Isolating the Underclass - without money
People are terrified of openly talking about the underclass in the negative, and more specifically their desire to keep their distance from them. Because they're afraid it will make them look like nasty judgemental snobs. Or even bigots.
And so we don't. Instead we just politely talk about our need to live in a "nice" area.
But the problem with our inability to be open about our need to keep our distance from certain social zones, is that we have to use money to (crudely) achieve our desired social segregation. We pay huge money at times for our homes, and often in part only to price-out "toxic" people from our area.
But when it comes to people, isn't what makes for 'toxic' subjective? Not really. People who have been seriously abused and neglected in childhood will inevitably become toxic, to any given degree. It's tragic and like everyone else I wish it wasn't so, but it's true. And humans being what they are will automatically sense and respond to these kinds of people. They are typically depressing, and often criminal, intimidating and violent.
My point is there is nothing to be ashamed of in wanting to keep your distance from people like this. It's human. And curiously other animals do the same thing. They sense emotional disturbance quickly, and in turn automatically keep their distance.
And this is part of the problem with respect to trying to achieve affordable housing. Sure, if I was the king of New Zealand I could make it so houses are super affordable (compared to what they are now), but the problem is they will also be super attractive to the underclass.
I have no problem providing affordable housing to the underclass, of course, but I do have a problem with the underclass effectively forcing others to pay so much for their homes, just to screen the underclass away from their particular area.
So is there a better way?
Yes. The answer is of course private communities. But private communities that don't screen people out by only building costly McMansions will need to use another technique. The way screening can be done is with video interviews, where people from a small member base can watch a village applicants' interview online, and get a basic feel for what kind of a person they are.
Yes - I know that sounds a bit horrible on the face of it. But I'm only talking about formally facilitating what is obviously normal discriminatory behaviour. And I certainly believe that people should have the right choose their own company.
The fact is if we moved to a system like this, we can create truly affordable developments that have virtually no unwanted underclass component in them. In fact it's very inclusive in that money is a crude tool for social screening that comes with some collateral damage; poorer people who are nonetheless sociable and well-natured will not be blocked from a given community for a lack of money.
Conclusion:
To reduce the objective of this to a simplistic soundbite, you could say we want to provide affordable houses yet without creating dangerous and depressing slums. But I respect my article could look heartless to some, in that I might be seen as only wanting to throw the underclass away.
No way. The problem of the underclass is really a problem of child abuse. I have long considered child abuse to be the No.1 social problem of our time, and I have some strong thoughts on how we should deal with it. But one way to deal with it is not to force the more fortunate parts of society to live with the results of child abuse, directly. Or make them pay through the nose for something that should really be taken for given - a happy place to live.
