21–30 of 98 posts
This exists probably in all countries. I also don't quite get the message out of these pictures. Or if it is even a matter which needs to be solved. If it is, redistribution of wealth is not practical IMO.
You don't have the regular famines in Bangladesh which I recall from when I was a child.
In CA, 101 acts as that wall between PA and EPA. The differences are more subtle: less trees. https://goo.gl/maps/c6t8e6dtHbn Trees are one of the major factors affecting property value. If antifa really wanted to attack the 1%, they would covertly kill trees around the richest folks' homes and start fast-food franchises nearby.
This exists probably in all countries. I also don't quite get the message out of these pictures. Or if it is even a matter which needs to be solved. If it is, redistribution of wealth is not practical IMO.
Let me paraphrase what you said: "I dont see the problem. If there is a problem I dont know we should solve it. If there is a problem we shouldnt solve it because its natural. If it is a problem and we should deal with it we shouldnt use redistribution." Isnt there a name for this type of reasoning?
counterfactual reasoning? if it weren't for the fact that you disagree, you might just call it being thorough.
This exists probably in all countries. I also don't quite get the message out of these pictures. Or if it is even a matter which needs to be solved. If it is, redistribution of wealth is not practical IMO.
The message the photographer is trying to convey is that our world economy relies on startling wealth inequality to keep functioning. There is no escape, and no solution without the wealthiest folks massively sacrificing. In order to live in a nice suburban home, drive a nice car, eat well, and have TVs and computers, slavery must exist. Important and useful minerals must be robbed from places like the Congo. Places…
I'm always confused by these kind of pictures. The 'developed' spaces have apartment towers and dense construction - many more people appear to live there per acre. If land is at such a premium (and the towers seem to indicate this) then how on earth does the shack-dweller afford so much land (relatively) for their very-much-lower density housing? Sure maybe 20 people live in a shack, I understand that, but in the sa…
Location, location, location. Price per square m/ft is much lower in the slum than in the gated community. If you couldn't aford a place in the gated community, would you use that money to buy a place in the slum? Or would you try elsewhere? The problem in general is not absolute lack of space for building (except islands like Japan, ...), but lack of place to build in desirable locations.
Sure, you can get a 2500 sq ft house on a quarter acre lot for $500k, if you’re also willing to drive for 2 or more hours a day to go to/from work. If you want a 15 minute or less commute, prepare to spend 3 times more for the same sized house on a smaller plot of land.
What’s crazy to me is when you have communities like Medina, WA or Atherton, CA where this extremely conveniently located land is all single family houses. When inequality is low you have people living close to employers for convenience and living far to get more house per $ - now inequality, especially in certain regions, is making it so that the rich people are able to get the best of both worlds
To me the high premium on convenience these days indicates that these regions are in need of a public transportation upgrade, but that’s another story.
In CA, 101 acts as that wall between PA and EPA. The differences are more subtle: less trees. https://goo.gl/maps/c6t8e6dtHbn Trees are one of the major factors affecting property value. If antifa really wanted to attack the 1%, they would covertly kill trees around the richest folks' homes and start fast-food franchises nearby.
They don't, as such. The Anti-Fascist movement overlaps very strongly with (and was originally a project of) various far-left communist/socialist groups, but it's rather central to the point of that project that it is a unifying front in which cooperation can occur with people who don't share the broader politico-economic agenda of the groups who established the movement.
On a bigger scale, Whole Foods versus Walmart in California: https://i2.wp.com/famvin.org/en/files/2013/03/Walmart-and-Wh...
Except that rich people and poor people exist and that if you're a developer you should be careful where you build lest your new development appear in a moralizing photographic exhibition.
To be clear, I am not saying inequality does not exist or that there aren't real problems of disparity of wealth, just that drawing very wide conclusions from proximity is probably a bad idea.
I'm always confused by these kind of pictures. The 'developed' spaces have apartment towers and dense construction - many more people appear to live there per acre. If land is at such a premium (and the towers seem to indicate this) then how on earth does the shack-dweller afford so much land (relatively) for their very-much-lower density housing? Sure maybe 20 people live in a shack, I understand that, but in the sa…
Location, location, location. Price per square m/ft is much lower in the slum than in the gated community. If you couldn't aford a place in the gated community, would you use that money to buy a place in the slum? Or would you try elsewhere? The problem in general is not absolute lack of space for building (except islands like Japan, ...), but lack of place to build in desirable locations.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/technology/google-maps-ne...