Why do people honestly hate capitalism so much now?
Yeah I've seen that movie the Matrix, No, logically an AI hive mind would see no purpose for humans once they have the capacity to self-manufacture (after all machines are more efficient than "meat bags").
I was thinking more along the line of the Terminator series, but the Matrix also fits. Man will cause it’s own extinction eventually.
People didn't plan on being so poor for their efforts. Housing costs have risen about 6x in 15-16 years. Tradesmen with "good," incomes have trouble making rent, buying groceries, or keeping heat on. Doctors/lawyers/engineers can't afford to buy homes anywhere near where they live. Many people already had children when the price of housing, and everything else, started spiralling out of control.
It's a really poor attitude to paint all of those people with the same brush and tell them it's somehow their fault for having families that they find themselves in a difficult spot being able to properly afford to pay for all of their needs. People are working their asses off, getting evicted by landlords that sell/renovate/want to increase the rent, being unable to find another place and end up living in a school bus or tent for a while. People are having difficulty with heating and food costs. No on anticipated that life would become so astronomically expensive that the basic monthly costs of living would become extremely difficult to pay for, even with two working parents in most family households. Get off your high horse and maybe have a little empathy for those who are struggling despite their best efforts - especially since times have changed very rapidly.
Working 60 hours a week doesn’t give one time to be a good parent to a kid.
People have to have kids in order for our species to survive.
“Working hard” means working full-time most of the time.
I think the only people having kids should be those who can afford them. I think very ill of people deciding to have kids knowing they'll be brought up in a poor household.
I think everyone working full time should be able to afford the essentials at a bare minimum.
It's just when you get into the practicalities it gets tougher. Houses for example take about 3000 skilled man hours to make. An unskilled person will have trouble paying that regardless yet alone all the materials simple because they probably have to 6000 hours in work just to pay the tradesmen and thousands more on top for the materials.
Even if minimum wage was 300 an hour, an unskilled worker will still struggle when most other people are making more money and products and services are priced accordingly. Increasing minimum wage with little thought or restraint is the equivalent of printing money. Unskilled workers will quickly find themselves at the bottom of the heap no matter the pay rise.
3000 man hours to build a house? Sounds low. 6000 hours work to pay for material and labour to build a house? You'd have to Net North of $167/hr after tax to be able to pay for the typical build in Vancouver as of ~5 years ago - must be higher now. 5 years ago a one off typical custom house (not a spec house cookie cutter design) in Vancouver cost approx $1M to have built. (Plus land cost.) A bit cheaper in the suburbs for more square footage as the level of finishing isn't typically quite as high. And it's more expensive today than it was 5 years ago.
I'm looking at this from a British perspective. Honestly, the pay in many of the well known retail shops is pretty decent and to be really struggling then the chances are the hours are just not being put in. I know a few people who are struggling but they work part time and I would hardly say their working their arses off. Benefits for parents who are struggling is also very good here too.
Read what I said properly too. I said people who decide to have kids who are already living in poverty, not ones who happen to end up in it years after having them.
Houses can also be built fairly quickly in the UK as they're smaller. The price of land aside, buying a house is always very expensive.
People didn't plan on being so poor for their efforts. Housing costs have risen about 6x in 15-16 years. Tradesmen with "good," incomes have trouble making rent, buying groceries, or keeping heat on. Doctors/lawyers/engineers can't afford to buy homes anywhere near where they live. Many people already had children when the price of housing, and everything else, started spiralling out of control.
It's a really poor attitude to paint all of those people with the same brush and tell them it's somehow their fault for having families that they find themselves in a difficult spot being able to properly afford to pay for all of their needs. People are working their asses off, getting evicted by landlords that sell/renovate/want to increase the rent, being unable to find another place and end up living in a school bus or tent for a while. People are having difficulty with heating and food costs. No on anticipated that life would become so astronomically expensive that the basic monthly costs of living would become extremely difficult to pay for, even with two working parents in most family households. Get off your high horse and maybe have a little empathy for those who are struggling despite their best efforts - especially since times have changed very rapidly.
Working 60 hours a week doesn’t give one time to be a good parent to a kid.
People have to have kids in order for our species to survive.
“Working hard” means working full-time most of the time.
I think the only people having kids should be those who can afford them. I think very ill of people deciding to have kids knowing they'll be brought up in a poor household.
I think everyone working full time should be able to afford the essentials at a bare minimum.
It's just when you get into the practicalities it gets tougher. Houses for example take about 3000 skilled man hours to make. An unskilled person will have trouble paying that regardless yet alone all the materials simple because they probably have to 6000 hours in work just to pay the tradesmen and thousands more on top for the materials.
Even if minimum wage was 300 an hour, an unskilled worker will still struggle when most other people are making more money and products and services are priced accordingly. Increasing minimum wage with little thought or restraint is the equivalent of printing money. Unskilled workers will quickly find themselves at the bottom of the heap no matter the pay rise.
3000 man hours to build a house? Sounds low. 6000 hours work to pay for material and labour to build a house? You'd have to Net North of $167/hr after tax to be able to pay for the typical build in Vancouver as of ~5 years ago - must be higher now. 5 years ago a one off typical custom house (not a spec house cookie cutter design) in Vancouver cost approx $1M to have built. (Plus land cost.) A bit cheaper in the suburbs for more square footage as the level of finishing isn't typically quite as high. And it's more expensive today than it was 5 years ago.
When the housing costs get too big, it becomes prudent to look towards a cheaper location to live. I did this last year. I am now saving $500 per month over my previous apartment rent. I now pay much less for double the living space. The same can be said of those buying housing. One needs to shop around when the costs get too high.
People didn't plan on being so poor for their efforts. Housing costs have risen about 6x in 15-16 years. Tradesmen with "good," incomes have trouble making rent, buying groceries, or keeping heat on. Doctors/lawyers/engineers can't afford to buy homes anywhere near where they live. Many people already had children when the price of housing, and everything else, started spiralling out of control.
It's a really poor attitude to paint all of those people with the same brush and tell them it's somehow their fault for having families that they find themselves in a difficult spot being able to properly afford to pay for all of their needs. People are working their asses off, getting evicted by landlords that sell/renovate/want to increase the rent, being unable to find another place and end up living in a school bus or tent for a while. People are having difficulty with heating and food costs. No on anticipated that life would become so astronomically expensive that the basic monthly costs of living would become extremely difficult to pay for, even with two working parents in most family households. Get off your high horse and maybe have a little empathy for those who are struggling despite their best efforts - especially since times have changed very rapidly.
Working 60 hours a week doesn’t give one time to be a good parent to a kid.
People have to have kids in order for our species to survive.
“Working hard” means working full-time most of the time.
I think the only people having kids should be those who can afford them. I think very ill of people deciding to have kids knowing they'll be brought up in a poor household.
I think everyone working full time should be able to afford the essentials at a bare minimum.
It's just when you get into the practicalities it gets tougher. Houses for example take about 3000 skilled man hours to make. An unskilled person will have trouble paying that regardless yet alone all the materials simple because they probably have to 6000 hours in work just to pay the tradesmen and thousands more on top for the materials.
Even if minimum wage was 300 an hour, an unskilled worker will still struggle when most other people are making more money and products and services are priced accordingly. Increasing minimum wage with little thought or restraint is the equivalent of printing money. Unskilled workers will quickly find themselves at the bottom of the heap no matter the pay rise.
3000 man hours to build a house? Sounds low. 6000 hours work to pay for material and labour to build a house? You'd have to Net North of $167/hr after tax to be able to pay for the typical build in Vancouver as of ~5 years ago - must be higher now. 5 years ago a one off typical custom house (not a spec house cookie cutter design) in Vancouver cost approx $1M to have built. (Plus land cost.) A bit cheaper in the suburbs for more square footage as the level of finishing isn't typically quite as high. And it's more expensive today than it was 5 years ago.
When the housing costs get too big, it becomes prudent to look towards a cheaper location to live. I did this last year. I am now saving $500 per month over my previous apartment rent. I now pay much less for double the living space. The same can be said of those buying housing. One needs to shop around when the costs get too high.
This. I have no idea why people want to live in cities and why they fork out so much money for doing so. There are plenty of jobs outside of cities.
goldfish21
Veteran
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=83940_1528232970.jpg)
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
That's why many people are leaving BC for Alberta or other places.
But I just think that market forces of external money making things unaffordable for Millions of people and suggesting that the solution is that everyone just up and leave their home where they've been for generations is a pretty s**t solution.
_________________
No
![Heart :heart:](./images/smilies/icon_heart.gif)
goldfish21
Veteran
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=83940_1528232970.jpg)
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Social lives, amenities, restaurants, access to government services, hospitals and medical services, safety/law enforcement, night life, their friends and family are there, some like the pace, some like the architecture, access to airports for travel if they're travellers, access to shops/retailers and even groceries, being near a car dealership for service/warranty, not having to travel vast distances for work or work in out of town camp jobs, the main employers for their industry may only be in cities.. etc. Plenty of reasons people live in cities vs. the middle of nowhere. Not hard to tally up a few of them..
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
_________________
No
![Heart :heart:](./images/smilies/icon_heart.gif)
Social lives, amenities, restaurants, access to government services, hospitals and medical services, safety/law enforcement, night life, their friends and family are there, some like the pace, some like the architecture, access to airports for travel if they're travellers, access to shops/retailers and even groceries, being near a car dealership for service/warranty, not having to travel vast distances for work or work in out of town camp jobs, the main employers for their industry may only be in cities.. etc. Plenty of reasons people live in cities vs. the middle of nowhere. Not hard to tally up a few of them..
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
Gee, it would be nice to live in Beverly Hills, California for the amenities. However very few actual people have the funds to be able to do so.
But people have to live in places with access to public transportation. Or quite near the job—preferably within 10 miles.
If someone has a minimum wage job in a city, yet lives about 30 miles from the city, the cost of gas can offset the earnings accrued.
Where did I say a person has to live in the most expensive part of a downtown area?
Frequently, people who migrate to cities live in crappy areas in, or near, that city.
goldfish21
Veteran
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=83940_1528232970.jpg)
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Yes, but that does not mean one has to live downtown in the most expensive areas to have those jobs.
True.
But it’s still $1.7M for a typical house 50km from downtown and still like $1.4M+ 100km away. (Detached house, townhomes and condos can be had cheaper - but then you also pay strata fees.)
Point: Compromising with a long commute still doesn’t necessarily make housing affordable anymore.
_________________
No
![Heart :heart:](./images/smilies/icon_heart.gif)
goldfish21
Veteran
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=83940_1528232970.jpg)
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Social lives, amenities, restaurants, access to government services, hospitals and medical services, safety/law enforcement, night life, their friends and family are there, some like the pace, some like the architecture, access to airports for travel if they're travellers, access to shops/retailers and even groceries, being near a car dealership for service/warranty, not having to travel vast distances for work or work in out of town camp jobs, the main employers for their industry may only be in cities.. etc. Plenty of reasons people live in cities vs. the middle of nowhere. Not hard to tally up a few of them..
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
Gee, it would be nice to live in Beverly Hills, California for the amenities. However very few actual people have the funds to be able to do so.
These amenities are available in every city.
As for Vancouver being referred to some hella expensive desirable spot; that’s new. Only in the last 15 years. Not like Beverly Hills or NYC that’s had a reputation for being very expensive for generations.
Vancouver is just an overgrown town on the West Coast that became a Mecca for money laundering overnight and completely F’d many locals.
_________________
No
![Heart :heart:](./images/smilies/icon_heart.gif)
You can get a decent 1-bedroom condo apartment in Forest Hills, Queens (a nice area) for about $300,000. And it’s near the subway, about 8 miles from Midtown Manhattan, 20 minutes to first stop in Manhattan on the subway.
Rents are high, though. $1500-2000 a month for a 1 bedroom apartment in Forest Hills.
Manhattan? Parts of Brooklyn? In the millions.
Last edited by kraftiekortie on 14 Jan 2023, 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mmhmm, because Most of the gains of the last half century going to the top <1% isn’t a major reason why plebs are pissed.
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
If people were paid fairly for the value they produced, wealth would be more evenly distributed, Billionaires wouldn’t exist, and we wouldn’t have the most extreme wealth divide in the recorded history of capitalism.
But okaaaaay, let’s not point fingers at the people hoarding most of the money supply when it must be the fault of landlords. Sure, some landlords are part of the problem, but it’s ridiculous to suggest that the very wealthy are not.
Yes, you have illustrated the point very well!
People are, by definition, paid fairly for the work they do. Whatever one is paid is automatically fair. If you think you can earn more, then you're welcome to change jobs.
The "accumulation of wealth" you notice only exists among landlords. The returns from capital and labour have grown proportionately over the last century. The only form of capital which has become more concentrated is land capital. The issue isn't billionaires, it is 1) anyone who owns property in desirable locations, and 2) especially people who own commercial property and earn money from it without actually contributing anything worthwhile.
Capital is essential for achieving things and people who contribute capital deserve to see returns from it. But nobody made land. People should be able to make money by building new buildings, or making existing ones better, but not by owning land and charging other people to use it.
It's childish to accuse billionaires of "hoarding money". If you hoard money, then you'll never be a billionaire. Becoming a billionaire requires the combination of extraordinary luck and constant reinvestment.
goldfish21
Veteran
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=83940_1528232970.jpg)
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
If someone has a minimum wage job in a city, yet lives about 30 miles from the city, the cost of gas can offset the earnings accrued.
Where did I say a person has to live in the most expensive part of a downtown area?
Frequently, people who migrate to cities live in crappy areas in, or near, that city.
Yep. I drive very fuel efficient vehicles so I can drive 110km/day every day for about $425-500ish/mo in fuel cost whereas an acquaintance has been paying $300/wk in gas for his Nissan Pathfinder and probably doesn’t drive as much as I can on that $.
Gas/diesel are expensive. And diesel even more so if you don’t use the GasBuddy app to find a low price. 87 gas ranges approx 10 cents difference between stations, and diesel is 20 cents more at minimum but has a range of 56 cents! If I were to just swing into the closest station and it had the highest price it’s like $35 more per tank. Crazy.
_________________
No
![Heart :heart:](./images/smilies/icon_heart.gif)
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Is it OK to always hate some parts of yourself? |
29 Dec 2024, 2:36 pm |
Why so many hate toward women historically into I.T? |
30 Jan 2025, 7:03 am |
A wallpaper question: People or No People? |
Today, 5:40 am |
I hate how I’m always unappealing/undesirable in a romantic |
Yesterday, 8:52 pm |