its not lack of money until you dont have it
Wealth & Income Inequality
- Thread starter Eboue
- Start date
Yes! It kind of is. Well, not the rich, most people on this forum are probably producing far more carbon than is sustainable. Good video linked on that article Berbatrick posted by Saul Griffith, that goes into what exactly would be sustainable and the cost of various habits.
The general population's knowledge of the actual science along with a number of nudges certainly has reduced smoking over time.
Are you trying to say corporations should have the right to conceal dangerous information from the public?
There is this belief that a common man is helpless, has no voice or opinion or ability to make any change and somehow everything that happens in this world is driven by the rich. It's false.
One doesn't prevent the other from being true. Theres definitely individuals who've had a significant impact all on their own.
There always is and always will be, no matter what 'ism of govt there is.
The tendency of saying the rich drive economies forward but when economies collapse it's because the common man apparently is living above his means also exists. I should know, I've been listening to EU politicians saying for years portuguese just have to adapt to a new reality. In fact, during the crisis the rich in Portugal have multiplied their wealth while a decent portion of the population has dropped below the poverty line.
It makes it hard to not agree that most of what happens is driven by the rich.
If were talking about environmental impact ... well your probably right, China are no saints. Regardless it needs to be addressed, certain industries are very capable of burying the rest of us regardless of how many sacrifices we make. On the larger subject I do actually agree that its a systemic problem rather than people being cnuts problem. Don't think it excuses or changes the fact that some people are cnuts.
First time, I'm hearing this saying. But it looks to be true. Currently I was looking at Amazon announcing a search for their HQ2 and New Jersey has put in a billion dollar incentive for them. Seems at par with couple of other states who may have gone bigger. Whoever is making those decisions are think having a big company will do good for local economy in long run...more than whatever they are offering as incentive. I reckon this worked for Seattle well.
Isn't that a Trump orchestrated 'victory'? What a moron.
That's awesome, I'm sure people living like shit will appreciate the effort.
Seattle has a huge housing crisis and a major homeless population. Which has been discussed on here before and edgar just hand waved it away
It still is ranked as one of the best cities to live in US.
what are you expecting, utopia?I'm sure they will considering that job market will see a upwards trend.
I'm yet to see a single shred of compelling evidence that suggests thats the case. Plenty to suggest its total bullshit though. Like common sense suggesting that american states bidding against each other in a race to the bottom to ensure industry contributes as little as possible is a crap plan.
It still is ranked as one of the best cities to live in US.
How about a place to live for the homeless
Amazon has 40,000 employees and creates 50,000 other jobs. $3bn investment in local economy etc. Ofc, this comes with side effects in traffic and increase in rentals/real estate, but then there is no way around that.
Is Amazon the cause of that? Cities without big companies don't have it?
we literally talked about this three weeks ago in this very thread
No, people will see pretty graphics on TV and politicians talking about positive numbers, but their lives don't seem to improve much. Not to mention the horror stories we see coming from those companies, treating employees like animals.
You don't have to be a communist to see that nowadays these big companies are out of control.
you're kind of a prick arent you?
thats a more disgraceful comment than the one that got randall band to be honest
The demonisation of social housing, more importantly those who live in social housing I feel has played a part in the homelessness crisis. People don't want council house tenants living next to them, councils know they'll be a backlash at the ballot box if people woke up to discover a council estate was being developed a stones-throw away. Therefore there's a reluctance to build and instead even in the most deprived areas there's the grotesque sight of luxury "affordable" apartments being build that nobody can afford to buy and that will sit empty for years.
What's needed is a massive investment in both the building of new social homes but also in upgrading the current social housing stock. Also think you have to address issue inherited council homes too. Just because your parents needed one 30 years ago doesn't mean your need is greater than someone else's now.
A couple earning £60,000 between them occupying a council property paying £450 a month just because one of the couple's parents were awarded the tenancy when they were a child, yet someone else having to manage on income from McDonalds and having to fend for himself in the private rental market rent prices of £850 with the prospect of a 5 year wait to be placed in social accommodation, doesn't really sit well with me. Moving people from their homes isn't something I'd support at all, but telling someone they don't necessarily have the right to automatically inherit their parents council house is something I'm okay with, especially if that means someone more in need can benefit.
What's needed is a massive investment in both the building of new social homes but also in upgrading the current social housing stock. Also think you have to address issue inherited council homes too. Just because your parents needed one 30 years ago doesn't mean your need is greater than someone else's now.
A couple earning £60,000 between them occupying a council property paying £450 a month just because one of the couple's parents were awarded the tenancy when they were a child, yet someone else having to manage on income from McDonalds and having to fend for himself in the private rental market rent prices of £850 with the prospect of a 5 year wait to be placed in social accommodation, doesn't really sit well with me. Moving people from their homes isn't something I'd support at all, but telling someone they don't necessarily have the right to automatically inherit their parents council house is something I'm okay with, especially if that means someone more in need can benefit.
Last edited:
You sound a bit like Corbyn in that post.
Not at all.
I struggle with this issue and the fight against elitism on a regular basis. I have always been very left wing and idealistic. Yet as I’ve gotten older and more affluent, and started to raise a family, I’ve found more elitist thoughts invading my brain. Thoughts I am uncomfortable having, and I have to rile against. So I don’t become the very type of person I hate.
I’ll give you an example. We live in a nice neighborhood. I can’t afford to buy a home here but I can afford to rent. About three blocks away there is a single block entirely covered by affordable housing. The area is pretty much the lowest crime area in the entire city, except for that single block. The only serious crimes that happen in the area only seem to happen on that block. And a couple of times a year there’s always a drive by shooting between a couple of tenants.
If I’m taking my 3 year old daughter out for a walk to the park, I will actively avoid that block altogether, because I figure nothing is worth the risk. But at the same time I realise I am painting a whole group of people negatively because of the actions of a few. And I’m also potentially creating an elitist example for my daughter. The irony is that I support affordable housing and realise how important it is. Yet when it’s on my doorstep, I act like I’d really rather not have to deal with it. I’m torn on how I should feel about this.
Likewise, Chicago is a very active gun crime city. And there are often stories of children getting shot in parks as they got caught in the cross fire of gang wars. I’ve doscussed with my wife that if she wants to take our little one to the park that she does so on the north side where it is statistically a lot safer, and avoid the south side recreational spaces. The problem is that Chicago is so segregated I am basically asking her to take our half black kid to all white parks and turn her back on her childhood roots. Which is fecked up.
On the one hand I feel vindicated in my natural predilection to protect my family against any uneccessary danger, but on the other you cannot let go of your principles and descend into right wing ignorance along the way. Staying socially aware and practicing social equality gets more challenging when you have more on the line than just your own set of ideals. I think this is why people naturally veer right as they get older.
I’m determined to avoid that trap.
I’ll give you an example. We live in a nice neighborhood. I can’t afford to buy a home here but I can afford to rent. About three blocks away there is a single block entirely covered by affordable housing. The area is pretty much the lowest crime area in the entire city, except for that single block. The only serious crimes that happen in the area only seem to happen on that block. And a couple of times a year there’s always a drive by shooting between a couple of tenants.
If I’m taking my 3 year old daughter out for a walk to the park, I will actively avoid that block altogether, because I figure nothing is worth the risk. But at the same time I realise I am painting a whole group of people negatively because of the actions of a few. And I’m also potentially creating an elitist example for my daughter. The irony is that I support affordable housing and realise how important it is. Yet when it’s on my doorstep, I act like I’d really rather not have to deal with it. I’m torn on how I should feel about this.
Likewise, Chicago is a very active gun crime city. And there are often stories of children getting shot in parks as they got caught in the cross fire of gang wars. I’ve doscussed with my wife that if she wants to take our little one to the park that she does so on the north side where it is statistically a lot safer, and avoid the south side recreational spaces. The problem is that Chicago is so segregated I am basically asking her to take our half black kid to all white parks and turn her back on her childhood roots. Which is fecked up.
On the one hand I feel vindicated in my natural predilection to protect my family against any uneccessary danger, but on the other you cannot let go of your principles and descend into right wing ignorance along the way. Staying socially aware and practicing social equality gets more challenging when you have more on the line than just your own set of ideals. I think this is why people naturally veer right as they get older.
I’m determined to avoid that trap.
Whoa. Didn't realise that had happened. What did he say?
How detestable.
Imo it all comes down to the fact that we criminalize drug use. I know there are good reasons why we shouldn't just hand out hard drugs in a super market but the fact that they are completely illegal creates an illegal market with huge profit margins that gangs will of course fight over and on top of that also get those into additional trouble that are already fighting with addiction.
Oh and I can totally understand your fears because there are good reasons for it.
How can you have such a poor knowledge of life that you're so unaware millions of people are struggling daily to cope with conditions and circumstances ranged against them, and that some will fall through the cracks?
And when you say 'isn't going to happen' how can you not know that most civilised countries already have one sort of taxation and benefits system or another, and rightly so.
It's some going to be both so twattish and so stupid in the one post.
There are scammers who beg for money and these should be stopped because they make the case worse for the genuinely homeless.
Well, yeah, but what I’m talking about are people who are employed but don’t make enough to afford living accommodations in the city they live in.
Wow. Just wow. Fitting tagline, sir.
Not this clickbait again. Thought we debunked this when you posted it last. Did you even read the article? Here is the author's conclusion from your own link:
It was a ill thought out stupid tax that would harm Seattle more. Good it did not come through!
Yeah, read about this. In NYC, they call it gentrification, which essentially means most of low income people are forced to move out to make way for middle class. Honestly, I don't see any two ways about it. City has rent controlled apartments, but they only cater to population levels as and when they are implemented. New additional population are not covered, but this applies at all levels. I choose not to live there as I don't want to pay exorbitant prices. I reckon others should make similar choices too.
Completely agree mate, finally someone had the bottle to say the truth.
feck me, you're a piece of shit aren't you?