Do you find it concerning that we really have no political choices these days?

It's not that I'm against any government help, it just usually doesn't work very well. It tends to keep people poor and dependent on the government and then the same programs that failed are repackaged again and again.

The 1% don't own all the housing and housing isn't expensive because of who owns the housing. It actually doesn't even matter what the 1% own, or do. It doesn't affect our lives in any way.

Yes, of course we need government, we need checks and balances and we need to help those that need help. That's not generally what is being talking about when people talk about "affordable" housing or wealth inequality.

That's just complaining, not addressing the real issues and it's often just scapegoating the rich, or Republicans or Democrats or (insert any group).

People talk about housing not being affordable and then they mentioned that they make $200k, need a huge house, in a good school district a new mini-van to haul the kids around and they say they live paycheck to paycheck.

I don't support a government program for that. I don't worry (at all) about wealth inequality because it shouldn't be an issue for anyone. I do understand that there are other points of view but I don't feel that I need to keep repeating that any more than I need to keep repeating that I'm not being paid to give my opinions, I have no vested interests in any political solutions, etc.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I guess, one can always point out that a topic is off topic and another thread should be started but since we have such a small readership, that's rather tedious to add to each conversation as well, don't you agree? Especially since it only seems to apply to the other guy and especially since I started the thread in the first place.

Most discussions are about nuance since very few people are actually arguing for something extreme. When it is assumed that people are only arguing to be arguing then we have the typical Sarkus/James R thread and I'm sure you would agree, there is no nuance there.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Studies have shown that drug use per capita is lower in bottom income groups than it is for higher income brackets. A few years back one of the Southern states in the US passed legislation requiring drug testing in order to get public assistance, under the guise of saving taxpayer money. The end result was that the money spent on the testing exceeded the money "saved" by denying benefits to the few that failed the test.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm sure that's true but it's not the point. If you are rich and were to live in a building with others and drug usage became a problem, you would move. If you are poor, you can't move.

Also if a rich person is using drugs, they aren't likely to be causing the crime rate to increase in their neighborhood. They also aren't likely to be selling drugs.

It's like the statistic showing that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the US average. That can be true and yet it can be reasonable for someone living along the border with Mexico to be complaining that most of the crime in their neighborhood is caused by immigrants.

Both things can be true.

 

One reason for my comments about those making $200k and complaining is that programs in the US aren't focused enough. Biden had a cut-off for the Covid stimulus checks and the cut-off per person was way over $100k and for a family that could be $200k.

And that was whether they needed it or not. Most people receiving those weren't laid-off. Another example is Biden arguing for free pre-kindergarten for everyone. Not just for those below the poverty line, just free for everyone.

In my opinion, there is too much of that.

I don't think wealth inequality is a problem to be concerned with. Poverty is a concern but worrying about how much someone else has, shouldn't be a concern. Let's say that there was universal free education. Everyone can go to college. Those who get certain degrees will make much more than those who wish to become social workers, elementary school teachers, etc.

Among the higher earners, those with the ability to delay self-gratification will do much better than their higher earning peers. Those that start successful businesses will likely become wealthier than even that group.

Those who choose not to go to college, who choose not to enter the trades, are likely to have much lower paying jobs and are likely to end up with much less wealth.

That's just humans being humans. The focus should be a a level playing field, some form of a social safety net, taking care of those who can't take care of themselves, etc. None of that has much to do with wealth inequality.

It doesn't bother me, takes nothing away from me, that Jeff Bezos has a lot more wealth than I do. It doesn't bother me that a Google employee makes a lot more than a postal employee. It doesn't bother me that one personal friend saves little and has a good time in life and another friend invests, builds wealth and has much more. That's discipline, decision making, free will, whatever you want to call it but it's human nature and that's not going to change.

 

Quick update on this - inflation steady at 3.7%, over 200,000 jobs added in December.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/05/us-economy-inflation-jobs-report-december