> Can someone explain what this description misses and where the harm comes from?
If they have lived somewhere a long time, one of the big losses is: Relationships.
For the people forced to move, they will not find another "3 out of 10" neighbourhood, as part of what makes it a 3 is that's where all their friends and long-lasting relationships and perhaps childhood memories are. That already makes anywhere else < 3.
They will have to move somewhere where they likely don't know anyone, or at least not the well-established friendships they had before.
If they have extended family in the area, they will have to leave those too. (Parents, children, aunts & uncles, siblings, that sort of thing).
Those friendships and relationships aren't just valuable for sentimental reasons. They form an essential practical support structure, and sometimes a financial support structure. For many people those things are a big part of what makes quality of life.
And they might be forced to move at an age where it's difficult to make new friends, especially deep friendships.
As people on the lower end of the socio-economic ladder, it's likely that they were benefitting from their friendship/relationship network in another, subtler way: By having good quality relationships with people higher up the ladder, their own circumstances are effectively lifted up as well.
For example, they might be taken out to places and introduced to opportunities and people because of long-lasting friendships with people richer than themselves. Their children get to play with children of richer friends with nicer houses to stay over in. Little things that probably translate to differences of opportunity when the children are older. That kind of uplift goes away when they move to another location.
Some people have a good relationship with a local employer too, and will lose that as well. It might be something quite treasured (even though it presumably doesn't pay well), and difficult or impossible to replace. Remember we're talking about people forced to leave, not those who want to leave.
If they have lived somewhere a long time, one of the big losses is: Relationships.
For the people forced to move, they will not find another "3 out of 10" neighbourhood, as part of what makes it a 3 is that's where all their friends and long-lasting relationships and perhaps childhood memories are. That already makes anywhere else < 3.
They will have to move somewhere where they likely don't know anyone, or at least not the well-established friendships they had before.
If they have extended family in the area, they will have to leave those too. (Parents, children, aunts & uncles, siblings, that sort of thing).
Those friendships and relationships aren't just valuable for sentimental reasons. They form an essential practical support structure, and sometimes a financial support structure. For many people those things are a big part of what makes quality of life.
And they might be forced to move at an age where it's difficult to make new friends, especially deep friendships.
As people on the lower end of the socio-economic ladder, it's likely that they were benefitting from their friendship/relationship network in another, subtler way: By having good quality relationships with people higher up the ladder, their own circumstances are effectively lifted up as well.
For example, they might be taken out to places and introduced to opportunities and people because of long-lasting friendships with people richer than themselves. Their children get to play with children of richer friends with nicer houses to stay over in. Little things that probably translate to differences of opportunity when the children are older. That kind of uplift goes away when they move to another location.
Some people have a good relationship with a local employer too, and will lose that as well. It might be something quite treasured (even though it presumably doesn't pay well), and difficult or impossible to replace. Remember we're talking about people forced to leave, not those who want to leave.