Desmond's last book, Eviction, was life changing for me. I was about to write that the book made me aware of things that revolted me about the ways we (all of us) keep the poor poor but that is a half truth. I think I knew a lot of what Desmond wrote about in that book, but by assaulting me with facts, statistical and anecdotal, Desmond forced me into a reckoning. That reckoning impacted my volunteer work, and also made me re-evaluate where and how I choose to live. Few things I have read or seen in my life have had such a profound impact. I was so excited when I saw he had a new book and I began reading it the day it hit my Kindle. Maybe this book suffered from my high expectations. It is a very different book, and though I think there is some very valuable material here, much of it kind of exasperated me. You will be disappointed if you are looking for the well-researched factually supported heft of Evicted or the several other excellent books by others that he cites here including The Warmth of Other Suns, The Sum of us, and Thick (which he does not mention by name but he credits Tressie McMillan Cottom, and I am pretty sure the material he is quoting comes from one of the essays in that excellent book.) This book is a manifesto. It is actually a pretty decent manifesto, but it is a manifesto nonetheless and I guess that is not what I came for.
The first half of this book (almost exactly to the 50% mark) just bored me. I hear what he is saying, that we talk about systemic problems but that the answer is within us, that the cure to structural problems comes from our personal choices. I get that there is a good deal of personal wealth for many and that if people were willing to part with some of that, or at least the fruits of some of that, and if rich people paid their damn taxes we could address the moral horror of true want. But that is kind of obvious and 100 pages of that being said in different ways left me unfocused and also searching for other reading material.
At about the 50% mark Desmond comes out swinging, and the book becomes 100x more compelling. Compelling and cohesive are different beasts though. The moral argument appealed to me but there were holes in his reasoning I could drive a truck through. The biggest holes came from Desmond's mistaken belief that people all share his values, especially from the belief that people care a lot about others outside their immediate community. Everything hinges on this, Desmond says basically, "yeah people with money, you will have to give up autonomy and comfort to end poverty, but when everyone is equal you will feel so much better! That sacrifice will be paid off a thousand-fold" It is a lovely sentiment, but I believe it is simply untrue of most people. In my experience people who enjoy sone degree of economic comfort do not wrestle a lot with the ethics of economic inequity. They give some money to the Title 1 school closest to them, pat themselves on the back for subscribing to a CSA and buying eggs from the farmstand instead of supporting big ag, they "simplify" with Marie Kondo, and they maybe upcycle instead of buying new things from fast fashion purveyors. And they feel largely fine after that. Desmond is advocating for them to change their entire lives to alleviate the inequities, and I am here to say that will never happen. I did mention that in my experience people only care about people in their communities (that includes virtual communities,) and Desmond addresses that by suggesting that communities should not be divided by wealth, He argues that people support subsidized housing in their neighborhoods to create more economically diverse communities. I think that is a wonderful suggestion and I support it in theory. As I type that though I am keenly aware that here in NYC where the richest among us always lived in close proximity to those in subsidized housing, housing projects are slowly being sold to private owners -- people are paying big money to live in what used to be the projects here. I used to live steps away from the Gowanus projects in Boerum Hill and they have been rezoned and sold to private developers. The Manhattanville Projects in West Harlem are being turned into luxury condos as the Williamsburg Houses recently were. In other words, the cheek-by-jowl cohabitation of NYC by rich and poor is ending -- moving away from Desmond's dream model. This makes me sad, but does not surprise me. That glow of connection and caring that Desmond thinks will happen from being part of the same communities, that did not occur here and I don't see it as being likely to happen elsewhere either. The only people I have heard speaking against the city selling these units would be the residents of the subsidized housing, nothing from their more moneyed neighbors.
One last thing I wanted to mention. I talked about how reading Eviction changed me and my choices about where and how to live, and it did, but it changed those things after my son was grown and I was the only one feeling the impact. I believe in public education, and I always thought my child would go to public school, but he had learning disabilities, and they did a terrible job of educating him in a very highly rated public elementary in the Atlanta metro. I pulled him out of public school at the start of 3rd grade and sent him to excellent private schools where he got individualized attention, and I hired tutors, organizational coaches and other professionals. He graduated with high grades, went to an excellent college where he majored in Public Policy and Media Studies, is an aspiring filmmaker, and fully supports himself in that industry. He has worked for one of the largest media companies in the world and in addition to his full-time work he has a busy freelance schedule and has even directed several music videos in the two years since graduation. His doctor said that when he saw my brilliant son's educational report when he was 7 he thought he would be lucky to go to community college. A neighbor with a slightly older child with similar issues who stayed in public school had that outcome, and he was never able to complete his AA. Would I make another decision to keep my kid in a school that was not serving him so that he would be on equal footing with kids with fewer resources? Not in a thousand years. And if I did do that and my child ended up with a life that did not allow him to share his unique skills with the world would I be happier because he shared that unsatisfying life with so many other young people? Nope. If I am going to hell, so be it, but I will have a lot of company.
Well-intentioned, peppered with interesting observations about how Americans perceive their level of wealth and with some fascinating facts about American's actual level of want, and with potentially actionable solutions to poverty this book does a lot, but ultimately for me it was a disappointment. Maybe because it made me feel defensive, I can't say, but I feel like I feel.