We talk about YIMBYism because we can't talk about class

I’m a big fan of higher density, more apartments, tackling sprawl, and walkable, bikeable neighbourhoods. So why do I have reservations about the recent rise of the YIMBY movement in Melbourne?

The central problem is that it’s a topic that we talk about because we’re not allowed to talk about class.

Today’s capitalistic, highly class-based society puts people in arbitrarily different life circumstances based on accidents of birth or chance. Some have more wealth than they could ever possibly spend, some have nothing. But it’s considered impolite, or downright taboo to mention this, at least in mainstream circles.

Close proxies for class

There’s a lot of these other-than-class topics about, the most popular of which is “generational warfare”.

Do young people have it harder than their parents and grandparents? Or do they have it easier. There’s endless media coverage exploring this question.

But somehow these stories always avoid discussing class directly. While there’s changes in circumstances between generations, class was and still is the main determinant of ones circumstances: a high earning millennial with rich parents will still probably do great, in the end. And an out-of-work millennial with poor parents will always probably struggle.

But we’re not allowed to talk about it so bluntly. “Does a homeless person have it harder than Andrew Forrest or Mike and Scotty from Atlassian?” isn’t a headline you’ll ever see in The Age or any mainstream news. Class isn’t something to be challenged fundamentally - prevailing ideology treats the existence of class as more like a law of physics that can never be changed.

Nevertheless, the problems and unfairness linger. They affect people in very real ways, and with that comes the desire to talk about them.

So if you can’t talk about the thing itself, you can talk about something closely related instead. Because wealth generally increases with age, age becomes a rough proxy for class. Generational discourse has become a proxy for talking about class directly.

YIMBYism is just another proxy

Tackling affordability through redistribution would mean talking about class. No can do, but we can talk about supply.

A land tax to force wealthy landholders to pay for owning all the valuable land would mean talking about class. No can do, but we can talk about density.

Running a Marxism book group isn’t going to get you coverage in The Age - but running a YIMBY group is.

YIMBYism is an escape valve for class anger

YIMBYism provides a convenient outlet that avoids class issues. Angry about house prices? Instead of blaming the people who own all the housing and demanding redistribution, demand more property development! Are the local Greens demanding public housing? Write them off as NIMBYs!

Building more housing, and higher density housing, is necessary but not sufficient. No amount of increased housing supply and density will make housing affordable for somebody who has nothing.

Housing is intricately bound up with class, and you can’t fix housing without talking about class too.

YIMBYism makes a fine goal, but a terrible cause.