Everyone Deserves to Make a Living Wage Regardless of Job/Status

[Elegiac]

if you are speaking about living and work conditions of people living in US/ EU compared to whole previous human history before 2nd world war ?

dude we are living in f.... heaven compared to those times.

And again: unless you are saying that our social and economic systems are perfect, there is still in fact room for improvement meaning that it is entirely possible for people to "fail" through no fault of their own.

Try again. The lack of warfare in the past half-century in Europe isn't due to capitalism.

- - - Updated - - -

You realize this is exactly what money was created for, yes? To make trading goods and services easier so we didn't need to barter?

Again: lol, no.

Money is not a substitute for barter; what preceded the use of money was actually the use of social credit - "barter economies" as capitalists are fond of talking about as the precursor to money economies aren't ever known to have actually existed when you take into account all available anthropological and ethnographic evidence.

Money is just an easy way to think of "amount of shit I can get for the amount of shit I give" That's it. It was a simplification of the process.

I won't bother with the rest.

That's nice, but not really a refutation of social value (and money, being a commodified representation of that) being...you know...arbitrary.

Temporary housing is absolutely necessary and important. Selling houses relies on finding buyers. Owning something usually means you're solely reliable to fix said thing. Land lords fit in exactly where they are right now. They provide non-permanent housing solutions that are less burdensome for the buyer to offload.

"Temporary housing is absolutely necessary and important".

As a public service, yes.

As an exploitable private market? Citation needed.

Man, it's almost as if making a house properly requires a metric fuck ton of resources and time, and like space limited as to where you can even build, and that the capacity to produce such a good is also limited, and like people expect something in return for all that labor of putting it together...

Congratulations, you've successfully discovered that humans operate by pooling their efforts in order to furnish generalised prosperity.

Again: none of what you described requires a privatized housing market.

In addition, man it's almost as if you're seeing that a housing market does exactly what it's supposed to do: give people who WANT something more (not need) the ability to acquire it by allowing them to exchange as much value as they're willing to.

Cool, which is one of the reasons I do not think the real estate sector should exist.

Nice divine fallacy there. It ain't true just because you say it is. If it comes at the expense of labor by someone else, those laborers deserve to attempt to seek as much as they desire in exchange for doing it.

You mean the laborers that end up not earning enough to afford any of the products they make because of wage suppression?

They fit in as people who the bank decided was worthy of a loan large enough to construct said property, and as someone who even wanted to bother pursuing building such a place in the first place. Banks have standards that are backed by statistics for determining their criteria and risks of a person to be lent to. I wonder why that is? Maybe because, statistically, they're ~95% confident someone above that stat line isn't going to become a pain in their ass and default, versus people below those lines usually will?

Yeah, we get that they fit in as people the ruling class deem desirable which helps to perpetuate intergenerational poverty by virtue of exclusion.

We're saying that's a bad thing, hun. Landlords are the definition of a parasite.

[kamuimac]

And again: unless you are saying that our social and economic systems are perfect, there is still in fact room for improvement meaning that it is entirely possible for people to "fail" through no fault of their own.

Try again. The lack of warfare in the past half-century in Europe isn't due to capitalism.

- - - Updated - - -



Again: lol, no.

Money is not a substitute for barter; what preceded the use of money was actually the use of social credit - "barter economies" as capitalists are fond of talking about as the precursor to money economies aren't ever known to have actually existed when you take into account all available anthropological and ethnographic evidence.



That's nice, but not really a refutation of social value (and money, being a commodified representation of that) being...you know...arbitrary.



"Temporary housing is absolutely necessary and important".

As a public service, yes.

As an exploitable private market? Citation needed.



Congratulations, you've successfully discovered that humans operate by pooling their efforts in order to furnish generalised prosperity.

Again: none of what you described requires a privatized housing market.



Cool, which is one of the reasons I do not think the real estate sector should exist.



You mean the laborers that end up not earning enough to afford any of the products they make because of wage suppression?



Yeah, we get that they fit in as people the ruling class deem desirable which helps to perpetuate intergenerational poverty by virtue of exclusion.

We're saying that's a bad thing, hun. Landlords are the definition of a parasite.

so .... comunism in the end. .

who if forbiding state to build affordable housing in new areas on large scale already atm ? a lot of EU countries did it in the 70s and 80s.

- - - Updated - - -

I am talking about America which has been clear here. So you trying to lecture me about race issues and jobs in America is beyond folly.

well maybe you dont know your own economic history and how your industry was build in first place - who knows

because sure as hell without cheap labour of immigrants for almost 3 centuries and the fact that neither WW1 or WW2 has destroyed your country like it did to many european ones you wouldnt be where you are now.

[Elegiac]

so .... comunism in the end. .

who if forbiding state to build affordable housing in new areas on large scale already atm ? a lot of EU countries did it in the 70s and 80s.

"It's communism" isn't an argument nor is it even true because guaranteed housing is literally a guarantee of private property ownership. -.-

Hint: Affordable housing for everyone would collapse the real estate market, which would annoy a lot of wealthy people with money tied up in that market.

[kamuimac]

-.-

Hint: Affordable housing for everyone would collapse the real estate market, which would annoy a lot of wealthy people with money tied up in that market.

it wouldnt if done correcly - aka creating whole new districts of big cities instead trying to build affordable housing in expensive districts .

sadly so far only investment companies and private investors do that- because they are the only ones with balls to risk their capital - i see it in my city - in last 20 years not only whole new 3 districts (1 around new university campus , 2 others on outskirts) were build from 0 but also old ones are getting "filled" with new buildings - and in general most of city is in much better shape - most important its much safer now then back then after dark . And prices have been going up and up in whole city non stop - because of how huge demand there is for new apartments.

[Elegiac]

it wouldnt if done correcly - aka creating whole new districts of big cities instead trying to build affordable housing in expensive districts .

You're clearly not familiar with the history of subsidised housing if you think this hasn't been tried already and abandoned with good reason.

It didn't resolve the problem because as it turns it the fundamental problem is the real estate market itself.

[Krimzin]

I make plenty of money and the service I provide to society is hard enough that it becomes a statistical anomaly such that most people wouldn't be able to do my job even if they had the ability to get training. In addition, I'm statistically rare and better at a plethora of metrics that indicate I have a high degree of potential as a human. I'm also adaptable and would likely be able to find a spot in any type of society.

Man, I have never seen someone try so hard to epeen. Those who truly have net worth and status, don't have to prove to people that they do. I've read through a lot of your post and man, do you have a high opinion of yourself and a shit opinion of anyone who isn't you. You may think you have a high potential as a "human being", I would argue that anyone with this much to prove has more issues than potential. People who this type of disorder typically don't fair to well, so you might need help to work through your issues.
Obviously, just my observations.
In your mind, you know Im right.
Good luck, you are going to need it.

[Endus]

it wouldnt if done correcly - aka creating whole new districts of big cities instead trying to build affordable housing in expensive districts .

Arguing for a return to ghettoes and the like is pretty ridiculous. The reason they diversify neighbourhoods these days is because it's far better for the health of the city, in pretty much every objectively quantifiable respect.

[BeepBoo]

Man, I have never seen someone try so hard to epeen. Those who truly have net worth and status, don't have to prove to people that they do. I've read through a lot of your post and man, do you have a high opinion of yourself and a shit opinion of anyone who isn't you.

I don't have a low opinion of anyone that isn't me. I don't generally have low opinions of anyone, but nice assumption. I simply recognize that there is discrepancy in humans as far as who can do what, what needs to be done, etc.

You may think you have a high potential as a "human being", I would argue that anyone with this much to prove has more issues than potential.

Sure. Except plenty of the most affluent people in our society and the highest achievers are egotistical. Look at memelon musk. Look at kanye west. You're making a generalization that has more than enough examples of people who are ego maniacs that are super successful. Besides that, I'm not trying to flex. Someone asked me why I thought I was special and I fucking answered their question. My stuff is backed up by statistics.

People who this type of disorder typically don't fair to well, so you might need help to work through your issues.

<citation needed>

Obviously, just my observations.
In your mind, you know Im right.

Lol, k.

Good luck, you are going to need it.

Lol, k.

- - - Updated - - -

Arguing for a return to ghettoes and the like is pretty ridiculous. The reason they diversify neighbourhoods these days is because it's far better for the health of the city, in pretty much every objectively quantifiable respect.

Where, exactly, is this being done? All the neighborhoods here are not diverse at all. They're all massive neighborhoods bought by a single builder and built to various pricing specs, otherwise they're all lots that are priced such that you are only going to be someone who will build an expensive ass custom house anyways.

In addition, since I know you have used the term and love to shit talk it... do you not think "white flight" will happen basically whenever this is done? It pretty much has as far as I can tell.

[Endus]

Where, exactly, is this being done? All the neighborhoods here are not diverse at all. They're all massive neighborhoods bought by a single builder and built to various pricing specs, otherwise they're all lots that are priced such that you are only going to be someone who will build an expensive ass custom house anyways.

If you're looking at inner-city areas, rather than suburbs, and looking at the last 20 years, it gets pretty clear.

The difficulty with suburbia is that they'll often require a certain amount of affordable housing, but it's easy to put that into a set of townhomes or low-rise apartment buildings on the outer edge of the development, so they often don't feel a part of the same neighbourhood. That's an issue with developers, rather than the planning intent.

In addition, since I know you have used the term and love to shit talk it... do you not think "white flight" will happen basically whenever this is done? It pretty much has as far as I can tell.

I mock the term because it isn't "white flight". It's "racist flight". Racist people move out of a suburb when there's too many minorities moving in. Because they're racist. It has essentially nothing to do with economics.

As an example of the kind of development I'm talking about, Toronto's Regent Park is a good one; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regent...alization_Plan

[BeepBoo]

The difficulty with suburbia is that they'll often require a certain amount of affordable housing, but it's easy to put that into a set of townhomes or low-rise apartment buildings on the outer edge of the development, so they often don't feel a part of the same neighbourhood. That's an issue with developers, rather than the planning intent.

Planning intent, as you're putting it, shouldn't be a thing in the way you're saying they do it. That isn't a mandate around here and I hope it never is.

As an example of the kind of development I'm talking about, Toronto's Regent Park is a good one; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regent...alization_Plan

Thanks for the example. Not my cup of tea.

[Endus]

Planning intent, as you're putting it, shouldn't be a thing in the way you're saying they do it. That isn't a mandate around here and I hope it never is.

It's standard practice pretty much everywhere, dude.

City planners determine zoning regs and the like, and what's required of any development that's to be done.
Developers who want to build submit a proposal to the city planners, who determine if it meets those requirements. Which often include things like how many affordable housing units will be required in the building or development.
If the plan doesn't meet the requirements, the developer isn't allowed to move forward until they amend the plan to comply.

There's a very few places in the USA that don't work like this. It's basically just Houston, actually.

[BeepBoo]

It's standard practice pretty much everywhere, dude.

You're confusing what I said. I'm not talking the idea of residential/commercial/industrial, etc. I'm talking dumb shit like "Your subdivision must also contain 30% multifamily housing/affordable housing" or whatever. It's left to the builder to decide how they want to do their residential construction. What I'm saying is we don't have mixed hoods and forcing that type of policy goes a bit beyond just the standard types of zoning.

[Endus]

You're confusing what I said. I'm not talking the idea of residential/commercial/industrial, etc. I'm talking dumb shit like "Your subdivision must also contain 30% multifamily housing/affordable housing" or whatever. It's left to the builder to decide how they want to do their residential construction. What I'm saying is we don't have mixed hoods and forcing that type of policy goes a bit beyond just the standard types of zoning.

Right. You're opposing the entire concept of zoning laws.

That's what I said. Pretty much every single city in the USA uses some variation of zoning laws, that work as I described. As I said, basically the one exception in the USA is Houston.

City planning isn't like SimCity. You don't just paint an area with "Residential" and then random shit gets built without you getting a say.

[BeepBoo]

City planning isn't like SimCity. You don't just paint an area with "Residential" and then random shit gets built without you getting a say.

I mean that's precisely how it works in our city of 100k (at least for residential). But, you're right. I do think zoning is stupid. However, I REALLY think zoning like what you're talking about is stupid, and that type of zoning doesn't exist here, and I hope it never does.

[Endus]

I mean that's precisely how it works in our city of 100k (at least for residential). But, you're right. I do think zoning is stupid. However, I REALLY think zoning like what you're talking about is stupid, and that type of zoning doesn't exist here, and I hope it never does.

It's not a "type of zoning". It's literally what zoning is. I am literally just describing the job of city planners to you.

[BeepBoo]

It's not a "type of zoning". It's literally what zoning is. I am literally just describing the job of city planners to you.

Not all zoning is the same, as exemplified here. Sometimes, cities just have big general categories and that's all. Sometimes they are anal assholes like santa fe and can even control the architecture. You're not describing "all zoning" because "all zoning" is not the same. The level of control is hugely important to me. Like I said, your type of zoning demands do not exist here.

[Elegiac]

Not all zoning is the same, as exemplified here. Sometimes, cities just have big general categories and that's all. Sometimes they are anal assholes like santa fe and can even control the architecture. You're not describing "all zoning" because "all zoning" is not the same. The level of control is hugely important to me. Like I said, your type of zoning demands do not exist here.

"Planning intent" is literally what zoning is; allocating areas of land with the intent that they be utilised for X purpose be it commerce, industry, or types of residence - including whether or not, or how much, that is public housing.

So...no. Mixed income residential zoning regulations have been a thing for a long, long time in the US. Which is good practice for aforementioned reason of avoiding the creation of ghettos.

[BeepBoo]

So...no. Mixed income residential zoning regulations have been a thing for a long, long time in the US. Which is good practice for aforementioned reason of avoiding the creation of ghettos.

When I say here, I mean my city. I don't care what other places do, especially metro areas. Ergo, no, we do not have that type of garbage here. It can stay not here.

[Easo]

I make plenty of money and the service I provide to society is hard enough that it becomes a statistical anomaly such that most people wouldn't be able to do my job even if they had the ability to get training. In addition, I'm statistically rare and better at a plethora of metrics that indicate I have a high degree of potential as a human. I'm also adaptable and would likely be able to find a spot in any type of society.

You truly are Übermensch, I bow to you. But seriously though this is quite funny, the ego gotta be massive.

but banks are amazing.

its thx to banks and loans that we can invest so easily , companies can grow and give jobs to even more people

have you ever heard about "financial leverage" ?

Oh yes, banks are amazing. Especially those too big to fail and capable of creating global economical crises. Oh, wait...
Or going poof with your money. Or being used in shady deals.

its not. people can live in tent if they cant afford to rent the room .

if they want apartment they should work .

claiming otherwise is pure communistic propaganda.

Can you people stop using word "communism" when you do not understand what it means?

[Elegiac]

When I say here, I mean my city. I don't care what other places do, especially metro areas. Ergo, no, we do not have that type of garbage here. It can stay not here.

So what happens when homelessness spikes in your area?