That was ages ago now. Can't remember the exact wording, but it was a Moby-esque comment on that homeless guy who robbed some of the victims at the Manchester bombing.
Wealth & Income Inequality
- Thread starter Eboue
- Start date
Moby-esque. 
I feel inspired to work Jippy-esque in somewhere in. I'll take my time, the opportunity is bound to come.
I feel inspired to work Jippy-esque in somewhere in. I'll take my time, the opportunity is bound to come.
Most (genuine) homeless people are mentally ill. Can't be arsed looking it up but they've definitely studied it before. It's a shockingly high percentage of them.
Telling people to just get up off their ass isn't a solution for the masses and it never will be.
To think we could have saved the entire social security budget by shouting "pull yourself together". Who knew?
It’s basically a socioeconomic (and still largely racial) reversal of the “white flight” from urban areas in the middle of the last century.
The worst part is that it is pushing the already poor further away from their employment and so far out that there’s no public transit like there was in the urban setting, so they’re losing even more money having to buy transportation.
I know right. And to think, if my wife would have just pulled some double shifts when she was homeless a couple times as a kid...
(~25% of homeless people are under the age of 18. Doubt Moby knows that though)
You're a real piece of shit.
Because we spend too much money on those issues
Honestly I think you're overstating this. In NYC very few live close to work in Manhattan. Almost everyone with kids move to suburbs with school zones and a 90 min commute to work is pretty much ok. Apartments (vs houses) in suburbs are not as expensive as City and finding a normal one should be OK.
I have not done a statistic lookup, but I think most low income neighborhoods are high in crime. Whether crime drives down prices or low income attract law breakers is debatable but one feeds off the other.
Low income crime free neighborhood seems like utopia which should not be the case. Not sure if more 'projects' are the solution. Perhaps if they start on a vacant neighborhood from scratch, it may work.
Last edited:
The country is a lot bigger than Manhattan.
imagine thinking the part of America with most of the cokehead bankers that defraud millions of people every year has lower levels of crime than anywhere else
So truecapitalism will kill us all
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default...ity-direct-assistance-and-economic-growth.pdf
Alleviating Global Poverty: Labor Mobility, Direct Assistance, and Economic Growth
Lant Pritchett
Abstract
Decades of programmatic experimentation by development NGOs combined with the latest empirical techniques for estimating program impact have shown that a well-designed, wellimplemented, multi-faceted intervention can in fact have an apparently sustained impact on the incomes of the poor (Banerjee et al 2015). The magnitude of the income gains of the “best you can do” via direct interventions to raise the income of the poor in situ is about 40 times smaller than the income gain from allowing people from those same poor countries to work in a high productivity country like the USA. Simply allowing more labor mobility holds vastly more promise for reducing
poverty than anything else on the development agenda. That said, the magnitude of the gains from large growth accelerations (and losses from large decelerations) are also many-fold larger than the potential gains from directed individual interventions and the poverty reduction gains from large, extended periods of rapid growth are larger than from targeted interventions and also hold promise
(and have delivered) for reducing global poverty.
pretty good paper and worth reading, because it highlights where the fight against global poverty is won/lost. Migration policies and economic growth matter, while the impact of classic development programms are negligible.
Alleviating Global Poverty: Labor Mobility, Direct Assistance, and Economic Growth
Lant Pritchett
Abstract
Decades of programmatic experimentation by development NGOs combined with the latest empirical techniques for estimating program impact have shown that a well-designed, wellimplemented, multi-faceted intervention can in fact have an apparently sustained impact on the incomes of the poor (Banerjee et al 2015). The magnitude of the income gains of the “best you can do” via direct interventions to raise the income of the poor in situ is about 40 times smaller than the income gain from allowing people from those same poor countries to work in a high productivity country like the USA. Simply allowing more labor mobility holds vastly more promise for reducing
poverty than anything else on the development agenda. That said, the magnitude of the gains from large growth accelerations (and losses from large decelerations) are also many-fold larger than the potential gains from directed individual interventions and the poverty reduction gains from large, extended periods of rapid growth are larger than from targeted interventions and also hold promise
(and have delivered) for reducing global poverty.
pretty good paper and worth reading, because it highlights where the fight against global poverty is won/lost. Migration policies and economic growth matter, while the impact of classic development programms are negligible.
What billionaires want: the secret influence of America’s 100 richest
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...h-politics-america-100-richest-what-they-want
Well if it's web-based that's good enough for me. What could be more impartial than 'carefully selected keywords' ?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
But someone will come and say to you:
"but minimum wages are at the higher historical levels, be thankful"
"They create jobs for you, stop complaining"But someone will come and say to you:
"but minimum wages are at the higher historical levels, be thankful"
Trickle down economics.
Those multi millionaire and billionaire cnuts have a moral and ethical (and it should also be a legal) obligation to share their wealth. It's fecking obscene they have that much money and a nurse who works 60 hours a week struggles to feed her family and spends no time with them.
It's only going to end one way and it's not going to be good.
It's only going to end one way and it's not going to be good.
My family sucks and I failed as well
If they start sharing then they wouldn’t be billionaires anymore and besides they pay taxes ..cough, cough, ok some do and they can be billionaires or trillionaires if they don’t get involved in politics (buying the politicians) thats all good for me.
Sigh.
How much money could Jeff Bezos literally lose somewhere before he realized any difference in his daily life?
He could literally hand out $100000 to every single Amazon employee (of which there are ~613300) and still have about half of his fortune left.
Forget Jeff Bezos, I knew a guy in Vietnam who literally went bankrupt due to gambling debts, was vice-COO of a national bank, and the only notable difference is after he lost his house, his residence changed to a plush hotel, expenses all paid by company.
The gulf between the haves and have-nots is obscene.
man, the new Monopoly for millenials is realistic as feck.
5 Facts That Privileged Americans Don't Want Us to Know
1. Tax Haven Cheating Is Much Costlier Than the Annual Safety Net—But the IRS Keeps Getting Cut
2. Record Low Unemployment? Yes, Because One Hour of Work Counts as Employed
3. We’re Gradually Giving Away Our Country’s Wealth to the Children of the Rich; It’s not a Death Tax, it’s a Deadbeat Tax.
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/5-facts-that-privileged-americans-dont-want-us-to-know/
1. Tax Haven Cheating Is Much Costlier Than the Annual Safety Net—But the IRS Keeps Getting Cut
2. Record Low Unemployment? Yes, Because One Hour of Work Counts as Employed
3. We’re Gradually Giving Away Our Country’s Wealth to the Children of the Rich; It’s not a Death Tax, it’s a Deadbeat Tax.
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/5-facts-that-privileged-americans-dont-want-us-to-know/
26 richest own as much as the poorest 50%
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...n-as-much-as-poorest-50-per-cent-oxfam-report
Does anyone believe this kind of crazy inequality can result in anything other than mass chaos? With Trump, Brexit, the Gilet Jaunes, populist parties rising everywhere, it feels like we're racing towards a massive crisis that carries terrifying possibilities.
Back in the middle of the last century, top level tax rates of 80-90%+ were quite normal. Now they're seen as a ridiculous attack on the 'wealth creators'. With such a vast bulk of the planets wealth held by such a tiny number of individuals though, the question becomes whether even raising tax back up to those kind of levels would be enough. What about the capital they're sitting on and use to lobby politicians to their will?
Anyone see a way out of this that doesn't involve mass rioting and social restructure?
Oh, nothing is gonna happen. There have never been better times for the world elite. The public has reached an unprecedented level of apathy.
I think that might have been a fair statement 5 years ago, but looking around now I'm not seeing apathy, I'm seeing rage and the strong desire for radical change.
So what’s the craic with this 1% “Global Wealth Tax” suggested by Pickety? Anyone know what he has in mind?
Seems obvious that there should be some sort of cap on how wealthy any one individual can be, with punitive taxation above that point. It could be set very high too, so will never be an issue for the vast majority of people no matter how ambitious/successful they are.
How about setting the cap at assets of £10m per individual? Anything above that and you’re giving most of it away as taxes. Can anyone really object to this with a straight face?!?
Seems obvious that there should be some sort of cap on how wealthy any one individual can be, with punitive taxation above that point. It could be set very high too, so will never be an issue for the vast majority of people no matter how ambitious/successful they are.
How about setting the cap at assets of £10m per individual? Anything above that and you’re giving most of it away as taxes. Can anyone really object to this with a straight face?!?
This is just like Occupy Wall Street some years ago. A few weeks of protesting and rage by a very small part of the population, then it's back to business as usual. Nothing's gonna happen.
A way out of it is, by definition, social restructure and therefore unavoidable.
You can start here in the UK by voting for a party that will, for example, tax the assets of the wealthy and use that tax to tackle the unprecedented level of inequality. Massive state intervention is required after over 40 years of free market fundamentalism that has lined the pockets of the few at the expense of the the majority and worst the most vulnerable.