[djeastm]

>Carmel did not invest in anything that anchors poverty into the community.

Alternately: Carmel invested in making life easier for wealthy people to live here and harder for the poor.

This doesn't seem like an innovation much as it does run-of-the-mill gentrification. Not taking a side here, but that's clearly how this worked

[indymike]

> run-of-the-mill gentrification

Carmel is an example of investing heavily into gentrification.

[anal_reactor]

At some point I romanticized poor people, but the older I get, the more I realize that "keep the poor people out" is a sound governmental policy, and gentrification is a good thing. Sure, people should have chances to improve their social status, but if you create an environment where being poor is a valid survival strategy, you will have poor people and all the problems that come with them. There's no way around this fact.

[bumby]

What you seem to be advocating is treating the symptom rather than the root problem. It can feel myopically effective, but it isn't great governance. I think there is also a case that segregating populations on socio-economic lines creates a host of additional problems.

[giraffe_lady]

I'm taking a side here this is vile.

[lotsofpulp]

Regardless of whether or not it is vile, it is basic game theory. You have to play the game with the rules that exist, not the ones you wish existed.

The rule is freedom of movement across the USA, so it is obviously a losing policy for any government other than the federal government to tackle national problems and implement wealth redistribution.

[giraffe_lady]

Whenever there is an abhorrent state of affairs people try to justify it as natural or inevitable. They've been wrong enough times that I simply don't accept it as an excuse.

In this case what we're seeing is simply setting inequality as a goal its own right rather than as a tool to accomplish another purpose. There's nothing to admire or emulate here. Reading through the comments it's clear that this aligns with the values of a lot of the community, and they are being honest about that. If this is the case for you too then take responsibility for your vision here.

[ryandrake]

> Whenever there is an abhorrent state of affairs people try to justify it as natural or inevitable.

Cheems Mindset is strong on HN. I don't know any other community who are so sure about "What's Impossible To Change."

[lotsofpulp]

Please show how you would stop net benefit recipients from moving in and net taxpayers in from moving out.

This is a very practical concern of implementing broad population wide benefits.

City / state A says they will subsidize people who need help, and politician in city / state B says they will keep taxes low by sending people who need help to city / state A.

[giraffe_lady]

But that's exactly what is happening here. Talking about carmel, it is a suburb of indianapolis. It depends on indy for its residents' income that fuels its taxes. It depends on the relative poverty of the surrounding metro area for low wage workers where it wants them, and it saves money by not spending on services they need, forcing them into the nearby communities instead.

This is the extractive relationship you're worried about. It's the same deal with singapore! It is critically dependent on the labor of impoverished disenfranchised malaysians it keeps as close as possible but avoids spending any of its resources on. As always it is simply the poor subsidizing the rich.

[matrix87]

> Whenever there is an abhorrent state of affairs people try to justify it as natural or inevitable. They've been wrong enough times that I simply don't accept it as an excuse.

Just curious: who gave you the right to decide how other people's resources should be allocated?

I mean, that's what's really going on here, right? If we discard all of the melodramatic bs, it's just you trying to tell other people how to allocate their resources?

What's going to happen if they ignore you? Are they going to get passed over in the rapture or something? Is the psychological weight of their own guilt going to make them snap and go psychotic? I'm genuinely curious what the consequences are and when they'll deliver

[bumby]

This assumes people don’t care about the larger scale of poverty or that those regional/national poverty rates won’t have second order effects that will later impact these well-off communities.

One of the difficulties in game theory is mitigating all kinds of human biases that lead to suboptimal solutions. In this case, governments can be myopic in both time and space. There are examples in game theory where the rational choice in one context leads to worst conditions for everyone, overall.

[lotsofpulp]

Neighborhoods being separated by socioeconomic status is a phenomenon seen all over the world, probably for much of human history, so it seems like this is the most likely solution, absent a national wealth redistribution program (which would theoretically work due to immigration controls).

[bumby]

I think we can agree that separation of socioeconomic status is prevalent (and maybe useful) while still disagreeing on what degree of that produces a vibrant and stable society. So the question is what degree do we find acceptable? I personally don't want beautiful gated communities contrasted with slums to be the norm, for a variety of reasons.

As to the "rules" of game theory in this context, they are arbitrarily set by society. They are not natural laws, so we probably shouldn’t treat them as immutable.

(As an aside, I don't think that "most likely" should be conflated with "optimal". There's lots of analogies that come to mind to describe that point, but I'd rather hold off so as not to come across as debating in bad faith)

[lotsofpulp]

> They are not natural laws, so we probably shouldn’t treat them as immutable.

Which is why I wrote that the federal government needs to take action. Expecting a city or state to go bankrupt trying to solve a national problem is not helpful.