Hipster on Newbury Street, Boston, USA (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
According to the Economist, ‘Bring on the hipsters – Gentrification is good for the poor’, citing evidence in major American cities.
Source: Bring on the hipsters | The Economist
Personally, I tend to agree with the New York Times and feel that the media should refrain from using the word ‘gentrification‘. For me it not sufficiently respectful to the more disadvantaged members of society.
It’s fine for the Economist to argue that the ‘hipsters‘ bring economic benefits but what about the social consequences?
Thoughts?
Dr Alf's Blog 
As Dr Alf says, there are no gains for the poor, and in the UK the effect is designed to clear these marginalised people out of London and move them to cheaper parts of the country.
Where I live, people who cannot afford to live in Cambridge or locally are being removed and sent to places like Luton or places in the North of England, whilst those who fall foul of the benefit cap are made to live in poorer accommodation.
What happens in America is more stark because the welfare net is a lot thinner.
Hello. From what I’ve learned recently is that gentrification mostly displaces the poor already there. They’re already poor, so where do they go? What I mean by displacement is: they can’t afford the increased rents and higher property taxes et al.
Thanks for the moderation.
Yes, that’s the point. There are economic gains but not necessarily for the poor