Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Malthus]

Well if they are small uneconomic farms then...

I don't know if I owned a money losing unprofitable business and somebody offered a stonking amount of money to take it off my hands I probably would be thanking my lucky stars even if it had been in the family for years. Nothing lasts forever right? Why want to be condemned to poverty for the sake of some kind of nostalgic commitment?

It kind of reminds me of the English obsession with the tragedy of land enclosure and coal mine closing. As if being a peasant or a coal miner is some kind of fantastic privilege that is now tragically unavailable to us. But maybe that is my not-having-grown-up-in-a-miserable-dying-industry privilege speaking.

I mean those farmers' ancestors had moved from someplace with bad prospects for the opportunity provided by that land in Canada. Seems downright un-North American to not continue in that tradition.

Hey, I'm not arguing really: I tend to agree that time marches on. I'm just pointing out that "gentrification" isn't confined to inner city settings.

I suppose that in the inner city, most of those forced out won't get a pay-out in the form of higher land prices, because they are more likely to be renters, but otherwise it is roughly comparable: what is lost is a 'traditional community', for whatever that is worth (and not being part of one myself, I can't say as I'd prefer staying in poverty over leaving a traditional community).

[Martinus]

[Valmy]

Hey, I'm not arguing really: I tend to agree that time marches on. I'm just pointing out that "gentrification" isn't confined to inner city settings.

It does make one wonder where did all these wealthy people live before "gentrification"? Or are there just far more rich people today than there used to be?

[garbon]

Hey, I'm not arguing really: I tend to agree that time marches on. I'm just pointing out that "gentrification" isn't confined to inner city settings.

It does make one wonder where did all these wealthy people live before "gentrification"? Or are there just far more rich people today than there used to be?

Well isn't it just people returning to the cities? Presumably when NYC was a failed city, the gentrifiers were still just chilling in the suburbs.

[Martinus]

Hey, I'm not arguing really: I tend to agree that time marches on. I'm just pointing out that "gentrification" isn't confined to inner city settings.

It does make one wonder where did all these wealthy people live before "gentrification"? Or are there just far more rich people today than there used to be?

For the highest value real estate (such as flats in NY or London proper) I understand the fact that the rich own multiple flats they don't use is a contributing factor.

Also, I don't think it is out of whack to think there are more rich people today than there used to be in absolute numbers (if not in terms of percentage). And the amount of space one can live in is obviously finite.

[Valmy]

Well isn't it just people returning to the cities? Presumably when NYC was a failed city, the gentrifiers were still just chilling in the suburbs.

Maybe. Are there loads of ritzy suburban and country estates laying empty now?

Also, I don't think it is out of whack to think there are more rich people today than there used to be in absolute numbers (if not in terms of percentage). And the amount of space one can live in is obviously finite.

Yeah it gives realestate its bizarre and quirky character as a product. Few other things are as zero-sum game as it is. A rich person owning a fancy cell phone doesn't drive up the price or make it more difficult for me to own a cell phone.

[garbon]

Well isn't it just people returning to the cities? Presumably when NYC was a failed city, the gentrifiers were still just chilling in the suburbs.

Maybe. Are there loads of ritzy suburban and country estates laying empty now?

Well I think gentrification can be caused by the non-wealthy. So for instance myself and my siblings (when we all lived in NYC). Well really my sisters as they chose the neighborhoods that were getting gentrified, while I chose the already full gentrified. None of us come from/abandoned ritzy suburban estates but it is likely had we grown up when NYC was a hellhole, we would have stayed living in the suburbs.

[viper37]

Well if they are small uneconomic farms then...

I don't know if I owned a money losing unprofitable business and somebody offered a stonking amount of money to take it off my hands I probably would be thanking my lucky stars even if it had been in the family for years. Nothing lasts forever right? Why want to be condemned to poverty for the sake of some kind of nostalgic commitment?

It kind of reminds me of the English obsession with the tragedy of land enclosure and coal mine closing. As if being a peasant or a coal miner is some kind of fantastic privilege that is now tragically unavailable to us. But maybe that is my not-having-grown-up-in-a-miserable-dying-industry privilege speaking.

I mean those farmers' ancestors had moved from someplace with bad prospects for the opportunity provided by that land in Canada. Seems downright un-North American to not continue in that tradition.

It's a little more complicated than that.
First off, big farms do rely on subsidies or market protection as well as the small ones.

And then, there is the fact that you grew up on the lands of your father who grew up on the lands of his father...  It's a pretty powerful feeling.  You are home.  You are independant and self sufficient: you can grow and raise a part of your food, you are not affected by what the grocery charges you.  My best friends barely buys meat from the grocery store and he can grow a lot of veggies in his garden.

If he were to sell his farm, his lands, his house, he would need to move to the city, buy a house that is worth more than he got for his own house, take a part of the capital he gained, than find a regular job at a decent pay - in his case, not so hard because he is well educated and highly intelligent, so he could retrain, but for most of these people, outside of farm work, they don't know much.  And then, he needs to buy all the meat at the grocery store, subject to the inflation that affects most people, while working at 12-15$/hour.

So basically, he would not be better off than he is right now, probably even worst.

The other alternative offered is to sell the farm to an aggregator and work for him as an employee of a faceless big corporation.  And then one day, they decide the price of the milk/pigs/cattle is too low and they shut down operations on this site and multiple others.

Small farms aren't viable, but larger farms aren't either.  The Americans and the Europeans will subsidize their big farms, as well as New Zealand and Australia. The Chinese will manipulate the market and buy farms below their real values once they are near bankruptcy.  It's harder to export dairy products and fresh meat than cars or coal or oil.

Of course there are multiple problems with the system we use in Canada.  It does not promote growth and technological advancement, and farmers are still subject to adverse market variations and unable to compensate by producting more.

However, so long as other countries subsidize their farms, there ain't much choice as doing the same, just like we do for big corporations.
I had hoped the new trans-pacific accord would change that, but it looks unlikely.

[Valmy]

Well yeah but all that has been true for 50 years. But things are much better now than they were 30 years ago which was why I was curious why their situation is deteriorating. That makes me think that Canada has no subsidies for their farms, these farmers are just really bad at farming, or there are some kind of specific circumstances making these particular farms specifically unsuccessful. Maybe all three. But there is no reason they cannot sell these farms, get a huge profit, and then buy a cheap farm way out in the country away from the big cities where this is unlikely to repeat.

[Jacob]

As white people? Stop leaving you current neighborhood when black people start showing up & living in the neighborhood.

What does that have to do with gentrification? I thought that was white people moving into black neighborhoods and driving up the price. Everybody leaving a neighborhood would seem to drive down prices.

Also I cannot stop doing that since I have never done it.

I don't think gentrification has to have a racial component - except maybe in the US where apparently everything has to be about race. As long as you have longstanding communities of poor or socially vulnerable people getting displaced on a large scale, it's gentrification. At least that's how I understand it.

[Valmy]

I don't think gentrification has to have a racial component - except maybe in the US where apparently everything has to be about race. As long as you have longstanding communities of poor or socially vulnerable people getting displaced on a large scale, it's gentrification. At least that's how I understand it.

Sure. I was just curious how the recommended ways we combat this are going to impact it in anyway.

[Jacob]

Ah.  Our gentrification in OTR is kind of the opposite of that.  Every eating/drinking establishment is small and local, and if anything the "soul" of the original German community that was originally there is being preserved/restored.

Yeah, in that case - when strongly influenced by maker culture and individual expression - it's hard to take the "soulless" charge seriously. IMO, lack of soul basically means lacking any local distinctions - the neighbourhood could be anywhere, with the same chain stores, the same architecture, the same brands, the same very meagre (if any) available cultural activities, and a lack of any kind of local community character in the populace. So I reckon what you describe is not soulless in the sense it's usually meant.

Of course, there's a tendency of some people to call any and all examples of people better off than them "soulless" - and sometimes that gets applied to the kind of gentrification you're describing. It's "soulless" by definition (for the speaker) because it's gentrification, full stop. That seems kind of wrong to me though.

IMO, of course.

[Valmy]

I will say that I do like how most of our gentrification is taking place using the locally quarried limestone. It gives it certain 'this gentrification was done in Austin, Texas' look

[Jacob]

It kind of reminds me of the English obsession with the tragedy of land enclosure and coal mine closing. As if being a peasant or a coal miner is some kind of fantastic privilege that is now tragically unavailable to us. But maybe that is my not-having-grown-up-in-a-miserable-dying-industry privilege speaking.

I think so, yeah.

The land enclosures saw large scale brutal evictions where people's houses and personal possessions were burned. There were a significant number of deaths from from starvation and freezing. Where people weren't initially moved off from the land, they were often kept around in even poorer conditions than previously as cheap labour.

A first-hand account of the clearing of Sutherland:

The consternation and confusion were extreme. Little or no time was given for the removal of persons or property; the people striving to remove the sick and the helpless before the fire should reach them; next, struggling to save the most valuable of their effects. The cries of the women and children, the roaring of the affrighted cattle, hunted at the same time by the yelling dogs of the shepherds amid the smoke and fire, altogether presented a scene that completely baffles description — it required to be seen to be believed.

A dense cloud of smoke enveloped the whole country by day, and even extended far out to sea. At night an awfully grand but terrific scene presented itself — all the houses in an extensive district in flames at once. I myself ascended a height about eleven o'clock in the evening, and counted two hundred and fifty blazing houses, many of the owners of which I personally knew, but whose present condition — whether in or out of the flames — I could not tell. The conflagration lasted six days, till the whole of the dwellings were reduced to ashes or smoking ruins. During one of these days a boat actually lost her way in the dense smoke as she approached the shore, but at night was enabled to reach a landing-place by the lurid light of the flames.

It also saw the near extinction of Gaelic as a living language in Scotland.

I don't know if any fantastic "privileges" were lost, but it certainly was an act (or series of acts) of large scale brutality.

[Valmy]

I don't know if any fantastic "privileges" were lost, but it certainly was an act (or series of acts) of large scale brutality.

Needless to say this is one of only many ways enclosure happened and it was a steady process over 500 years. Enclosure started before the Tudors came to power and reached its conclusions in the 19th century. I have heard all these very selectively chosen examples over the years but to claim it was some kind of horrific sudden event is very misleading. Often it was the peasants themselves that led the charge.

I don't know if any fantastic "privileges" were lost, but it certainly was an act (or series of acts) of large scale brutality.

Well the alternative model was granting the peasants tenure over the land, like was done in France. And the result seems to have been just as traumatic with backwards farming techniques resulting in high food prices, economic stagnation, and starvation. Transitioning from a peasant economy was always going to be traumatic and peasant languages, like Gaelic, had a hard time of it everywhere.

Likewise huge subsidies to keep coal mines open might have kept those communities together for a bit longer but the end consequences would not have been pretty.