In the spirit of San Francisco poetics, the shifting sand at Ocean Beach could be said to represent the shifting economic levels of the San Francisco population. With the twenty-first century tech boom, the lower economic class has greatly eroded while the upper and middle class population has seemingly overflowed. The result has been a housing crisis that has topped any market worldwide. The median home price in San Francisco as of early 2015 is $1,300,000 in a city with a minimum wage of $12.50/hour.
A housing market that does not allow affordable opportunities for lower-wage workers is not sustainable over time. In a service-dominated economy, low wage workers are essential in the economic chain, and pushing them out creates problematic erosion effects similar to the ones observed at Ocean Beach since the 1970's.
Perhaps, over the next decade, we will see construction crews bulldozing high the tech-industry workers out to create room for a city with a more even distribution of economic wages, more affordable housing, and a city that continues to cultivate the artists, writers, and revolutionaries that the San Francisco culture is know for.
Wow, this is really startling and I had no idea this was a thing. Land really does relate to the economy and pushing out the high tech industry would be really amazing.
ReplyDeleteOne can only hope. It's interesting to think about how to combat gentrification, since it's a pretty awful cultural phenomenon, but outright prohibiting people from moving into an area feels like a different kind of violation of rights. Maybe price fixings for general areas? I'm sure there's lots of research into this sort of thing, I'm just speculating.
ReplyDeleteMatthew-
ReplyDeleteReally interesting post. I feel like this is an idea that wants really badly to be a poem. Like a flaneur-style meditation on watching the bulldozers pushing the sand and some kind of direct (or metaphorical, indirect) connection to the pushing out of the city's working class. In response to Adin, I think we should realize that good economic policy does not require any kind of direct proclamation that restricts movement. The rich generally segregate themselves, so positive economic change would probably push them back to their McMansions in the hills, anyways. But the point, for me, is exactly what Matthew bring's up. If workers cannot afford to live in their own city, then something is drastically wrong. Imported labor seems to be a pretty sure sign of inequality, whether that is on a city to city basis or on the national level. Migrants from Mexico don't come to California because it's pretty and they can afford a place in the valley. They come to live in bottom-income housing (if that) because the money here can be sent home, where unfair global economic practices and incompetent local management has crippled their wage-earning abilities. But I am no economist, and I am sure I am simplifying drastically. But it is a great thing that we are discussing it. Thanks Matthew!