The New York times recently published a video
https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/10...ation.html
The video calls out California for making it too hard to build high-density housing.
The lack of housing supply creates astronomical prices for housing, which in turn allegedly makes inequality even worse, slows down economic growth, and basically makes everyone who didn't already own a house in 1980 unhappy.
Do we agree about that? Should places like California make it easier to build high density housing and affordable housing? Why do you think they are not doing so?
It says in my he video why it's not happening. The people in the neighborhood say NIMBY and vote accordingly.
(12-02-2021, 03:08 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]It says in my he video why it's not happening. The people in the neighborhood say NIMBY and vote accordingly.
Right, but should the state go ahead and overrule them to relieve all this economic pressure? Would that help reduce inequality? Is it a good thing to reduce inequality?
(12-02-2021, 05:18 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2021, 03:08 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]It says in my he video why it's not happening. The people in the neighborhood say NIMBY and vote accordingly.
Right, but should the state go ahead and overrule them to relieve all this economic pressure? Would that help reduce inequality? Is it a good thing to reduce inequality?
No, equality is not a good thing Commie.
(12-02-2021, 06:11 PM)Hard_Eight Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2021, 05:18 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Right, but should the state go ahead and overrule them to relieve all this economic pressure? Would that help reduce inequality? Is it a good thing to reduce inequality?
No, equality is not a good thing Commie.
I agree that total equality would be a very bad thing.
But that doesn't mean that very high levels of inequality are a good thing now does it?
(12-02-2021, 07:05 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2021, 06:11 PM)Hard_Eight Wrote: [ -> ]No, equality is not a good thing Commie.
I agree that total equality would be a very bad thing.
But that doesn't mean that very high levels of inequality are a good thing now does it?
Do you think "high levels" of inequality are a bad thing? Why? Do you have some standard of inequality or amount of inequality you would be willing to accept?
(12-02-2021, 07:12 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2021, 07:05 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I agree that total equality would be a very bad thing.
But that doesn't mean that very high levels of inequality are a good thing now does it?
Do you think "high levels" of inequality are a bad thing? Why? Do you have some standard of inequality or amount of inequality you would be willing to accept?
A highly unequal society is unstable and prone to revolution.
So you're asking the wrong question. Our society is already unequal enough that if you are not a billionaire, you basically have no voice. The question is how much inequality all of us non-billionaires will accept before trying to overturn things, whether via organized violent revolt or civil disobedience or lawlessness. And no one really knows the answer.
(12-02-2021, 08:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2021, 07:12 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Do you think "high levels" of inequality are a bad thing? Why? Do you have some standard of inequality or amount of inequality you would be willing to accept?
A highly unequal society is unstable and prone to revolution.
So you're asking the wrong question. Our society is already unequal enough that if you are not a billionaire, you basically have no voice. The question is how much inequality all of us non-billionaires will accept before trying to overturn things, whether via organized violent revolt or civil disobedience or lawlessness. And no one really knows the answer.
I haven’t gone full tilt on the political thing. But I can see that this social justice thing has driven a wedge into our nation more than anything I’ve ever witnessed. Perhaps you or others have seen more being older. But if what I’m seeing today with all this social justice [BLEEP], vaccine requirements, electric car pumping, pay people to stay home and not work and so on.. isn’t basis or cause for a revolution, then I don’t know what is. Personally, I don’t think we’re there. I hope we don’t get there. Hopefully with the mid terms and 2024 we won’t have to see.
(12-02-2021, 05:18 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2021, 03:08 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]It says in my he video why it's not happening. The people in the neighborhood say NIMBY and vote accordingly.
Right, but should the state go ahead and overrule them to relieve all this economic pressure? Would that help reduce inequality? Is it a good thing to reduce inequality?
Question #1: No.
Question #2: There are many reasons why inequality exists and that video only scratched the surface. Unless or until those reasons are all addressed and rectified this will continue to be a problem. It's not just snooty and hypocritical democrats voting behind closed doors opposite of what they preach in public.
Question #3: In a perfect world there would be no one in dire straits but that's not how it is and taking away from some to give to others is not the answer. Forced charity or forced giving is not the answer.
My husband's workplace
strongly suggests all employees donate every year to a specific charitable organization and it is implied that if you don't you're not a team player and that could be problematic. So instead of donating monthly to his preferred organization, my husband donates the annual minimum of $20 to the company specific one. Who loses out? The one the company "requires" or the one my husband actually believes in?
Forcing people to comply, overriding local government, etc., is never the answer. There is a word for that.
(12-02-2021, 08:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2021, 07:12 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Do you think "high levels" of inequality are a bad thing? Why? Do you have some standard of inequality or amount of inequality you would be willing to accept?
A highly unequal society is unstable and prone to revolution.
So you're asking the wrong question. Our society is already unequal enough that if you are not a billionaire, you basically have no voice. The question is how much inequality all of us non-billionaires will accept before trying to overturn things, whether via organized violent revolt or civil disobedience or lawlessness. And no one really knows the answer.
I've studied history all my life. Rich people have always had more power than the poor or middle class. Nothing has changed in that respect.
(12-03-2021, 09:19 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2021, 08:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]A highly unequal society is unstable and prone to revolution.
So you're asking the wrong question. Our society is already unequal enough that if you are not a billionaire, you basically have no voice. The question is how much inequality all of us non-billionaires will accept before trying to overturn things, whether via organized violent revolt or civil disobedience or lawlessness. And no one really knows the answer.
I've studied history all my life. Rich people have always had more power than the poor or middle class. Nothing has changed in that respect.
Until America came along. Initially anyway...
(12-03-2021, 09:19 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2021, 08:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]A highly unequal society is unstable and prone to revolution.
So you're asking the wrong question. Our society is already unequal enough that if you are not a billionaire, you basically have no voice. The question is how much inequality all of us non-billionaires will accept before trying to overturn things, whether via organized violent revolt or civil disobedience or lawlessness. And no one really knows the answer.
I've studied history all my life. Rich people have always had more power than the poor or middle class. Nothing has changed in that respect.
Rich and poor are not definite terms. To understand how inequality changes over time, you have to talk about percentiles, shares of wealth, and shares of income. It's math, then history.
(12-03-2021, 12:41 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-03-2021, 09:19 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I've studied history all my life. Rich people have always had more power than the poor or middle class. Nothing has changed in that respect.
Rich and poor are not definite terms. To understand how inequality changes over time, you have to talk about percentiles, shares of wealth, and shares of income. It's math, then history.
Do Bezos or Musk have anywhere near the power of William Randolph Hearst? I'll answer that no. Not even in the same ball park.
Did Hearst have anywhere near the money of Bezos or Musk? I'll answer that one also no. Not even in the same ball park.
We've always had rich, powerful people. It has nothing to do with some mathematical construct involving percentiles, shares of wealth, or shares of income.
I think you're wrong, personally. While i agree that income inequality is the wrong point of focus, i think the wealth gap is an extremely legitimate statistic worth following. Billionaires should not have such power to subvert the democratic process, and that is exactly what happens when the gap between the ultra rich and middle class widens to this degree.
(12-03-2021, 02:01 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (12-03-2021, 12:41 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Rich and poor are not definite terms. To understand how inequality changes over time, you have to talk about percentiles, shares of wealth, and shares of income. It's math, then history.
Do Bezos or Musk have anywhere near the power of William Randolph Hearst? I'll answer that no. Not even in the same ball park.
Did Hearst have anywhere near the money of Bezos or Musk? I'll answer that one also no. Not even in the same ball park.
We've always had rich, powerful people. It has nothing to do with some mathematical construct involving percentiles, shares of wealth, or shares of income.
It's true that not all billionaires try to influence politics.
But it's also true that creating a media empire is not the only way to influence politics. What I'm saying is, bezos and musk don't own newspapers or TV networks, but that doesn't mean that they aren't behind the scenes manipulating our political process.
Inequality is only one part of the question.
Does a lack of affordable housing slow down economic growth?
California's economy has done very well, mostly boosted by tech stocks, but would it be doing even better if housing was more affordable over there?
(12-03-2021, 09:19 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2021, 08:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]A highly unequal society is unstable and prone to revolution.
So you're asking the wrong question. Our society is already unequal enough that if you are not a billionaire, you basically have no voice. The question is how much inequality all of us non-billionaires will accept before trying to overturn things, whether via organized violent revolt or civil disobedience or lawlessness. And no one really knows the answer.
I've studied history all my life. Rich people have always had more power than the poor or middle class. Nothing has changed in that respect.
A wise man that many of us on this forum seem to know said something similar 2000 years ago, that we will always have the poor with us. He's right, it's a given, and I'll side with him on this one. How long has mankind been trying to achieve equality? People are not equal, not created equal, and there will always be differences of all types. It is built into our make up as humans. Dont hold your breath waiting for a human-built utopia, it aint happening.
(12-03-2021, 07:07 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ] (12-03-2021, 09:19 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I've studied history all my life. Rich people have always had more power than the poor or middle class. Nothing has changed in that respect.
A wise man that many of us on this forum seem to know said something similar 2000 years ago, that we will always have the poor with us. He's right, it's a given, and I'll side with him on this one. How long has mankind been trying to achieve equality? People are not equal, not created equal, and there will always be differences of all types. It is built into our make up as humans. Dont hold your breath waiting for a human-built utopia, it aint happening.
They never have been, everyone is always looking to be superior. Those who says they are? It's a tactic.