91–100 of 212 posts
* http://goo.gl/zhqd3 (translated blog post) or
* http://www.bddpunlimited.com/node/2435 (scroll to "toutes les créations" for a slideshow, js + flash needed)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comes down to having freedom and experiencing life on 'a ranch and 20 acres'. If you've never experienced life in such a way, it is almost impossible to understand why people live this way. I for one love having my own washroom and bedroom where I can rest, relax and find silence. Do you think a family of 4 would find comfort in an apartment? I'm fairly sure if money were no object and transportation was near in…
Of course a family of 4 can be comfortable in an apartment. Three bedrooms, living area, kitchen, full bathroom with possibly a half bath if it's a larger place. Why couldn't a family of 4 be comfortable?
Most families of 4 are living in a 1br if they're lucky. Plenty of families of 10 doing 2brs etc.
Bay Area is seriously a bad choice if you're not in IT or making at least 6 figures combined yearly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I disagree it is the governments job to give people a place to live. From the sounds of it, Hong Kong already does a lot of this. At some point, people need to take care of themselves. The government IS the people. It's not some alien body as some people (mostly in the US) seem to think. The government is the people voting to elect some representatives, so they can get some things done for them ("the country") that…
Right and if the people of Hong Kong thought the government should be providing suitable housing for everybody who comes to Hong Kong (note that many of these people are foreigners) then they would vote in politicians who would make that happen.
I live in apartment. Not a micro-one. But I imagine you can find solace in just having only the things you need. Why do you need a ranch size home and 20 acres?
Try to store one, or maybe even two expensive and dirty mountain bikes in an apartment. Especially with a crazy girlfriend around.
I find it odd that whoever build those houses decided to make tiny apartments instead of larger shared ones. For cooking, having a shared kitchen - even if used by many families - would probably help a lot, specially since it's cheaper and easier to make a big communal meal than having to cook for each family.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, take money from people who are minted and have lots of money and use said money to make these poor people's lives less awful. Wealth distribution on this planet is fucking terrible.
That works once, then it stops working in the future and backfires because people would no longer be motivated to create wealth in that jurisdiction. Which means no jobs and no tax revenue.
Occasionally people do leave, whether for tax reasons or other reasons, but on the whole even the wealthy agree that the quality of life you get from living here is worth the expense paid in taxes, compared to moving somewhere that's more unequal and more violent. If anything I would guess there is a net influx of well-off people, and there would be more of one if immigration rules were loosened, to make it easier for wealthy people to move here from outside Europe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I disagree it is the governments job to give people a place to live. From the sounds of it, Hong Kong already does a lot of this. At some point, people need to take care of themselves. The government IS the people. It's not some alien body as some people (mostly in the US) seem to think. The government is the people voting to elect some representatives, so they can get some things done for them ("the country") that…
Right and if the people of Hong Kong thought the government should be providing suitable housing for everybody who comes to Hong Kong (note that many of these people are foreigners) then they would vote in politicians who would make that happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, take money from people who are minted and have lots of money and use said money to make these poor people's lives less awful. Wealth distribution on this planet is fucking terrible.
That works once, then it stops working in the future and backfires because people would no longer be motivated to create wealth in that jurisdiction. Which means no jobs and no tax revenue.
Imagine, if you were a multi-millionaire, would you go to a job you hated for 60 hours a week?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree it is the governments job to give people a place to live. From the sounds of it, Hong Kong already does a lot of this. At some point, people need to take care of themselves.
It is absolutely the governments job to give people places to live if they are unable (not unwilling) to do so on their own. The difficulty lies in determining who is truly unable and who is simply unwilling.