351–360 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't make such an assumption. I ask again: How do you define "access to wealth"?
Based on what you wrote, I agree with RHSeeger that you did indeed make that assumption. That you can’t see it speaks volumes about your analysis not matching the facts.
It's like "access to God", for what I know.
A lot of people who are just as smart and motived as Elon Musk or Steve Jobs will never be able to start their own companies and get rich. Because they have family obligations that take priority. Because they live outside high-income countries. Because they have no access to support network, so when they fail, they fall all the way to bottom. Because they may have made a crippling mistake in their pasts that now prev…
Nothing truly insightful about the troubles of poverty has ever been said by someone who never lived it. Divorced of the appropriate context, advice and opinions are like the proverb says; everyone's got one and they all stink.
Instead of reading Down and Out in Paris And London, PG is more likely to reread 1984 and use it to complain about getting cancelled on Clubhouse.
Income inequality is growing, yes. But are the wealthy somehow responsible for it? Is their "getting richer" directly responsible for it? There seems to be a growing consensus on the left that they are. I have yet to see a convincing argument to show this though. Someone who builds a company worth 100m didn't have to steal money from me (or anyone else) to do it. If they did steal, then that's what needs fixed. Preve…
The question then is: why does this happen, and how do we fix it? There are broadly speaking two options: either the economy is performing poorly and not generating enough wealth for everyone to thrive, or it is generating enough wealth, but the spoils are being distributed unequally. The fact that we have huge inequality points to us being in the second situation, and the solution is, accordingly, redistribution.
As an aside, I'm quite curious what you mean by "underlying issues".
A lot of people who are just as smart and motived as Elon Musk or Steve Jobs will never be able to start their own companies and get rich. Because they have family obligations that take priority. Because they live outside high-income countries. Because they have no access to support network, so when they fail, they fall all the way to bottom. Because they may have made a crippling mistake in their pasts that now prev…
It doesn't matter if wealth acquisition was "fair" or "warranted".
It doesn't matter if the process that allowed wealth to be acquired resulted in a net gain for society.
When a group of people become incredibly more wealthy than the general population, their interests diverge and it breaks society apart.
It's even worse when said group is not diverse but is instead composed of just the same privileged people as it has always been.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think its more than just that. I think less people are interested in actually owning their housing. For me housing is the least thing i want to worry about, so i gladly rent and simply can fix any problems by calling my landlord who is by law obliged to keep the house in a liveable condition. Also flexibility, i can move whenever i want without worrying about the value of my house (which in reality likely only loos…
But you lose the ability to continue to rent if the landlord doesn't want to continue, aka you can get kicked out. And any costs to maintain a livable condition is going to just be added to the cost of the rent anyway, so it's not like you're actually saving money. Buying as its own costs of course, and sometimes it's more cost effective to rent. The most unuseful answer, hence, is that it depends on the specifics.
However both points are kinda non issues due to our renting laws and the more or less standard contract around here. Getting kicked out only works with a reason, plus a prior notice from i think at least 3 months plus they are not allowed to increase the rent just for maintaining liveable conditions (i.e. repairs that have to be done).
But sure if you are willing to think and calculate in long terms (~30-50 years) buying often is the cheaper option. Yet comes with an additional workload (taxes, repairs, ...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate that quote. Personally I’m not envious of the rich, I despise them. I hate the fact that there are rich people, not because I want to be one some day, but because they ruin the party for the rest of us. The climate disaster is disproportionately the fault of the rich, yet it is the poor who are disproportionately affected by it. I don’t envy the rich. When I see the rich, I see pitiful humans that work too muc…
Talk us through the "hate dogs" bit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Renting is often cheaper in major cities.
The owners generally want profit, where does it come from?
1. Price speculation. Owners are willing to take a loss each month assuming they will make it up on appreciation. This is very true for condos in Toronto for example. Rent is about $500-1000/month less than carrying costs of ownership.
2. Long-term ownership. Landlord bought the property for half the current market rate so carrying costs are way lower than if you’d bought today.
"tons of people are struggling to meet their basic needs" That's just not true. There are billions less people struggling to meet their basic needs now, than there was in 1982. World is much more equal now than it was in 1982.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's simply not true. Economists who try to explain the housing crisis have pointed to increased regulation, cheap credit leading to an asset bubble, speculation, ill-advised tax cuts for homeowners, NIMBYism (not by government but by current residents), irrational buy vs. rent decisions, changing preferences for city vs. suburb, relaxed downpayment requirements, changing lifestyles and demographics with bachelors…
What about just, people buying multiple houses/apartments to rent them out? IANAE, but I have a sinking feeling the situation would quickly improve if ownership had per-person limits (and no easy way to pool the limits into a company). Countries could build new housing faster than the population grows, but as long as it can be scooped up by the wealthy for renting out, the scarcity would prevail.
(It would be different if the wealthy were buying these houses to live in them or to leave them empty, as that would increase demand and constrain supply. Happening in London, Vancouver and a bunch of other places, I think. Also sort of like what happened with the quinoa fad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinoa#Effects_of_rising_deman...)