You don't often see the argument that understanding the nature of opposition to something isn't relevant to overcoming that opposition.

It's relevant to the political problem of defeating their opposition, sure, but not relevant to the merits of the policy.

It's also fairly obvious - rich people think they're better humans than poor people and don't want to live near them. Not worthy of much hand-wringing or fretting in my opinion.

> It's relevant to the political problem of defeating their opposition, sure, but not relevant to the merits of the policy.

This seems... unlikely.

How does this not end up in a housing inflation spiral that matches the college loan bubble?

Seems like the really wealthy will still end up with enclaves one way or another.

Who cares? Hmm. These policies lead to increased segregation time and time again. Look up white flight.

If it is indeed the neighborhood itself that affects the opportunity, and not the people living there, then white flight shouldn't be a problem.

I.e. even after the white people get replaced, it would still be a good neighborhood.

There's a term used by "race realists" to describe the liberal consensus towards integration: "magic dirt". It's a mocking way of phrasing the belief that an immigrant who moves from a dysfunctional to a successful society will likely become successful, or that the same is true for a child from a dysfunctional neighborhood going to a good quality school.

Naturally, I don't agree with the "race realist" view on this, and think the term is a bit of a strawman. Humans are intensely social, people's actions are deeply shaped by their social environments, and the liberal view being mocked isn't that your location transforms you but that your social milieu does.

But your comment seems to actually be this strawman come to life, which I find fascinating. To be clear, do you really think it's likely that good neighborhoods are shaped _primarily_ by factors independent of who lives in them? I know this is possible in the abstract, eg a downtown neighborhood is closer to jobs, a neighborhood with a freeway running through it is rarely cohesive, etc. But this seems dwarfed by the mountains and mountains of data points of neighborhoods transforming dramatically due to shifts in resident demographics, and pretty much every housing-related phenomenon is in line with this: white flight, gentrification, the recent impoverishing of the suburbs etc.

> To be clear, do you really think it's likely that good neighborhoods are shaped _primarily_ by factors independent of who lives in them?

I do not - I was pointing out the contradiction. Although to be fair, the way schools are funded in the US complicates this. If a neighborhood becomes low-income, then the schools will get less funding as well, as I understand it, because schools are funded from neighborhood-level property taxes.

My mistake, I misinterpreted your comment. Sorry about that.

No need to apologize, my comment wasn't unambiguous. But that's because it doesn't matter how my sentiment is interpreted - it gets people thinking either way.

It's not really 'fuck'ing the upper middle class to tell them they can't entirely segregate themselves from the poor.