I have a general theory related to this this article. Disenfranchised people do not take care of the society around them. Rightfully so. If my society doesn't seem to give a shit about me, why should I give a shit about it? If this theory holds true, then graffiti, vandalism, pooping on the streets, and so on, are all symptoms of disenfranchisement. Conversely, go to a neighborhood of homeowners, and look at how well-kept everything generally is. You can even compare it to a neighborhood of renters. There's a noticeable difference between homeowner and renter neighborhoods. And it's not an income level thing. We can control the renter vs. owner neighborhood comparison for income level.
My general theory is that, if you want a well-ordered society, distribute ownership more.
> There's a noticeable difference between homeowner and renter neighborhoods. And it's not an income level thing.
I'm actually not sure of this, and it comes from living in the Bay Area. Over the last 8 years, we've seen a large increase in the number of high-income families who are renting, largely because of our screwed-up property markets where a condo that rents for $3K/month might have a PITA of $8K/month if you buy it. We're even starting to get the phenomena of millionaire renters, people who could pass the accredited investor test and yet still don't own their own home.
And I've noticed that when rental areas gentrify, they get nicer. The apartments are more well-kept; there's less junk on streets and balconies; less loitering; nice shops spring up with clean (but often sterile or artificial) interiors.
I think it really is about the money. When richer tenants move in, landlords and property managers have more money for repairs & landscaping. The tenants may not be able to afford a home, but they can certainly afford someone to cart away their couch. They spend more money in the local area, which means that shop owners have more disposable income to hire people for cleaning & repairs.
I think my comment about controlling for income level stands. We need to compare your gentrified renting neighborhood to a homeowner neighborhood at the same income level.
I can't believe this isn't obvious to most people. Equitable (not the same as equal) distribution of resources allows people to invest in their society, community, neighborhood, state, country and the world.
If I were disenfranchised, I sure as hell wouldn't care about society, norms and whatever is of value to the haves.
I completely agree with this statement. Autonomy and a feeling of ownership are essential for most people to feel content. My go to example is a guy running a food truck/burger stand vs a guy working at Wendy's (making the same take home as the burger stand guy).
The guy running his own burger stand can get up everyday and take pride in making the best hamburger he can make. But for the guy working at Wendy's, making the best hamburger he can make isn't his job. His job is to follow the Wendy's standards to the letter, and make the exact same hamburger everyday. If he does his job well, he is essentially acting like a hamburger producing robot. For most people, that will never be fulfilling.
I think we’re in general agreement but I would counter that it’s possible to feel a sense of ownership even at Wendy’s. It all comes down to how the work is distributed. For example, if the manager tells a worker “you are entirely responsible for the grill. We’re counting on you to take care of it,” I think we’re providing the opportunity for the potentially transformative experience of ownership.
Owning your own business is obviously a more powerful version of the same phenomenon, though.
That has a lot of assumptions. You can argue the other way with having a sense of ownership and being responsible is what leads to higher quality in your surroundings.
I can see that. From personal experience, when I’ve been given the opportunity to own something, such as a project at work, I found a sense of pride in it that I wasn’t expecting. So I am suggesting that providing people the chance to own something can be a transformative experience.
A chance to "own" something is a very deep iceberg. Ownership needs to consider a lot of things from an economic perspective, a rights perspective (law), society, and so on.
Basically, I guess I'm just saying – it's really complicated and just concluding giving away resources is missing the forest for the trees.
I probably didn’t provide enough nuance in my original comment. I think we’re in agreement that ownership can be a productive feeling. I agree that giving stuff away isn’t guaranteed to lead to a sense of ownership. The main idea I’m submitting here is that, if we can somehow give more people the opportunity to experience ownership, society will function better. Stuff like what we’re seeing in SF is less likely to happen. If we’re in agreement then the question is, how do we go about giving more opportunities for ownership in society?
I don’t think there’s a shortcut to a true sense of ownership. So I’d lean less on the welfare topology. I would lean heavily in making it more accessible to provide value to society. Setup technology that allows people to provide value to community and society as best as possible.
That’s my high level thought which of course requires a lot of boiling down.
So you want to give the homeowners houses to the homeless people and your "disenfranchised" problem will be solved. Great theory, you should definitely pursue it.
Look closer at my comment and keep the sarcasm to yourself. I’m talking about ownership, not forced wealth redistribution. Ownership can take many forms, from owning a house, to owning a project at work, to building a garden, and so on. I don’t know how to more equitably distribute ownership for various aspects of society, but I have a feeling that it’s part of the puzzle.
My general theory is that, if you want a well-ordered society, distribute ownership more.