This sounds sensible

Poverty is shifting from inner to outer London, report finds

Sure, we\’d all prefer that there wasn\’t any poverty at all (which to a large extent there isn\’t in the UK, this is talking about relative poverty, not absolute).

But if poverty there is going to be then we\’d rather it was in cheap places not expensive ones really.

You know, not in the middle of one of the most expensive cities on the planet?

So, whatever it is that\’s being done it seems to be working, eh?

 

36 thoughts on “This sounds sensible”

  1. Indeed, the City of London pays for council housing *outside* its geographical boundaries.

    What would be really great would be if the govt would move people in social housing to Thailand, where their quality of life would rise for the same amount of money.

    And then the govt should let them sell their citizenship.

  2. There seems to be a growing movement that views a ‘mix’ of rich and poor as desirable, but never quite manages to successfully articulate why…

  3. Given the rapidly rising cost of commuting, I’m hardly surprised to see more poverty outside the centre. Petrol is around all-time highs and season tickets rose some 7% in January. It’s not just benefit claimants – even the working poor are getting poorer.

  4. JuliaM,

    “There seems to be a growing movement that views a ‘mix’ of rich and poor as desirable, but never quite manages to successfully articulate why…”

    The argument is about things like positive influences, aspirations and so forth. That poor people who see something better than their own life will aspire to attain it. That’s the idea behind mixing social housing with private housing.

    The problem is that it breaks down if people don’t have enough incentive to work and if the criminal justice system doesn’t deal with criminal behaviour. All you then get are scrotes bringing down an area.

  5. Calling places deprived irks me. It suggests that their awfulness is someone else’s fault. I suppose that’s the purpose of the designation: to guilt us into footing the bill for how awful somewhere else is. But it’s a lie which ought to be pointed out more often.

  6. “Tim Almond // Apr 12, 2012 at 11:49 am

    JuliaM,

    “There seems to be a growing movement that views a ‘mix’ of rich and poor as desirable, but never quite manages to successfully articulate why…”

    The argument is about things like positive influences, aspirations and so forth. That poor people who see something better than their own life will aspire to attain it. That’s the idea behind mixing social housing with private housing.”
    But it is not fair on the middle class who can’t live in places like Kensington but have to pay taxes
    for others to live there!!!

  7. Why not shift it even more? To somewhere even cheaper?

    There is a practical limit to how far cleaners, gardeners, childminders etc can travel to work for an oligarch. There are always rich and poor areas, and capital cities in particular will always attract young Dick Wittingtons. But it is important IMV to remember that the current situation is considerably in excess of what a free market would create, due to State action of various types; new money creation within (literally) one square mile, protectionist professional class monopolies and cartels versus flooding low class jobs with immigrant competition (i.e. “competition for you, but not for me!”), etc.

    With such a level of State control of the economy (and everything), we cannot credit such social phenomena as natural market phenomena- everything is a positive choice by the powerful, however unexpected or dunderheaded it may be. Sometimes these actions are very overt (clearing out the lower classes for the Olympics) or more indirect, but they are deliberate choices nonetheless. In particular if we adopted a sound money policy by switching off the money cannons, a very different economic landscape would emerge.

  8. Deprived from what?
    I started counting the word in the article but gave up when I had to take my socks off.
    Was Tottenham previously known as the Garden of Eden? Was the East End the Land of Cockaigne?

    Can we have “re-prived”? as logically we should. Here’s a candidate: Seven Dials, once the epicentre of criminailty, now full of admen sipping frappacinos.

  9. Tim Almond,

    “The argument is about things like positive influences, aspirations and so forth. That poor people who see something better than their own life will aspire to attain it.”

    I thought the argument was that inequality made people sad and made people saddest when it’s your next-door neighbour who is so much richer than you.

  10. MrPotarto-

    A metaphor for the creation of new money under a fiat money system, which is injected into the economy in certain places, and which benefits those who receive it first (as described by Von Mises) at the expense of those who eventually get it several transactions down the line.

    As (I think it was) Milton Friedman said referring to money creation, “They don’t drop it out of helicopters”.

  11. new money creation within (literally) one square mile

    Ian, the 1980s would like their vision of the London financial district back, if you’ve finished with it.

    The big stuff went a few miles east in the early 1990s, the clever stuff went slightly less distance west about a decade earlier. What you’ve got left in the Square Mile is BoE, the London branches of various national banks and a lot of the zero-sum stuff.

  12. “16 responses so far ?

    *

    1 David // Apr 12, 2012 at 10:50 am

    Why not shift it even more? To somewhere even cheaper?
    *

    2 Oxonymous // Apr 12, 2012 at 10:52 am

    No, Tim. It’s a holocaust of the poor, remember?
    *

    3 AC1 // Apr 12, 2012 at 10:58 am

    An LVT and citizens dividend will speed this process up (and the less productive would be better off).
    *

    4 James James // Apr 12, 2012 at 11:06 am

    Indeed, the City of London pays for council housing *outside* its geographical boundaries.

    What would be really great would be if the govt would move people in social housing to Thailand, where their quality of life would rise for the same amount of money.

    And then the govt should let them sell their citizenship.
    *

    5 JuliaM // Apr 12, 2012 at 11:07 am

    There seems to be a growing movement that views a ‘mix’ of rich and poor as desirable, but never quite manages to successfully articulate why…
    *

    6 Andrew M // Apr 12, 2012 at 11:38 am

    Given the rapidly rising cost of commuting, I’m hardly surprised to see more poverty outside the centre. Petrol is around all-time highs and season tickets rose some 7% in January. It’s not just benefit claimants – even the working poor are getting poorer.
    *

    7 Tim Almond // Apr 12, 2012 at 11:49 am

    JuliaM,

    “There seems to be a growing movement that views a ‘mix’ of rich and poor as desirable, but never quite manages to successfully articulate why…”

    The argument is about things like positive influences, aspirations and so forth. That poor people who see something better than their own life will aspire to attain it. That’s the idea behind mixing social housing with private housing.

    The problem is that it breaks down if people don’t have enough incentive to work and if the criminal justice system doesn’t deal with criminal behaviour. All you then get are scrotes bringing down an area.
    *

    8 Edward Lud // Apr 12, 2012 at 12:22 pm

    Calling places deprived irks me. It suggests that their awfulness is someone else’s fault. I suppose that’s the purpose of the designation: to guilt us into footing the bill for how awful somewhere else is. But it’s a lie which ought to be pointed out more often.
    *

    9 David // Apr 12, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    “Tim Almond // Apr 12, 2012 at 11:49 am

    JuliaM,

    “There seems to be a growing movement that views a ‘mix’ of rich and poor as desirable, but never quite manages to successfully articulate why…”

    The argument is about things like positive influences, aspirations and so forth. That poor people who see something better than their own life will aspire to attain it. That’s the idea behind mixing social housing with private housing.”
    But it is not fair on the middle class who can’t live in places like Kensington but have to pay taxes
    for others to live there!!!
    *

    10 Ian B // Apr 12, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    Why not shift it even more? To somewhere even cheaper?

    There is a practical limit to how far cleaners, gardeners, childminders etc can travel to work for an oligarch. ”
    Actually I meant switch the non working poor.
    I would give pro single mums living in London, housing in Middlesborough or Glasgow -not London. Although I think some might stop being pro single mums and might start being amateur mums in a relationship!!!

  13. “The argument is about things like positive influences, aspirations and so forth. That poor people who see something better than their own life will aspire to attain it. “

    Interestingly enough, that was what a teacher was claiming in CiF just a few days ago – that the riots started because we have areas where the dear little kiddiwinks never see anything other than their own kind and so should be mixed with middle class kids so they get some pride in their community and don’t want to burn the place down.

    I thought it was a pile of bilge, myself.

  14. I was under the impression that a significant minority saw the chance to steal stuff, so they stole it. But then I have no sociology degree.

  15. @JuliaM:

    “There seems to be a growing movement that views a ‘mix’ of rich and poor as desirable, but never quite manages to successfully articulate why…”

    I know the arguments about being able to share in the vision, blah, blah, blah – but there is an advantage of this viewpoint – it already happens.

    You get exactly this mix of the rich and poor living together in Brazil.

    Net result – Massive gated communities with armed security patrols.

    Not sure that’s the result we’re looking for.

  16. SE and Ian B, on a trivial point of minor interest, Goldman is still based just behind Fleet Street. The firm’s office is easily seen from a distance, but up close it really is rather discreet.

  17. David // Apr 12, 2012 at 2:15 pm
    Sorry I didn’t mean to copy so much.

    Ian B // Apr 12, 2012 at 2:28 pm
    Otherwise known as “The Kim Dotcom Defence”.

    Brilliant.

  18. “‘The argument is about things like positive influences, aspirations and so forth. That poor people who see something better than their own life will aspire to attain it. That’s the idea behind mixing social housing with private housing.’

    ‘The problem is that it breaks down if people don’t have enough incentive to work and if the criminal justice system doesn’t deal with criminal behaviour. All you then get are scrotes bringing down an area.'”

    Indeed, I spend a lot of money trying to live away from the scrotes. I object to a government policy trying to increase this cost. I am convinced by Moldbug’s hypothesis that if the state’s objective was to maximise the value of its land, the effects of this policy on everything else would be beneficial.

  19. @Ian B: And those that didn’t steal indulged in a spot of arson. On local shops! Truly, fouling your own nest.

    @John Galt: The rather ludicrous example given was kids taken on a school trip to Trafalgar Square who lived a few bus stops away yet had never visited it before.

    Well, firstly, so what? And secondly, the teacher who wrote the article seemed oblivious to the gang- related postcode wars that would make a trip to Trafalgar Square literally to die for!

  20. Ian B (#14) described a “money cannon” as “A metaphor for the creation of new money … which benefits those who receive it first”

    But surely a cannon doesn’t benefit those who receive its load first. Rather the contrary, I would have thought.

  21. There seems to be a growing movement that views a ‘mix’ of rich and poor as desirable, but never quite manages to successfully articulate why…

    Its to make the rich feel ashamed and more pliant when their taxes are raised.

  22. What I find amusing is the unconscious hypocrisy of the left

    Hereditary wealth, the lords etc. is completely wrong and evil…

    But if you ancestors grew up in Kensington when it was cheap, you have a hereditary right to free housing there…

    As usual the lack of self-awareness (or the stupidity of their argument) escapes the Toynbee-ites

  23. SimonF,

    Since we one per centers eat babies and think footage of starving people is a sitcom, it cannot be to make us feel ashamed. I think it is to make us feel threatened so that we are happy (well we’re never happy about taxes really), say more inclined to part with our ill-gotten gains as long as we are promised more bobbies on the beat.

    I think it is the ultimate in social engineering hubris to tell people that they should live in a manner / location they would not voluntarily choose for the greater good.

  24. SE and Ian B, on a trivial point of minor interest, Goldman is still based just behind Fleet Street.

    Bank of America/Merill-Lynch: just behind St. Paul’s.

  25. Just opposite Paternoster Square, once a decrepit dump and now the new home of the London Stock Exchange.

    No coincidence that the Occupy Marxists chose St Paul’s for their crap-in.

  26. Doc,

    There is more than a kernel of truth in what you say but it isn’t about the 1%ers, as you say they are beyond the pale, its about the making the middle class feel guilty so they will part with more.

  27. Okay, okay, mea culpa. Actually, mea maxima culpa, because I’ve actually been to Charlotte and seen the building. Although, in my limited defence, I think I got confused with Wachovia.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *