151–160 of 462 posts
Here is a place that sucks the money out of the poor for no particular benefit: check cashings. You cash your check for a good percentage of it. If they had a bank account they wouldn't need to spend that money. I don't know how it is in other states but the last time I opened a bank account in California it was a pain. The amount of information needed is certainly not possible for a huge chunk of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if WalMart et. al. could, they would pay 3 cents an hour Sure. Of course they can't, because most of the time even poor people have other options. Also WalMart has in fact supported raising the minimum wage, which is either a virtuous act of corporate responsibility or an attempt to increase the burden on their competitors. because the government forces the wealthy to distribute their wealth I just finished my taxes.…
> Sure. Of course they can't, because most of the time even poor people have other options. If there were no laws, every company would do this, and there wouldn't be other option. You think people work in factories in China for $0.50/day even though they have an option to make a good wage? > Quite a bit of my wealth is being "distributed" Not nearly as much as if you lived in another developed country, where your mon…
Do you realize how utterly ridiculous that sounds?
You really think the only thing preventing a company from paying employees $0.03/hr is a law? Minimum wage in SF is $12.25. By your logic, I should expect every employer to pay no more than $12.25/hr. Why do I not see this?
There is an old saying that "if you took all the money away from all the rich people, and spread it around evenly to everyone else, within 2 or 3 years, all the formerly rich would be rich again having taken advantage of the poor who don't know how to make and keep money". This adage, although heartless to be sure, has some degree of truth to it in my view. The problem is twofold, 1) a lot of people become rich not b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's think in terms of solutions. Concretely, what would you propose to change to make it better? Have you started to raise funds to start and run that business?
Few Ideas: 1. Let a non-profit run those kinds of businesses. The non-profit , before starting would establish clear rules that prevent eviction, discrimination and the other nasty stuff. Financing should be gotten from institutional investors, by promising some fixed rate of return. 2. Let the government run that, it works pretty well in many places around the world , in creating a relatively stable living environme…
Here is a place that sucks the money out of the poor for no particular benefit: check cashings. You cash your check for a good percentage of it. If they had a bank account they wouldn't need to spend that money. I don't know how it is in other states but the last time I opened a bank account in California it was a pain. The amount of information needed is certainly not possible for a huge chunk of people.
The dole payment isn't large enough to afford the price of a washing machine - but it is enough to afford the rent for one. Of course in the end you'll wind up paying much more than the outright buy price, but you can't help it, you can't afford to buy the machine.
(Of course these places rent out much more than the "needed" appliances, you can also get fitness equipment, Playstations etc.)
People in poverty use services and consume goods. Someone provides those goods and services. Would they be better off if every business closed their doors to the impoverished, so as to not "make a buck off the poor"? Of course not! The trailer park owner in the article owns 131 units and "makes" (presumably grosses) $400K a year. Those units are about $250 per month, hardly the stuff of Viking-style pillaging, IMO. T…
Peachum [The Beggar King]: "Because they don't know that we need them."
--Die Dreigroschenoper (1931 Film)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need money to buy into a housing cooperative, and even more to start one (i.e. build a whole new apartment building). The poor people who are renting the apartments in the linked article don't have it; they are living paycheck to paycheck, and frequently falling behind even on that. I'm not seeing a workable alternative beyond government-provided housing, but that doesn't have a good history of success in the US.
Let's for a second assume that people stay in the same house for 30 years[1]. Why can't they just purchase the house cooperative slowly with each rent payment ? My grandma in Israel paid rent in a public housing that had exactly such an arrangement, and after becoming a pensioner, she was finally able to purchase her house. And i have no doubt such arrangements are one reason why Israel, a nation establshed from poor…
Such schemes from government are a must.
They are much better than "welfare" which just encourages people to be lazy. Edit: added about "welfare".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkYEXS16dZA
Latin America has been waking up to the realities of Populism. This, to a large extent, due to Gloria quite literally risking her life to speak-up and educate the populous about such topics.
In the above lined speech she delivers a line that is right on point (translated):
"Populism loves the poor so much it multiplies them".
That, right there, is the root of much of the evil keeping the poor down.
In another passage she reads a definition of Populism penned by another activist:
"The shortcut through which politicians play with the passions, dreams and ideals of people by promising what is impossible, taking advantage of their misery while leaving out logic and reason. It plays with their needs to impose dictatorships."
You see, in the US, Democrats need poor disenfranchised blacks and hispanics. Guaranteed votes. And Republicans need poor disenfranchised bible-thumpers and low education folks. Again, guaranteed votes.
Writing that was disgusting. Yet, it is the truth.
And so, both sides, through Populism, have every incentive to NEVER fix the problems of the poor. If the poor are elevated it is likely that both sides would lose votes. Politicians don't want to work hard for votes. They'd rather promise the impossible and play to your needs and fears and just get you to vote. Once elected, they drop you on your head.
Want to point a finger at evil? Populism.
All four of the top contenders for the Presidency of the US today are populists: Clinton, Sanders, Cruz and Trump. They are all playing people like a finely tuned violin. All of them. Nothing good will come out of electing any of them. Regrettably, there doesn't seem to be a way out of this one. Not voting will only play into the hands of whoever promises more free shit and gets more people to support them.
Poverty isn't hard to fix. First you have to fix the fact that poor people are far more valuable politically while they stay down and remain poor. Imagine a political system where politicians are actually rewarded for fixing problems like poverty. Not sure what that looks like. You'd have to take Populism out of the equation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Predatory businesses are still exploitation. > Building such a business (and I assume running a 131 unit mobile home park) is absolutely work, the value of which is evident by the paying tenants. Running a sweatshop is still work, the value of which is evident by its customers. Just because someone needs to work or a place to live doesn't make it right or commendable.
OK, say those "exploitive" businesses didn't exist. That doesn't subsequently mean "non-exploitive" alternatives would exist, it just means those customers/employees would have no options (not even "exploitive" ones). Is having no option better than having a bad option, when good options aren't available?
There is an old saying that "if you took all the money away from all the rich people, and spread it around evenly to everyone else, within 2 or 3 years, all the formerly rich would be rich again having taken advantage of the poor who don't know how to make and keep money". This adage, although heartless to be sure, has some degree of truth to it in my view. The problem is twofold, 1) a lot of people become rich not b…