I'm not sure how it's a very SFBA thing to point out that the people who have a voice in local politics are the people who haven't been displaced?
> Poor and working people have mobilized plenty of times before
This would require them working in their own rational self-interest too, though -- which (a) there isn't much evidence for, and (b) kinda negates your earlier argument about assuming rational actors.
Displacement far enough that they are outside of the local political jurisdiction is specific to there. In places like Peoria, it's just further economic immiseration within Peoria. Most of America is not being gentrified, rents are just rising. There's a difference.
| (a) there isn't much evidence for
There is plenty of evidence for that. You might just have a recency bias.
| negates your earlier argument about assuming rational actors
I don't put people mobilizing into the ideological framework of "the market". I don't put much faith into the ideological framework of markets generally. I find it only slightly more useful of a tool of understanding social forces than, say, astrology.
Importantly, I'm not talking about what will happen by virtue of some outside force or guarantee of history. I'm talking about we need to make happen by force of will.
> Most of America is not being gentrified, rents are just rising.
Peoria has a 50%+ homeownership rate. Most of the people voting locally are not facing rising rents, let alone rents at all.
> There is plenty of evidence for that. You might just have a recency bias.
> I don't put people mobilizing into the ideological framework of "the market".
Ah, I see, you don’t actually care about whether people act in their own self-interest, you just don’t like capital-E Economics and are using this as an excuse to throw out all of our understanding that people respond to incentives.
“The market” is not the only ideological framework that assumes rational actors. Do you have an alternate model of non-rational humans that you are assuming when you’re talking about making things happen by “people mobilizing”? Are they somehow not considering their own self-interest?
> Importantly, I'm not talking about what will happen by virtue of some outside force or guarantee of history
Of course. But those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.
I'm not sure how it's a very SFBA thing to point out that the people who have a voice in local politics are the people who haven't been displaced?
> Poor and working people have mobilized plenty of times before
This would require them working in their own rational self-interest too, though -- which (a) there isn't much evidence for, and (b) kinda negates your earlier argument about assuming rational actors.