parrot_11
In fact thinking about it a little further, a California citizen would have been in a vastly better situation had it not been home to that many low income immigrants. Of course, that would've also meant hugely lower chances of progressive winning there.
To sum up, the progressives it appears import poverty when the region is doing rather well and then campaign on more taxes to alleviate this said increased poverty.
If this is not plain desire for political victory, what else could it be?
1. City has a good mojo, not too big, not too small.
2. Not too unequal neighborhoods.
3. #1 and #2 attract startups, big companies.
4. Rents rise in the city.
5. Slowly there will be calls to increase housing density.
6. More houses get built, housing density increases, rents go down by $100-$200/month for maybe 1-2 years.
7. Rents bounce back in about 1-2 years and then continue on.
8. Calls to increase density further, eventually the city loses its desirable properties and poor people are still relatvely just as worse off as they were before.
9. The rich tech worker is still in the same position, relatively.
Important thing being, even after doing all these things, the median poor person in the name of which all this densification happened is still stuck in the same relative bad standing as he/she was before, only difference being the city lost its charm in the process as well.
Obviously, this doesn't apply in the case of NYC since it's been a big city for a long long time but the above story is worth keeping in mind for small cities in many states.
It might be a better idea to have companies distributed more uniformly than pushing for high densification of few cities. It spreads economic benefits around as well.
You seem to have jumped to a conclusion rather quickly. Even assuming for a second that the hysteria was because the new function that GP wrote is complex, wouldn't the reaction to that would've been "Can you write it more clearly?" instead of the hysteria and pariah ceremony?
1. Your country A doesn't allow genetic enhancement because of some "equality" concerns.
2. Another country B decides to go ahead with it anyways, gets a number of competitive advantages, eventually gains an upper hand economically and any other spheres.