Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 462 posts

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#241

Post by gradstudent »

gozur88 wrote: post #232
HillRat wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is forcing these property owners to "rent units below cost;" they set the rents on their houses and apartments. The issue is that many of these people buy properties that are out of code with no intent to improve them, and then rent them anyway. Yes, it's not economically-rational to rebuild them. No, it's not the government's fault that the slumlord's business model depends on flouting code and safety violati…

>The simple answer is that if I can't afford to maintain a minimal level of environmental and residential standards, I'm not allowed to rent out my property. That's all well and good, but what happens to the people who are renting there, and what happens to the people who can't afford a place with "minimal level of environmental and residential standards"? Will those people be better off sleeping rough?

> Will those people be better off sleeping rough?

Everyone should have access to basic housing. If they do not that's a failure of government to provide a sufficient social safety net.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#242

Post by Matumio »

bardworx wrote: post #145
ubernostrum wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't subsequently mean "non-exploitive" alternatives would exist, it just means those customers/employees would have no options (not even "exploitive" ones). The hidden assumption here is that producing the goods and services required to keep a single human being alive in relative comfort (fed, sheltered, educated, healthy) necessarily requires an expenditure of manual effort roughly equivalent to what that h…

Isn't Communism very similar to your perfect world? All the people were provided for and they worked for everyone and everyone was equal. However, that didn't work out too well. In any system, some folk will always squatter and some will always attempt to gain power/advantage. Your world sounds too much like Atlas Shrugged.

Communism is much more focused about workers and equality. Just providing the bare basic needs for everyone, without expecting them to work or live in a certain way, is a very different concept. What if all basic goods can be produced with hardly any human labour? A rich enough society can be so far beyond those basic needs that forcing anyone to work for survival can only be explained as a form of punishment.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#243

Post by mruniverse »

mentando wrote: post #233
pink_dinner wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sigh do we really need to have this discussion and dou you actually think communism would ever work? The problem is that pesky human nature gets in the way.

Yeah, in theory it is awesome, but it just does not work in real life...

I think even in theory it's not awesome.

What is awesome is a system where everyone benefits when everyone is self-interested.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#245

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

darawk wrote: post #19
darpa_escapee wrote: post #10

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.

What is the alternative? These people aren't forced to live there. If there were a cheaper, better alternative available to them, they'd probably take it. Nobody is 'profiting from poverty' here. These landlords would make much more money if these people were wealthier! I'm sure they'd love to make nicer places and charge higher rents with higher margins, but they can't, because that's all these people can pay.

>> What is the alternative? These people aren't forced to live there. If there were a cheaper, better alternative available to them, they'd probably take it.

What sort of lame excuse is that for exploitation? "These people could be much worse off if they were being exploited more"? Well, duh. The point is that they're in a dire situation in the first place because they're being exploited. Their landlord is not some benevolent benefactor, he or she is the purveyor of their misery, that's the only reason why he or she has a say in how deep that misery is.

By analogy, imagine you grab someone off the street and beat the shit out of them. You break their ribs, kick their teeth in, bash in their skull, but stop just short of killing them. Then you go "hey, it could be much worse: I could have killed you".

Well, yeah, you could have. You could also have avoided attacking them in the first place. They're not "better off" thanks to you, they're much worse off than they could have been because of you.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#246

Post by ageofwant »

ABC (Australian Broadcast Corporation) has a taxpayer funded show that explains consumers what their right are: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/thecheckout/

Its very entertaining and highly recommended. The first episode has a segment about people that rent appliances because they cannot afford them, and the companies that exploit them. Eye opening and infuriating.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#248

Post by randyrand »

personjerry wrote: post #127

One thing I find interesting about the current state of affairs is that the top 1% own more than 50% of the world's wealth. Which means that on average if a person just up and decided to not recognize money and property in the current system, they would in theory come up ahead. Now, this might sound technical and perhaps unrealistic, but if this level of wealth inequality continues, then one day enough people (i.e. a…

Much of that wealth is held in things that inherently have value.

Homes will still have value. Cars. Gold. Ect. So you're saying to just steal it all from their owners? What a novel concept.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#249

Post by mruniverse »

ryandrake wrote: post #185
zw123456 wrote: post #59

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…

> 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". What a silly saying. Of course, if you redistribute all the MONEY to everyone, but leave all the means of production in the hands of a few, it's…

I don't think the "means of production" is implied. I think it means that the rich deserve to be rich because they can get rich. That it's not just luck that they are rich, but that they know how to get rich. Take it away and they'll get it back. At least that's my take on the saying.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#250

Post by thecopy »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #245
darawk wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the alternative? These people aren't forced to live there. If there were a cheaper, better alternative available to them, they'd probably take it. Nobody is 'profiting from poverty' here. These landlords would make much more money if these people were wealthier! I'm sure they'd love to make nicer places and charge higher rents with higher margins, but they can't, because that's all these people can pay.

>> What is the alternative? These people aren't forced to live there. If there were a cheaper, better alternative available to them, they'd probably take it. What sort of lame excuse is that for exploitation? "These people could be much worse off if they were being exploited more"? Well, duh. The point is that they're in a dire situation in the first place because they're being exploited. Their landlord is not some b…

So what you are, in effect, saying, is that these poor people would be better off if the owner of the trailer park would kick them all out? Then they would not be "exploited".

I am inclined to believe you are a troll, because the distinction between an aggression of violence and a voluntary free exchange on the market is quite easy to make, which in your argument you fail to do.

Post reply on HN