent was lower, because services would become more available, and your community would be safer and happier.

[fragmede]

There's a fifth category; rich, own your home, and a couple more. If you're a landlord, high rents mean more money in your pocket and who doesn't want more money? The broader community effects of high rents are secondary to being able to afford a new car and a foreign vacation every few years.

[thomastjeffery]

The other version of that is a landowner who doesn't live in the area. If you are an exec at a property management corporation, then you get to buy your own ignorance.