A Venti Sized Problem
"From their very inception, cities have arisen through the geographical and social concentrations of a surplus product. Urbanization has always been, therefore, a class phenomena of some sort, since surpluses have been extracted from somewhere and from somebody (usually an oppressed peasantry) while the control over the disbursement of the surplus typically lies in a few hands."
- David Harvey
I don't like this, Sam I am. I do not like this green eggs and ham.
I don't think this is a fair assessment of a consumer market. Let's take Seattle for example, on of my favorite cities.... Which lead the charge in becoming the most progressive city in the United States by stuffing the pockets of the 'oppressed peasants' with ALL THE surplus. This is great, right? More money for the lower class, more money in the economy..Wrong. Increasing the minimum wage for unskilled labor only degrades the value of skilled labor. THAT'S US. THAT'S THE LABORERS WE HIRE. If a brick mason can make as much money whipping up mochas as he can laying mortar, he'll do it. And probably spell your name wrong on the cup just like you like it.
If that alone doesn't put a bad taste in your mouth, think about the fact that Seattle zoning laws have given 1/3rd of the land designated for single-family homes to multi-family commercial and moxed use residences.
But also...Even though a higher minimum wage has resulted in a lower economic output, it has led to higher consumer spending.
I like how you brought up the example in Seattle and talked about it in class today. By creating zoning laws that give 1/3rd of the land to only multi-family commercial and mixed use residences, you are still taking away the opportunity from those who would like to build single-family homes.
ReplyDeleteWhenever a decision is made, it's always important to weigh both sides of what the effect will be on people. It's easy to see the "good perspective" of what will happen from a decision.
Specifically, I think the example of the US Core of Engineers building a dam in Haiti to generate electricity for the people. What they didn't realize is how the rising river would completely displace a large community and take away their means of making a living.
I think your views on $15 minimum wage, and the pros and cons of it are valid and have a lot of connected issues that all tie into it and effect it. However, I do disagree with your concern over the diminishment of single-family lots in a city.
ReplyDeleteLiving in a large city comes with responsibilities, compromises, and restrictions that are fundamentally different than living in a rural area. The primary differences being the inevitability of change, and the need for a certain level of density to maintain the infrastructure required for a large city. Just because an area of land was outskirts of town in the 1940s (when many of the neighborhoods in question in Seattle were built) does not mean that 70 years later it has to maintain the same exact density.
Many of the zoning changes to Seattle's residential neighborhoods (depending on the area) still do not allow for massive mixed-use buildings but rather allow for multi-unit buildings within the same height and area restrictions of the existing neighborhood. Besides you are not being evicted from your home, you are being offered millions of dollars for the land.
Having neighborhoods of single family houses so close to the core of a city deters the construction of infrastructure projects, and other means of reducing the already over burdened roads and highways of US cities because these projects require a minimum number of residents within an area who would use the system.
Just because you own a small portion of land within the city should not give you a disproportionate amount of input on the public space of a city.
I agree with your post. There have been studies showing that increasing the minimum wage so dramatically kills "the little guy". Yes, it creates a "surplus" where people can spend more and buy more... to consume! but by increasing the wages, smaller and local shops tend to suffer cuz either they have to let people go because they can't pay them or they need to make more money by charging more for their products. But hey, people have more money now they can afford it right? Well turns out rent and other good went up.. so shit we are back to where we started, just more expensive. This is a huge problem that seems like an easy fix but turns out not to be that great when it assumes people are going to behave in one way and one way only. Also, I do agree with you that by doing so we also devalue skilled labor because if everyone can do what we can and think we way we do, then why am I at school?
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I don't see density as a bad thing yet I also don't see single-house as a bad thing either. I think we are all different, with different needs, and some people don't actually like to live in the city. Some people love it. If we are trying to please everyone and not discriminate them, then why can't we have different options? Honestly, in the end nobody is going to be entirely happy, there's always going to be "a problem" but if people want to live all together go ahead. I just think it is wrong to force the people into doing so that may or may not want to do that. I've done both and maybe a mix would be nice, idk. But how do we do this? I am still trying to answer that.. oh.. I guess this is why I come to school!