Do you find it concerning that we really have no political choices these days?

James R said:
Seattle:

Okay. Thanks.

Your post just struck me as if you were coming from a place of looking down on certain people and blaming them for being poor. If that isn't part of your thinking, then I'm glad and I apologise for misunderstanding where you're coming from.

I understand. In many cases, there's a right side and a wrong side. In other cases, there's a better side and a worse side.

Right. The educated approach involves listening to what the other person has to say, considering the matter, possibly doing a little independent research, and then drawing tentative conclusions, all while keeping in mind that one can always be wrong.

It's more of matter of how strongly you want to push your free market ideology. You sound like you have a very libertarian attitude to the free market - like there should be little, if any government regulation, checks or balances. But maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe you think that some checks and balances are warranted. Just not to the extent that you support public housing, rent assistance or similar programmes to help the needy.

I agree. It will be pleasant to hear you add nuance to your previous comments, which seemed rather harsh on the poor, to me.

A certain fraction of rich people use drugs and commit crimes, too, you know. Those people tend not to live in such high-density housing, so maybe that's the real problem, not how rich somebody is or isn't? Or maybe crime and drugs are the real problem.

Most people will agree it's better than living on the streets or in your car.

That's getting more and more difficult these days, though, isn't it? The 1%ers are buying up all the land and property, leaving such things out of reach for a large number of people - even middle-income earners.

You're against ghettos for the poor. So, what solutions do you advocate?

Improving one's skills does not necessarily lead to riches.

I don't follow. Why does it not matter if you're not compassionate, again? If you're rich, you don't need to be compassionate, because the market? Something like that?

I agree, of course.

Okay. We could discuss what you believe to be the major good things they each did, I guess. But it's getting off the topic, isn't it? But we're already off the topic with the housing discussion, anyway...

Your assessment of what is good or bad from an administration is necessarily going to depend on what you most value in a government.

Okay.

No. I was just questioning your assumptions.
Click to expand...

It's not that I'm against any government help, it just usually doesn't work very well. It tends to keep people poor and dependent on the government and then the same programs that failed are repackaged again and again.

The 1% don't own all the housing and housing isn't expensive because of who owns the housing. It actually doesn't even matter what the 1% own, or do. It doesn't affect our lives in any way.

Yes, of course we need government, we need checks and balances and we need to help those that need help. That's not generally what is being talking about when people talk about "affordable" housing or wealth inequality.

That's just complaining, not addressing the real issues and it's often just scapegoating the rich, or Republicans or Democrats or (insert any group).

People talk about housing not being affordable and then they mentioned that they make $200k, need a huge house, in a good school district a new mini-van to haul the kids around and they say they live paycheck to paycheck.

I don't support a government program for that. I don't worry (at all) about wealth inequality because it shouldn't be an issue for anyone. I do understand that there are other points of view but I don't feel that I need to keep repeating that any more than I need to keep repeating that I'm not being paid to give my opinions, I have no vested interests in any political solutions, etc.:)

I guess, one can always point out that a topic is off topic and another thread should be started but since we have such a small readership, that's rather tedious to add to each conversation as well, don't you agree? Especially since it only seems to apply to the other guy and especially since I started the thread in the first place.

Most discussions are about nuance since very few people are actually arguing for something extreme. When it is assumed that people are only arguing to be arguing then we have the typical Sarkus/James R thread and I'm sure you would agree, there is no nuance there.:)
 
Last edited:
Seattle said:
People talk about housing not being affordable and then they mentioned that they make $200k, need a huge house, in a good school district a new mini-van to haul the kids around and they say they live paycheck to paycheck.
Click to expand...
The median annual income for people in the United States is close to US$40,000. In the UK, the figure is around 38,000 pounds, before tax.

I think that it would be fair to conclude that most people who complain about income inequality aren't earning $200k per annum. Nor are they investing in expensive minivans.

Can you tell me why you believe wealth inequality shouldn't be an issue for anyone?
 
Last edited:
James R said:
Seattle:
A certain fraction of rich people use drugs and commit crimes, too, you know. Those people tend not to live in such high-density housing, so maybe that's the real problem, not how rich somebody is or isn't? Or maybe crime and drugs are the real problem.
Click to expand...
Studies have shown that drug use per capita is lower in bottom income groups than it is for higher income brackets. A few years back one of the Southern states in the US passed legislation requiring drug testing in order to get public assistance, under the guise of saving taxpayer money. The end result was that the money spent on the testing exceeded the money "saved" by denying benefits to the few that failed the test.
 
Janus58 said:
Studies have shown that drug use per capita is lower in bottom income groups than it is for higher income brackets. A few years back one of the Southern states in the US passed legislation requiring drug testing in order to get public assistance, under the guise of saving taxpayer money. The end result was that the money spent on the testing exceeded the money "saved" by denying benefits to the few that failed the test.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's true but it's not the point. If you are rich and were to live in a building with others and drug usage became a problem, you would move. If you are poor, you can't move.

Also if a rich person is using drugs, they aren't likely to be causing the crime rate to increase in their neighborhood. They also aren't likely to be selling drugs.

It's like the statistic showing that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the US average. That can be true and yet it can be reasonable for someone living along the border with Mexico to be complaining that most of the crime in their neighborhood is caused by immigrants.

Both things can be true.
 
James R said:
The median annual income for people in the United States is close to US$40,000. In the UK, the figure is around 38,000 pounds, before tax.

I think that it would be fair to conclude that most people who complain about income inequality aren't earning $200k per annum. Nor are they investing in expensive minivans.

Can you tell me why you believe wealth inequality shouldn't be an issue for anyone?
Click to expand...

One reason for my comments about those making $200k and complaining is that programs in the US aren't focused enough. Biden had a cut-off for the Covid stimulus checks and the cut-off per person was way over $100k and for a family that could be $200k.

And that was whether they needed it or not. Most people receiving those weren't laid-off. Another example is Biden arguing for free pre-kindergarten for everyone. Not just for those below the poverty line, just free for everyone.

In my opinion, there is too much of that.

I don't think wealth inequality is a problem to be concerned with. Poverty is a concern but worrying about how much someone else has, shouldn't be a concern. Let's say that there was universal free education. Everyone can go to college. Those who get certain degrees will make much more than those who wish to become social workers, elementary school teachers, etc.

Among the higher earners, those with the ability to delay self-gratification will do much better than their higher earning peers. Those that start successful businesses will likely become wealthier than even that group.

Those who choose not to go to college, who choose not to enter the trades, are likely to have much lower paying jobs and are likely to end up with much less wealth.

That's just humans being humans. The focus should be a a level playing field, some form of a social safety net, taking care of those who can't take care of themselves, etc. None of that has much to do with wealth inequality.

It doesn't bother me, takes nothing away from me, that Jeff Bezos has a lot more wealth than I do. It doesn't bother me that a Google employee makes a lot more than a postal employee. It doesn't bother me that one personal friend saves little and has a good time in life and another friend invests, builds wealth and has much more. That's discipline, decision making, free will, whatever you want to call it but it's human nature and that's not going to change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top