But there is always the mitigating factor of contribution to society, and to the running of society. You may be finding fulfilment by spending your days painting landscape pictures, for example, but why should someone else then subsidise you just so you can feel good about what you do?
I feel like that about any "industry" that requires heavy and ongoing support from the tax payers. Why am I funding some writer or film maker so they can make films that are not only complete crap but signal virtues and espouse politics that I disagree with? Why am I funding someone to become a ballet dancer or classical musician just so they can go onto work for a company that also requires tax payer support?
It's not just the arts. I know a woman who studied psychology got her degree couldn't find work because that is a hard field to find work in. So she did a law degree, another field which is hard to find work in. She completed that and now works in childcare. She probably won't ever earn enough to pay back her Govt support loans to do her first two degrees which she will also probably never use. She would have been better off saving her time and energy and just working in childcare from the start.
I think there needs to be limits that supports people studying but in fields society requires and they should have an obligation to use the skills they acquire. A few too many permanent students around.
UBI sounds like socialism except you don’t even do work. I’m afraid that UBI can be the gateway to Socialism which in turn would most likely lead to Communism. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Also, do you realize that if everybody (Compared to strictly the unemployed which is what I assumed you meant who would be getting UBI) gets UBI then everything would pretty much be the same. Because if every person gets $1,000 dollars, than it’s practically worthless. It’s only when something is rare that it becomes valuable. BECAUSE everyone gets that extra money, EVERYTHING will simply go up in price since well...they know everyone can afford it with that extra bucks. Which means everything will balance out. Now...what’s that called again? Oh yes, inflation.
We're definitely heading for socialism in the anglosphere. I'd laugh if it wasn't for the tankies.
The rise of socialism has been a solved problem for roughly two centuries now. If too many people don't feel they have an ownership stake in your country, you have an enormous problem.
To quote one Minneapolis woman regarding the riots: "It isn't ours."
They don't own their homes.
They don't own their businesses.
When you object to any form of redistribution, you're just holding down the lid on a boiling pot, making it that much worse when it erupts. What is going on in the United States is not remotely sustainable. We have tons of vents, but you demand that each one be welded shut.
It’s the same argument against Andrew Yang’s policy when he promised to give everyone $1,000 dollars per month. Really nice policy on paper, but in practice fails and becomes utterly useless.
We're already handing out about $1k/month from Federal social support alone. Yang was on point, there.
In practice, we're forcing people into welfare traps where they cannot meaningfully work, or they lose their benefits.
Personally I prefer a negative taxation scheme. -100% taxes for your first ~20k of income or whatever. Effectively allowing the government to straight subsidize employment.
There is so much I want to respond to here; but I think for my mental health I will refrain from saying all that I would like to. And so I will restrict myself to just one item.
When you object to any form of redistribution, you're just holding down the lid on a boiling pot, making it that much worse when it erupts. What is going on in the United States is not remotely sustainable. We have tons of vents, but you demand that each one be welded shut.
If welding it shut means giving people something they never earned for then you better damn well believe it’s welded. If you don’t work for something then you don’t earn it. Change whatever you must (Lower housing prices, higher wages) but never think that stealing something and redistributing it is equal being called fair.
Exactly. Hence why I dislike the idea of UBI. Like what the government usually does, which is trying to help, they only make matters worse. Best to leave it alone instead of screw it up further.
Personally I prefer a negative taxation scheme. -100% taxes for your first ~20k of income or whatever. Effectively allowing the government to straight subsidize employment.
Negative taxes...? I’ve never heard of such a thing. I’m going to have to think about this, I like the sound of it initially but don’t have the knowledge on whether or not they actually work.
As in ensured it could never take hold, by making sure the population owned their own homes. Bismark did it in Germany, the Democrats did it in the US post-WWII. Home ownership promotes conservatism, renting discourages it.
This involved high top-tier tax rates and land development policies. In the US, it will require outlawing the use of residential property as investment, at a minimum.
If welding it shut means giving people something they never earned for then you better damn well believe it’s welded. If you don’t work for something then you don’t earn it. Change whatever you must (Lower housing prices, higher wages) but never think that stealing something and redistributing it is equal being called fair.
Exactly. Hence why I dislike the idea of UBI. Like what the government usually does, which is trying to help, they only make matters worse. Best to leave it alone instead of screw it up further.
Negative taxes...? I’ve never heard of such a thing. I’m going to have to think about this, I like the sound of it initially but don’t have the knowledge on whether or not they actually work.
It's been done on small scales in the US by various tax credit programs - namely EIC or the Earned Income Credit. It's been shown to have an incredibly high return on investment as the money rapidly cycles back into the economy.
Basically, you make $1000, the government doubles it. Past $20k or whatever line it would scale into a progressive tax.
There is so much I want to respond to here; but I think for my mental health I will refrain from saying all that I would like to. And so I will restrict myself to just one item.
Hm. Very interesting article. I’m not saying you changed my mind of UBI, but I definitely see it in a brighter light. I’ll look into it more. Thanks for sharing.
Again, I have chosen to bold the phrases "demographic" and "human capital" because I want to highlight a disturbing tendency to systematically dehumanize others. This is a red flag. This is a huge red flag.
interestedwriter1710 said:
I will NOT make excuses for violent perpetrators, unless there is repentance, and every single person who has ever attacked me, be it violently or otherwise, will be remembered. Mental illness is a serious issue for many demographics around the world, but not every single person suffering from mental illness will set out to attack certain ethnicities in their lynch mob mentalities, particularly in targeting women and the elderly. I myself needed to grapple with multiple issues for years, and have never touched a hair on any metaphorical bystander.
I'm glad you and I can agree that the vast majority of mentally ill people are not violent perpetrators. However, due to your own story and statements you are one of those people.
Depression is a mental illness. You yourself said that you were expelled from institutions multiple times because of your increasingly violent disposition. Ergo, you are a violent person. You at least have been such a danger to other people that you were removed from learning communities. This is not gaslighting. These are your own words. This is what you chose to say.
You're right, they aren't. I have not scapegoated Asian people. This is an attempt for you to reframe my criticism of your ideas and your communication style as a racist diatribe on my part. This is obviously not the case, as I have done little to comment or assert any characteristics about the Asian population. One of the benefits of not being racist, or approaching a race ("culture") founded perspective on human value, is that I do not have to hide behind human capital or demographics to shroud my perspectives.
interestedwriter1710 said:
I have an increasing body of experience and multiple corroborations from professors and course coordinators pertaining to my prodigic mathematical maturity, as I continue to gain further maturity in multiple different subfields, this while managing a number of imbeciles who perpetually underscore by academic material, only for such mistakes to be fixed after. Due to the quality of some of the material that I have written, in LaTeX, across multiple subfields, in the theory of differential equations, classical differential geometry, applications of matrix theory, analytic number theory, etc., various persons had brought up the suggestion to me pertaining to the possibility of becoming a masters student in their respective institutions to continue "further study".
Yes, I have interacted and engaged, mathematically, while attempting to be more rigorous, with a number of so-called graduate and Ph.D. students, and every time I attempt further discussions of more advanced material or try to cross subfields, every time, they fall short.
I'm happy that you've found a place that can accommodate your style and academic interests. Per your previous comments, I understand your pathway to higher education was rocky. What with all the times you were expelled for your "violent disposition."
I am going to assume that while you did not say you have published or presented research, that what you meant you was you have. Otherwise you would be boasting about how well you can use an open source document layout application and the encouraging things your professors said to you. When I did undergraduate research, at the end of that leg of the journey exploring our research question we would put together a poster to present within the university and, on a couple occasions, at conferences where I could meet researchers with overlapping interests and learn about their projects. This is a big step on the journey from undergraduate to graduate researcher.
interestedwriter1710 said:
They are overrepresented despite, and I emphasize, despite the excessive discrimination and violent assaults, the racist garbage that Asian-American demographics need to deal with on a daily basis. ... If there was at all a meritocratic culture, the East-Asian representation would go further, much further than currently, in the same way that in certain institutions in the 20th century, the Jewish representation in STEM verged on 50% after the removal of discriminatory Jewish quotas.
I think it's interesting that you talk about how in face of this incredible discrimination Asian Americans have achieved profound notability in academia and that if not for that the representation would be higher. Higher than 2x representation? Given that Jewish people account for some 2% of the Jewish population, and apparently rose to 50% of STEM faculty at some nebulous point in time during the last century, could we be safe to assume that in a just world STEM faculty would be 100% Asian?
In the spirit of assuming a good faith argument, I'm going to assume that's not what you meant. As I have had to struggle to find your "true" meaning throughout. You have made a statistical claim. Good claims are supported by data, and we can verify they are good claims by looking at the data source. You have failed to provide a source. I found a Pew Research Center Survey from 2013 that collected some information on Jewish Americans. It, like the previous sources, took under five minutes to find. If you go to page 111, you can see net % attainment of post grad degree is 28%. Which is pretty high! However since Jewish people represent approximately 1.9% of the population, even if we assume 100% STEM field doctoral attainment among that group they only represent 0.53% of all American advanced STEM degree holders.
The bush I've dancing around is: what should the number be? What percentage of STEM doctoral attainment in the US should Asian Americans get if they weren't not being unfairly discriminated against?
More over you fail to address or recognize the data sources that I brought to bare. I think this shows, on your end, a bad faith argument.
interestedwriter1710 said:
This is absolutely and utterly false, the mass shooter does not contribute equally as the doctor, nor does the NEET who's only life skills is to play video games, eat, shit and sleep. And although the typical liberal arts major will disproportionately see an improvement in their quality of life due to STEM human capital, this, sadly, will not be the case the other way around, as an obnoxious amount of entitlement insists that they are enlighted to the fruits of STEM cognitive labor that others, spending up to 14 hours per day, develop.
Again you ignore my argument that unless we measure productivity via profit, there's no good way to measure it other than time spent being productive. If that's the case, then a welder who works fourteen hour days has the same value as a chemist who works fourteen hour days. Again, you fail to address the idea that is being put forth. Here you supplant the argument I make by going back to a previous well, discussing outliers. Most people are not mass shooters or NEETs. I would say there is, however, a secretly resentment that appears common to both groups.
I would argue you are, in fact, totally wrong about the quality of life improvements of the average STEM vs liberal arts degree holder. Our societies are framed and kept running not by the engineers, mathematicians, or scientists but by the attorneys, social scientists and classically educated bureaucrats who fill government duties. Our entertainment and modes of expression are modulated by these people who have emphasized a liberal arts skillset.
This is actually something Kurt Vonnegut reflected on this in his work Cat's Cradle. Vonnegut's father and brother were both scientists. After Kurt came home from WWII he decided to pursue a degree in letters, so in classical literature and history. His father and brother would deride his education as "ornamental" and tell him he was a failure. Today, Kurt Vonnegut is regarded as one of the greatest contributions America has made to the cannon of Western literature. If you enjoy philosophical and thoughtful prose with timeless humor, you should read Cat's Cradle or any one of a number of his other works. A true gem of American literature.
interestedwriter1710 said:
No, I am not American, I can choose to refuse to contribute to the United States, and refuse to share a society with increasingly entitled and unempathetic demographics who insistently fail to sympathize with the centuries of plights of Asians around the world. If I need to, I will contribute to the PRC, the People's Republic of China, and if the warmongers in DC are insistent, then maybe your Gen Z demographic can see how much the entire world has actually transformed when they make the first attempt to invade the South Chinese Sea.
There's a certain disconnect here. You are not American, ergo you do not decide whether or not you share a society with Americans because you do not. You share a society with other Australians. Let's look at this another way: you and I share a society here on BMR. We have our own rules, customs, and language that we share in common. We have a hierarchy of leadership. We have our own social mores and taboos. These things compose a society.
Right now, you and I share a society. You do not get to choose to not share it with me. Because you are not in charge.
If you feel so strongly that you need to defend China, I get it. Kind of. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you possess Chinese citizenship? Otherwise it sounds like you're more interested in killing Gen Z than standing up to defend a society you believe in. I will say this: if you feel that you would fight and die for another country, it may behoove you to go there. If you feel such strong passion for the place, the culture, the history, then that's where you ought to be.
I'm not knocking China. PRC rose out of the rubble of the warlord period following almost uniquely profound exploitation by the British Empire, the biggest drug dealers in the world's history. The PRC exists in the legacy of a culture that, insofar as I know, is one of the world's oldest! The weight of history must be a superb mantle.
interestedwriter1710 said:
I never stated that they weren't, I purposefully choose careful language, and to phrase suggestions as suggestions. In fact, I had already alluded to the possibility that the engineer or the doctor may be compensated more reasonably, whereas the caretaker may not. Read.
And I reemphasize, if not for the mass de-affirmative action that Asian-American demographics experience, the representation would be significantly higher.
Again, how much higher? What's the number? If the US graduate system already sees Asian Americans surpass parity by nearly 100%, what is the point at which the attainment is fair and just? What do you think that is? I've noticed you are careful not to refer to people who are not Asian as human beings. I note you're careful to keep your language murky, to refer to groups in loosely mathematical and business terms.
interestedwriter1710 said:
The fucking gall, and given after the millions of civilian casualties as a consequence of the multiple invasions of former Persia in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The construction of whiteness is fascinating, particularly if you're interested in the history of colonialism, American history (broadly inclusive of N. and S. America), and current events within this country. I'm not sure when Persians were initially considered, but Arabs are as well, as well as other groups from North Africa and West Asia. It's profoundly arbitrary. Another interest quirk of white supremacy's legacy is that in the run up to the most recent US Census they were going to classify people of Portuguese descent--specifically, people descended from the European nation on the Iberian peninsula--as Hispanic. Even though that's a linguistic designation for Spanish speakers, and the Portuguese speak Portuguese. It was only resolved that Portuguese people would continue to be recorded as white when Keanu Reeves tweeted the Census Bureau, because it turns out he's of Portuguese descent.
It's a ridiculous system, but, profound wtf about American racial identity aside this response of yours is so fascinating. The idea that the US's history of victimizing the middle east for oil is somehow worse because they're considered white inherently frames a worldview where you don't attack your own race. Where you stick to and defend your own kind. So, with that in mind, do you think it's a natural state that people necessarily segment by race and compete with each other by race? That some races have qualities others do not?
interestedwriter1710 said:
Gen Z in America sees waves of BLM movements without a shred of thought for their Asian counterparts? Don't be surprised if entire demographics in the future lack much sympathy for you as they become increasingly disinterested in collaborations. Of course, they must defend themselves.
Well, you obviously missed the point. But in a way that again speaks to an idea of racial cohesiveness, as if somehow you an Australian of Chinese descent are somehow effected by the lack of representation in the BLM movement in the US and that means you are not obligated to stand up for African Americans. That's certainly a telling take.
I do get upset. Imagine giving someone food because they say they’re hungry. But they NEVER eat it. So then what’s the point of giving them food? I’m missing out on vital calories and they will never eat the food to eventually get the opportunity to get their own food. The purpose as to why I’m giving the food, which is to help them in a desperate state, would be warped into me rewarding their life choice of doing nothing but less. I get nothing in return while they receive all the benefit. In nature, that’s called a parasitic relationship. I think sometimes people need help, and no matter the slow/fast pace they go at, I’m more than willing to lend a helping hand. But don’t expect a handout when you choose to give up and be complacent with your predicament.
I wouldn’t say a genuine happiness from working. I think me being responsible is more important than sitting and relaxing all day long and being rewarded $300-400 dollars more for it. I‘m not in a desperate state where I need unemployment, even if it was tempting, I knew that in my heart I should go with the right decision.
I think 70% is absolutely ludicrous. I put myself in their shoes and think “Would I be content with this?” and I say no. Even if they’re well off, that doesn’t give the federal government the right to leech off the rich so much. The price of taxes should be equally distributed depending on how much income you make. Meaning, the burden of taxes should feel the same for each class (low, middle, high) but obviously the percentage should be changed depending on annual income. It’s not for one class but all of the classes responsibility since they all live in the same nation.
Keywords on “Choose to spend your time wisely” since I guarantee you many people won’t. This can also be done when you have other responsibilities.
Yeah I figured, it sounded like a Scandinavia country. They have a lot of social programs and are more capitalistic than America. Weird combination but it works for their significantly smaller population compared to the large behemoth that America is. Some of those programs would absolutely fail (unfortunately).
UBI sounds like socialism except you don’t even do work. I’m afraid that UBI can be the gateway to Socialism which in turn would most likely lead to Communism. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Also, do you realize that if everybody (Compared to strictly the unemployed which is what I assumed you meant who would be getting UBI) gets UBI then everything would pretty much be the same. Because if every person gets $1,000 dollars, than it’s practically worthless. It’s only when something is rare that it becomes valuable. BECAUSE everyone gets that extra money, EVERYTHING will simply go up in price since well...they know everyone can afford it with that extra bucks. Which means everything will balance out. Now...what’s that called again? Oh yes, inflation.
It’s the same argument against Andrew Yang’s policy when he promised to give everyone $1,000 dollars per month. Really nice policy on paper, but in practice fails and becomes utterly useless.
Maybe I’m being pessimistic and maybe we don’t see eye to eye. But this was a nice way of expressing our different point of views in a respectful manner Laa . I think we’re reaching the conclusion of where we come to an understanding to agree to disagree on certain topics while agreeing in others.
Yeah, I think we're coming to the conclusion as well. I get mentally fatigued quite easily, so I have to cut conversations like these off sooner or later either way, and I think we've had a nice exchange so far, so yeah! I wish you a good day and thank you for this conversation.
Well I try to advocate For this so let's start on topic.
Lazy, would be a no. What no one talks about Is detestable work culture. You have the flu, and never have used a sick day? You can't call off no one can fill your shift. If you are a worker picking up slack, and get overwhelmed so you can't help those actually slacking you get yelled at for not being a team player. Take vacation several months in advance so it can be affordable? Hemming, and hawing by management that someone with higher seniority wants those days.
No cost of living increases, no high performance raises. And when they raise minimUm wage you get wage locked so you have to make do.
Company loyalty to people who work 30 yrs is gone, and a new cheaper, but incompetent warm body will do fine.
It's not the pay that's screwed up it's the system then if you want a job, everyone expects you to have three years experience for entry level jobs then wonder why workers when given a small bump in money flocked away from businesses.
---
Now with my slight rant on work place BS, let's move onto what I wish we would do about it. Make less expensive living expenses, small two bedroom two bath with a shared kitchen family room could cost easily 50-90k depending on where you live which meaning owning a home on a ten or twenty year mortgage that is actually affordable to someone making minimum wage. A basics car without all the extra costing under 10k. That's cheap, light weight, and good gas mileage.
So if you have the unfortunate extras of having started a family early you have hope with little or no help from others. If not you should be able to easily start life on your own without inheritance or some luck falling in your lap. Then once paid off you can move up if so inclined or keep living with just basics.
I find myself rejecting the idea of capitalism as conducive to society more and more lately.
1. Should anyone be rich/wealthy? Like, I know the defense of the big business CEO is that they earned that money, so, they deserve the mansion with many unlived in rooms, the yacht, the novelty cars, the designer food and clothes, etc. But how is that a cooperative or healthy mindset when it comes to paying people who work for you? "I can't because the mansion and yacht are mine and I deserve them." I used to think that a rebellion against class had to do with envy of wealth. It's not. It's a rejection of sociopathic behaviour where someone sits on a throne, refusing to give in while on the backs of the toil and suffering of others. We're a community. Get out of here with your "so long as I got mine" mindset.
2. The model doesn't make sense to me anymore. It's that McDonald's Corporate Mentality: you keep building Golden Arches, to sell more HAMBURGERS in order to MAKE MOre MONey to sell MORE HAMBURGERS. Where are we going with this? What are you doing?
**was listening to pro-union talk this morning got me amped up, so, there's a bit of strawman in this little vent. But I thought I'd share my thoughts anyway.
1 - The problem about putting restrictions on the market is usually it helps make Walmart more money. I.e. if you make a rule that shuts down another mom, and pop shop the people only have one place to go. Look at with Covid the Government slapped down all kinds of 'non-essencial businesses' Then allowed Walmart to take in the profits. The Unions are a mixed bag in some issues they are a great boom to the people, while in others they are a blood sucking leech taking from the employees without the benefits a union is supposed to give.
Also remember the number of people who make money on a stupid yaght cause someone has the money to fund it. (I hate the houses of excess) Yet the designers, the builders, the appliances, the beds ect are all more people working that without the excess would be out of work. These wealthy people who buy 'Selfish Items' (Or pay high prices for crap that their local elites sell) I do not particularly like, but a lot of their stupidity is why their taxes(When they can't lobby some government actor to give them ways to slide on taxes) Go to funding all kinds of programs.
As for the difference in socialism systems unless you have one that has no government interference we get horrible human rights violations. Sure you can grow your country by giving them money, but if the shelves are empty what good is it? Same goes for on paper you make X, but the prices are all over the place. (Talk to people who lived through the Soviet union's phase before they opened up a little to investment). Chine with their labor camps, kid labor, and business practices that lead to suicide. Just because they will keep you moving does not always equal a positive.
Funny enough the US has social communes you can join. I have never been part of one only talked to people who have, and they are hard the good ones show no favoritism as well as you tend to spend all your time working. With little private ownership, (Sometimes they will expect you to share electronics, and the such, but won't gripe about family Momentos ect.) Which I think is really cool, as much as I would never do it myself.
Now personally I believe we are going to move to a new kind of system as automation, and wealth structures break down. I do not think that system will be either capitalistic or Socialist as both systems have a lot of issues that simply cause more headaches than good.
2 - While I agree with you, the problem is the common person. McDonald's won't change till they have dead drive throughs. Walmart will continue as long as people are willing to (Or have too) shop there. I've known people who try to open up shops (This is Chicago) get robbed blind, and have to shut down ruining plans for retirement. Then the city makes it where theft won't be delt with under 1k. Does Walmart really care? Or the family owned local shop?
On a personal note, Uber tried artificially lowering prices to destroy all their competition, and mostly succeeded even Lyft is more and more rocky with their practices now. I use both to make money, but you can see the ways governments cater to those who can pay. You or I can not just opened up a local transport business cause you need a taxi emblem which is stilled 20-30k and that means you will not see profit for a while, and God forbid your car breaks down.
I find myself rejecting the idea of capitalism as conducive to society more and more lately.
1. Should anyone be rich/wealthy? Like, I know the defense of the big business CEO is that they earned that money, so, they deserve the mansion with many unlived in rooms, the yacht, the novelty cars, the designer food and clothes, etc. But how is that a cooperative or healthy mindset when it comes to paying people who work for you? "I can't because the mansion and yacht are mine and I deserve them." I used to think that a rebellion against class had to do with envy of wealth. It's not. It's a rejection of sociopathic behaviour where someone sits on a throne, refusing to give in while on the backs of the toil and suffering of others. We're a community. Get out of here with your "so long as I got mine" mindset.
2. The model doesn't make sense to me anymore. It's that McDonald's Corporate Mentality: you keep building Golden Arches, to sell more HAMBURGERS in order to MAKE MOre MONey to sell MORE HAMBURGERS. Where are we going with this? What are you doing?
**was listening to pro-union talk this morning got me amped up, so, there's a bit of strawman in this little vent. But I thought I'd share my thoughts anyway.
I'm typically not inclined to recommending someone read theory as it can seem tedious and boring, I feel like you might get something out of Peter Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread. It's a little dated now in it's examples; but I think the underlying principles that he covers you would find interesting.
I'm typically not inclined to recommending someone read theory as it can seem tedious and boring, I feel like you might get something out of Peter Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread. It's a little dated now in it's examples; but I think the underlying principles that he covers you would find interesting.
This was great, thank you. I'll add it to the research I'm doing right now on these subjects.
I watched this video by Chapo Trap House on an article by the Federalist condemning the raising worker wages and resulting price hike of products at Chipotle. I think their commentary is pretty spot on, not only with the false impression that service industry jobs are "entry level" (since when? They haven't been that in a long fucking time. What other jobs are adults with families supposed to have then?) But also that the price of products going up right now is the fault of workers needing more pay.
...so you're saying that businesses aren't (or shouldn't be) allowed to maintain a profit margin so they can keep the business running...?
Without profit, how do businesses invest in new equipment, new ventures, new resources, new materials, new training...? Larger businesses might be able to absorb some of these expenses, but smaller businesses won't be able to.
Umm government intervention of gas, the regulations on California's ports, and making it cheaper to produce goods in countries that allow exploration of their people have nothing to do with our issues right?
US abuse of workers contribution is no small factor, but nothing is as simple as one issue.
Amazingly all the people from those countries I talk to that fled to the US do not feel the same odd that.
Though seriously if Americans did not always want for bigger, and better, and start focusing on what was functional I feel we would be in a better place. Yet everything has to be a 400-500k houses or a 35k car then wonder why the average person can keep their head just under water.
As though we haven't been conditioned to want these things by the culture we're surrounded by and what corporations are willing to offer us; but no, everything is personal choice, everything.
As though we haven't been conditioned to want these things by the culture we're surrounded by and what corporations are willing to offer us; but no, everything is personal choice, everything.
Here you and I share common ground if not for the same reasons. Though, I have no idea how to change the direction of conditioning in a healthy way. Yet we have people thinking you have to go from mom and dad's basement to a 200-300k house, and act surprised people fail.
Personal choice has limits to what's available, and as we have argued some in the free will discussions so that's a rough one on many levels.
Amazingly all the people from those countries I talk to that fled to the US do not feel the same odd that.
Though seriously if Americans did not always want for bigger, and better, and start focusing on what was functional I feel we would be in a better place. Yet everything has to be a 400-500k houses or a 35k car then wonder why the average person can keep their head just under water.
Most houses are expensive to buy because people and companies buy up homes to rent them out, which makes available housing more scarce and thus drives up the price. Basic supply and demand.
Regarding the cars, the prices go up with all the new tech and features that get shoe horned in. Same way I have seen apartment owners make token improvements to their properties so they can raise the property value and the rent their tenants have to pay. Capitalism is exploitative by nature.
Most houses are expensive to buy because people and companies buy up homes to rent them out, which makes available housing more scarce and thus drives up the price. Basic supply and demand.
Regarding the cars, the prices go up with all the new tech and features that get shoe horned in. Same way I have seen apartment owners make token improvements to their properties so they can raise the property value and the rent their tenants have to pay. Capitalism is exploitative by nature.
The last part is where we disagree, though as in any system it is open to exploitation in a capitalistic system. Though not a feature of the system. Buying a house to rent out for more than you paid is like scalping products, and a practice I despise. Might start my own thread about this once I have put my thoughts in order
I am not saying we can't have better items, but for some reason they stop making more basic things, and this is the part that bothers me.
...so you're saying that businesses aren't (or shouldn't be) allowed to maintain a profit margin so they can keep the business running...?
Without profit, how do businesses invest in new equipment, new ventures, new resources, new materials, new training...? Larger businesses might be able to absorb some of these expenses, but smaller businesses won't be able to.
Constant growth is unnatural and, more importantly, unsustainable. When such unnatural growth occurs in the human body, it's frequently referred to as 'cancer'. It's normal for businesses to hit plateaus. Realistically, companies can do with smaller profit margins. Because most of those profit margins don't go towards the development stuff you mentioned. Especially not with people like Jeff Bezos having the obscene amounts of personal wealth that they do.
Your support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)
. I think we’re reaching the conclusion of where we come to an understanding to agree to disagree on certain topics while agreeing in others.
