Many cities have been using low-income set asides for decades now, we should not have to wait to see what the experiences with societal blending experiments are. What works, and what does not? Why? Not just in theory, but reality.
I live in a large high-income building and interaction of the residents is relatively rare as most are working and their jobs are intense and the hours long. Purely social interaction is a luxury for these high achievers. My acquiantances in similar buildings and their experiences over many years also report that interaction is rare but gracious. Those with less demanding jobs, or where they work closer to an 8 hour day, may find the high income people stand-offish. They may be, or it could just be the high income/high work intensity crowd do not socialize much outside of work oriented needs.
If there is minimal interaction, is the entire concept of having a low income set aside meritless, or even detrimental to society given the costs to society to subsidize people to live in luxury buildings?
In some of these circumstances, a person who is just starting a career my qualify for a low-income set asied may, within a few years, become a lavishly paid i-banker, lawyer or surgeon. Then what happens, do you continue to subsize someone who is now in the top, not just 1%, but 0.01%?
Disclaimer: I am an Austrian school of economics sort of guy. Think Milton Friedman. Subsidies to us are unwarranted market distortions that lead to nearly always adverse outcomes for society as a whole.
Many cities have been using low-income set asides for decades now, we should not have to wait to see what the experiences with societal blending experiments are. What works, and what does not? Why? Not just in theory, but reality.
I live in a large high-income building and interaction of the residents is relatively rare as most are working and their jobs are intense and the hours long. Purely social interaction is a luxury for these high achievers. My acquiantances in similar buildings and their experiences over many years also report that interaction is rare but gracious. Those with less demanding jobs, or where they work closer to an 8 hour day, may find the high income people stand-offish. They may be, or it could just be the high income/high work intensity crowd do not socialize much outside of work oriented needs.
If there is minimal interaction, is the entire concept of having a low income set aside meritless, or even detrimental to society given the costs to society to subsidize people to live in luxury buildings?
In some of these circumstances, a person who is just starting a career my qualify for a low-income set asied may, within a few years, become a lavishly paid i-banker, lawyer or surgeon. Then what happens, do you continue to subsize someone who is now in the top, not just 1%, but 0.01%?
Disclaimer: I am an Austrian school of economics sort of guy. Think Milton Friedman. Subsidies to us are unwarranted market distortions that lead to nearly always adverse outcomes for society as a whole.