When talking about the 30% rule, I think it's a really good way to prevent ghettos and ensure proper integration into the society.
China is a good example that it works interestingly well..
Can you elaborate a bit? I'm curious about your perspective on this and I know nothing about what's going on in China in terms of creating quotas based on skin-color/nationality/etc.
My (quick) reaction to this piece was, frankly, pure disgust. I find it hard to see any upside to policies like this, but I'm open to the idea that government intervention can create a more harmonious society. Skeptical, but open.
I think you should really leave out the notion of skin-color or nationality because the policies are not about that at all. You should think of it more as: rich-poor, educated-unedcuated, or integrated-unintegrated.
If you just let it run without a quota, unstoppable you'll see ghettos emerge. Not because of skin color but because those who less fortunate will look for affordable neighborhoods to live. The previously regular and affordable neighborhood will soon become a hot spot for people who are less fortunate. As a result, people who are less fortunate are all by themselves without even having the chance to integrate themselves into the society. Schools in the district will be full of children of less fortunate families, gangs will form, shadow economies will form, and over a long enough time period you have a hot spot.
With a quota, you can limit the emergence of such parallel societies because children of less fortunate families can actually become friends with children of more fortunate families. Schools can actually become a place where children of less and more fortunate families, rich and poor families, integrated and unintegrated families play and learn together.
I believe it must be #1 priority of every society to avoid the emergence of ghettos and parallel societies. I think a quota like this may read "racist" but I think it is a powerful policy to give less fortunate children the same chances everyone else in society has by not letting them grow up in ghettos.
China - as far as I recall - did this successfully since the Zhou dynasty by having fixed quotas by mixing rich and poor people, immigrants and non immigrants. That's why there basically are no ghettos or slums in China.
In dc where I used to live, there were laws governing the availability of low income housing (section 8).
I would imagine the community good rationale for this falls in line with what Marius is explaining. However the difference I see is that in Denmark (as i understand from this article) it’s about ethnicity whereas with section 8 it’s about income. Income and minority status often correlate and since at the end of the day the policy in Denmark isn’t really about discriminating based on nationality, but about having geographic communities that are mixed in terms of class and income, these approaches are sort of similar but I’m confused why they’d use this framing versus something more market based like controlling for housing costs.
That said, i knew a (white) person with a white collar non profit job who applied for and got low income housing in DC, living as a single person in a 2 BR apartment that really should have gone to a single mom living on minimum wage. Not to mention all of the people living in expensive cities like NYC with rent controlled apartments who are millionaires and just keep handing their homes off to family.
That's exactly the problem with headline catching articles like this (TRT is states media from Turkey). It is not about ethnicity, it's about preventing the emergence of ghettos.
One quote: "To qualify, they must meet two of the following four conditions: 40% of working-age residents must be out of the labour market and not in education; the proportion of residents with criminal convictions must be at least triple the national average; the share of people with no secondary-school diploma must exceed 60%; and the average taxpayer’s income must be under 55% of the regional average. Moreover (and this is where the law is most controversial) more than half the population must have a non-Western immigrant background."
When talking about the 30% rule, I think it's a really good way to prevent ghettos and ensure proper integration into the society. China is a good example that it works interestingly well..
Can you elaborate a bit? I'm curious about your perspective on this and I know nothing about what's going on in China in terms of creating quotas based on skin-color/nationality/etc.
My (quick) reaction to this piece was, frankly, pure disgust. I find it hard to see any upside to policies like this, but I'm open to the idea that government intervention can create a more harmonious society. Skeptical, but open.
I think you should really leave out the notion of skin-color or nationality because the policies are not about that at all. You should think of it more as: rich-poor, educated-unedcuated, or integrated-unintegrated.
If you just let it run without a quota, unstoppable you'll see ghettos emerge. Not because of skin color but because those who less fortunate will look for affordable neighborhoods to live. The previously regular and affordable neighborhood will soon become a hot spot for people who are less fortunate. As a result, people who are less fortunate are all by themselves without even having the chance to integrate themselves into the society. Schools in the district will be full of children of less fortunate families, gangs will form, shadow economies will form, and over a long enough time period you have a hot spot.
With a quota, you can limit the emergence of such parallel societies because children of less fortunate families can actually become friends with children of more fortunate families. Schools can actually become a place where children of less and more fortunate families, rich and poor families, integrated and unintegrated families play and learn together.
I believe it must be #1 priority of every society to avoid the emergence of ghettos and parallel societies. I think a quota like this may read "racist" but I think it is a powerful policy to give less fortunate children the same chances everyone else in society has by not letting them grow up in ghettos.
China - as far as I recall - did this successfully since the Zhou dynasty by having fixed quotas by mixing rich and poor people, immigrants and non immigrants. That's why there basically are no ghettos or slums in China.
In dc where I used to live, there were laws governing the availability of low income housing (section 8).
I would imagine the community good rationale for this falls in line with what Marius is explaining. However the difference I see is that in Denmark (as i understand from this article) it’s about ethnicity whereas with section 8 it’s about income. Income and minority status often correlate and since at the end of the day the policy in Denmark isn’t really about discriminating based on nationality, but about having geographic communities that are mixed in terms of class and income, these approaches are sort of similar but I’m confused why they’d use this framing versus something more market based like controlling for housing costs.
That said, i knew a (white) person with a white collar non profit job who applied for and got low income housing in DC, living as a single person in a 2 BR apartment that really should have gone to a single mom living on minimum wage. Not to mention all of the people living in expensive cities like NYC with rent controlled apartments who are millionaires and just keep handing their homes off to family.
That's exactly the problem with headline catching articles like this (TRT is states media from Turkey). It is not about ethnicity, it's about preventing the emergence of ghettos.
Read this if interested in the real background: https://www.economist.com/international/2019/11/28/denmark-wants-to-break-up-ethnic-enclaves-what-is-wrong-with-them
One quote: "To qualify, they must meet two of the following four conditions: 40% of working-age residents must be out of the labour market and not in education; the proportion of residents with criminal convictions must be at least triple the national average; the share of people with no secondary-school diploma must exceed 60%; and the average taxpayer’s income must be under 55% of the regional average. Moreover (and this is where the law is most controversial) more than half the population must have a non-Western immigrant background."
There is no other way to put this: the danish government is fucked.
My thoughts too!
Ay~yi~yi
Not fiction, not ancient history. Sigh.