|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 22 2015 07:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2015 07:36 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 07:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 21 2015 17:05 KwarK wrote:
If we were content living with the standard of living from just a few decades ago we could already exist on a 6 hour week. Instead every member of society now attempts to purchase goods that were luxuries beyond imagining in their grandparents generation. They spend the first few hours of the first day of the week earning enough to put meat and potatoes on the table and the rest on car payments, cable tv and paying a legion of Chinese workers to make shit for them. And that's fine, if that's what they want to do then so be it. They are trading their time for the things they want, which is their prerogative. But if they wanted to work a 6 hour week and spend the other 34 caring for their family they could just as easily buy that with their time. Wow, rent must basically be free where you live. And I guess heating isn't a concern for wherever you live either. Or electricity. Or gas. Or water. Or cleaning products to maintain a clean home and clothes and body. Or things like washing machines. Rivers aren't safe to wash in where I live. Working 6 hours a week on minimum wage barely covers water and food. Actually stuff that, I dispute that you can afford meat and potatoes on the table on 6 hours a week. Maybe use a carboard box for a table, sure. Potatoes? No problem. You still need cutlery and pots and pans an plates and a source of heat. That costs money, unless you like to eat potatoes raw. Don't eat potatoes raw, it's dangerous. Meat? No way. Meat is expensive. And I aren't even taking into account of transportation costs to live near a place of work. How can anybody afford to live on 6 hours of work a week? Smell and live and eat like a homeless person? You need to stop using a new table for every meal. That's where you're leaking the money. You can reuse them. Same with pots and pans. But yeah, the 6 hours a week would also cover rent and heating. Where is it that less than $200 a month covers that stuff? Or even ~$240 if you make well above minimum wage? I'd go with median wage rather than minimum. I'm also talking about living the way your grandparents did so cable isn't included in that budget. But I ran the numbers. Using a 40 hour work week as a basis for the median wage of the US I multiplied it by 6/40 to get an annual estimate for that. You can totally live on that in a two income household out here if you don't view having a giant truck, cable, internet, dining out four times a week and so forth as your birthright. There are luxuries which would have been unimaginable fifty years ago that are now considered basic necessities. People choose to work beyond that because they want all that extra stuff and that's absolutely fine by me, I do the same. I don't want to live with the conditions of the richest country in the world just a few decades ago, that's unacceptably poor, I want to live with the conditions of the richest country today. But that does not mean that I'm not making a choice with resource allocation. Every single person posting on this forum is rich beyond imagining in the eyes of their ancestors. When you claim poverty it's a comparative poverty, not an absolute poverty. Being unable to afford a townhouse in a city that cannot possibly fit all the people who feel entitled to live there does not make you poor.
Inflation is a bitch.
Again, actually price out these expenses of yours to make this work out. I want to know what part in particular you're being delusional about.
|
United States42024 Posts
On November 22 2015 08:17 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 07:59 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2015 07:36 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 07:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 21 2015 17:05 KwarK wrote:
If we were content living with the standard of living from just a few decades ago we could already exist on a 6 hour week. Instead every member of society now attempts to purchase goods that were luxuries beyond imagining in their grandparents generation. They spend the first few hours of the first day of the week earning enough to put meat and potatoes on the table and the rest on car payments, cable tv and paying a legion of Chinese workers to make shit for them. And that's fine, if that's what they want to do then so be it. They are trading their time for the things they want, which is their prerogative. But if they wanted to work a 6 hour week and spend the other 34 caring for their family they could just as easily buy that with their time. Wow, rent must basically be free where you live. And I guess heating isn't a concern for wherever you live either. Or electricity. Or gas. Or water. Or cleaning products to maintain a clean home and clothes and body. Or things like washing machines. Rivers aren't safe to wash in where I live. Working 6 hours a week on minimum wage barely covers water and food. Actually stuff that, I dispute that you can afford meat and potatoes on the table on 6 hours a week. Maybe use a carboard box for a table, sure. Potatoes? No problem. You still need cutlery and pots and pans an plates and a source of heat. That costs money, unless you like to eat potatoes raw. Don't eat potatoes raw, it's dangerous. Meat? No way. Meat is expensive. And I aren't even taking into account of transportation costs to live near a place of work. How can anybody afford to live on 6 hours of work a week? Smell and live and eat like a homeless person? You need to stop using a new table for every meal. That's where you're leaking the money. You can reuse them. Same with pots and pans. But yeah, the 6 hours a week would also cover rent and heating. Where is it that less than $200 a month covers that stuff? Or even ~$240 if you make well above minimum wage? I'd go with median wage rather than minimum. I'm also talking about living the way your grandparents did so cable isn't included in that budget. But I ran the numbers. Using a 40 hour work week as a basis for the median wage of the US I multiplied it by 6/40 to get an annual estimate for that. You can totally live on that in a two income household out here if you don't view having a giant truck, cable, internet, dining out four times a week and so forth as your birthright. There are luxuries which would have been unimaginable fifty years ago that are now considered basic necessities. People choose to work beyond that because they want all that extra stuff and that's absolutely fine by me, I do the same. I don't want to live with the conditions of the richest country in the world just a few decades ago, that's unacceptably poor, I want to live with the conditions of the richest country today. But that does not mean that I'm not making a choice with resource allocation. Every single person posting on this forum is rich beyond imagining in the eyes of their ancestors. When you claim poverty it's a comparative poverty, not an absolute poverty. Being unable to afford a townhouse in a city that cannot possibly fit all the people who feel entitled to live there does not make you poor. I get the concept, but it doesn't work out in reality. Yes, the internet is an unimaginable luxury. But you can't opt out of it; it's basically mandatory to hold many jobs, connect with people socially, etc. You can't just go to the town square and ask for buddies to go drinking with; you have to call or text or fb message. Things that used to be available in simple ways no longer are. Sprawl means you have to own a car to get by in most cities, and the exceptions are generally expensive places to live in general. Median household income is ~53k. If you make less than 12k/year, you cannot buy healthcare in a red state for an affordable price (price goes UP tenfold below that bracket.) I think of a 40 hour workweek as relatively tame already compared to lots of my friends schedules. But going down to a fifth of that? For starters, very few jobs would actually let you work that little. The ones that would will often be very low wage. At minimum or low wages, 5 hrs a week won't even cover rent, nevermind foodstuffs or cars or insurance or phones or the other necessities of life.
Whether or not employers in the current market would let you work that little is beside the point. My argument was that only a tiny fraction of the money we earn is spent on things we actually need, the rest is on stuff we would like to have. In some areas rent is very high but those are the areas in which living there is a thing you would like, not a thing you need.
If we return to the issue that started this all, rent control in LA, do low income people need to live in LA, or just want to live there? I would argue that it's a want, not a need. If you're spending all your income paying for rent for the place you really want to live, well, how is that different to spending all your money on pokemon cards? They could afford a perfectly acceptable house somewhere else but they don't want that house, they want this house that they can't afford to live in and that somehow becomes the problem of everyone else.
The government can solve a great many problems but it cannot create something out of nothing. Too many people, too few houses, someone has to live elsewhere.
|
On November 22 2015 08:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 08:17 Yoav wrote:On November 22 2015 07:59 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2015 07:36 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 07:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 21 2015 17:05 KwarK wrote:
If we were content living with the standard of living from just a few decades ago we could already exist on a 6 hour week. Instead every member of society now attempts to purchase goods that were luxuries beyond imagining in their grandparents generation. They spend the first few hours of the first day of the week earning enough to put meat and potatoes on the table and the rest on car payments, cable tv and paying a legion of Chinese workers to make shit for them. And that's fine, if that's what they want to do then so be it. They are trading their time for the things they want, which is their prerogative. But if they wanted to work a 6 hour week and spend the other 34 caring for their family they could just as easily buy that with their time. Wow, rent must basically be free where you live. And I guess heating isn't a concern for wherever you live either. Or electricity. Or gas. Or water. Or cleaning products to maintain a clean home and clothes and body. Or things like washing machines. Rivers aren't safe to wash in where I live. Working 6 hours a week on minimum wage barely covers water and food. Actually stuff that, I dispute that you can afford meat and potatoes on the table on 6 hours a week. Maybe use a carboard box for a table, sure. Potatoes? No problem. You still need cutlery and pots and pans an plates and a source of heat. That costs money, unless you like to eat potatoes raw. Don't eat potatoes raw, it's dangerous. Meat? No way. Meat is expensive. And I aren't even taking into account of transportation costs to live near a place of work. How can anybody afford to live on 6 hours of work a week? Smell and live and eat like a homeless person? You need to stop using a new table for every meal. That's where you're leaking the money. You can reuse them. Same with pots and pans. But yeah, the 6 hours a week would also cover rent and heating. Where is it that less than $200 a month covers that stuff? Or even ~$240 if you make well above minimum wage? I'd go with median wage rather than minimum. I'm also talking about living the way your grandparents did so cable isn't included in that budget. But I ran the numbers. Using a 40 hour work week as a basis for the median wage of the US I multiplied it by 6/40 to get an annual estimate for that. You can totally live on that in a two income household out here if you don't view having a giant truck, cable, internet, dining out four times a week and so forth as your birthright. There are luxuries which would have been unimaginable fifty years ago that are now considered basic necessities. People choose to work beyond that because they want all that extra stuff and that's absolutely fine by me, I do the same. I don't want to live with the conditions of the richest country in the world just a few decades ago, that's unacceptably poor, I want to live with the conditions of the richest country today. But that does not mean that I'm not making a choice with resource allocation. Every single person posting on this forum is rich beyond imagining in the eyes of their ancestors. When you claim poverty it's a comparative poverty, not an absolute poverty. Being unable to afford a townhouse in a city that cannot possibly fit all the people who feel entitled to live there does not make you poor. I get the concept, but it doesn't work out in reality. Yes, the internet is an unimaginable luxury. But you can't opt out of it; it's basically mandatory to hold many jobs, connect with people socially, etc. You can't just go to the town square and ask for buddies to go drinking with; you have to call or text or fb message. Things that used to be available in simple ways no longer are. Sprawl means you have to own a car to get by in most cities, and the exceptions are generally expensive places to live in general. Median household income is ~53k. If you make less than 12k/year, you cannot buy healthcare in a red state for an affordable price (price goes UP tenfold below that bracket.) I think of a 40 hour workweek as relatively tame already compared to lots of my friends schedules. But going down to a fifth of that? For starters, very few jobs would actually let you work that little. The ones that would will often be very low wage. At minimum or low wages, 5 hrs a week won't even cover rent, nevermind foodstuffs or cars or insurance or phones or the other necessities of life. Whether or not employers in the current market would let you work that little is beside the point. My argument was that only a tiny fraction of the money we earn is spent on things we actually need, the rest is on stuff we would like to have. In some areas rent is very high but those are the areas in which living there is a thing you would like, not a thing you need. If we return to the issue that started this all, rent control in LA, do low income people need to live in LA, or just want to live there? I would argue that it's a want, not a need. If you're spending all your income paying for rent for the place you really want to live, well, how is that different to spending all your money on pokemon cards? They could afford a perfectly acceptable house somewhere else but they don't want that house, they want this house that they can't afford to live in and that somehow becomes the problem of everyone else. The government can solve a great many problems but it cannot create something out of nothing. Too many people, too few houses, someone has to live elsewhere.
No, individuals do not need to live in LA.
Yes, LA needs low income people living in the city. What kind of question is that?
|
On November 22 2015 08:10 ticklishmusic wrote:
People's sense of what a middle-class lifestyle is vastly inflated IMO. One thing I noticed while watching Master of None (Aziz Ansari's new show) was that he's a "struggling" actor who primarily does commercials (who does admit it pays well) and lives in a really nice place in New York. That particular detail struck me as a little odd.
As a single, educated college grad I can afford a nice apartment, and pretty much eat and buy whatever I want (I make pretty solid money). Still, let's say if I got married and had 2 kinds, my salary (even including whatever raises I get) would effectively have to cover two people... and my lifestyle/ the lifestyle I could have would take a big hit.
Rambling on, it's not that meritocracy is dead, it's just that it's less linear now and more of an exponential curve. If you're poor, you gotta claw your way up. If you're kinda okay, you can work hard and smart and you'll end a few rungs up the ladder. If you're rich... well, you get a million dollar loan like Donald Trump starting out.
I think the discussion really has a big problem, because every time it starts people seem to define poor as "25 year old college grad ". That's not what poor means. about 50-60% of the population in the Western World who don't graduate from college don't take part in political discussions on gaming boards and don't vote. It's like those people don't even exist any more in the modern world and I think it's those guys that the discussion of poverty needs to resolve around. A countries population doesn't start at "aspiring middle class".
|
United States19573 Posts
On November 22 2015 08:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 08:41 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 08:17 Yoav wrote:On November 22 2015 07:59 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2015 07:36 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 07:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 21 2015 17:05 KwarK wrote:
If we were content living with the standard of living from just a few decades ago we could already exist on a 6 hour week. Instead every member of society now attempts to purchase goods that were luxuries beyond imagining in their grandparents generation. They spend the first few hours of the first day of the week earning enough to put meat and potatoes on the table and the rest on car payments, cable tv and paying a legion of Chinese workers to make shit for them. And that's fine, if that's what they want to do then so be it. They are trading their time for the things they want, which is their prerogative. But if they wanted to work a 6 hour week and spend the other 34 caring for their family they could just as easily buy that with their time. Wow, rent must basically be free where you live. And I guess heating isn't a concern for wherever you live either. Or electricity. Or gas. Or water. Or cleaning products to maintain a clean home and clothes and body. Or things like washing machines. Rivers aren't safe to wash in where I live. Working 6 hours a week on minimum wage barely covers water and food. Actually stuff that, I dispute that you can afford meat and potatoes on the table on 6 hours a week. Maybe use a carboard box for a table, sure. Potatoes? No problem. You still need cutlery and pots and pans an plates and a source of heat. That costs money, unless you like to eat potatoes raw. Don't eat potatoes raw, it's dangerous. Meat? No way. Meat is expensive. And I aren't even taking into account of transportation costs to live near a place of work. How can anybody afford to live on 6 hours of work a week? Smell and live and eat like a homeless person? You need to stop using a new table for every meal. That's where you're leaking the money. You can reuse them. Same with pots and pans. But yeah, the 6 hours a week would also cover rent and heating. Where is it that less than $200 a month covers that stuff? Or even ~$240 if you make well above minimum wage? I'd go with median wage rather than minimum. I'm also talking about living the way your grandparents did so cable isn't included in that budget. But I ran the numbers. Using a 40 hour work week as a basis for the median wage of the US I multiplied it by 6/40 to get an annual estimate for that. You can totally live on that in a two income household out here if you don't view having a giant truck, cable, internet, dining out four times a week and so forth as your birthright. There are luxuries which would have been unimaginable fifty years ago that are now considered basic necessities. People choose to work beyond that because they want all that extra stuff and that's absolutely fine by me, I do the same. I don't want to live with the conditions of the richest country in the world just a few decades ago, that's unacceptably poor, I want to live with the conditions of the richest country today. But that does not mean that I'm not making a choice with resource allocation. Every single person posting on this forum is rich beyond imagining in the eyes of their ancestors. When you claim poverty it's a comparative poverty, not an absolute poverty. Being unable to afford a townhouse in a city that cannot possibly fit all the people who feel entitled to live there does not make you poor. I get the concept, but it doesn't work out in reality. Yes, the internet is an unimaginable luxury. But you can't opt out of it; it's basically mandatory to hold many jobs, connect with people socially, etc. You can't just go to the town square and ask for buddies to go drinking with; you have to call or text or fb message. Things that used to be available in simple ways no longer are. Sprawl means you have to own a car to get by in most cities, and the exceptions are generally expensive places to live in general. Median household income is ~53k. If you make less than 12k/year, you cannot buy healthcare in a red state for an affordable price (price goes UP tenfold below that bracket.) I think of a 40 hour workweek as relatively tame already compared to lots of my friends schedules. But going down to a fifth of that? For starters, very few jobs would actually let you work that little. The ones that would will often be very low wage. At minimum or low wages, 5 hrs a week won't even cover rent, nevermind foodstuffs or cars or insurance or phones or the other necessities of life. Whether or not employers in the current market would let you work that little is beside the point. My argument was that only a tiny fraction of the money we earn is spent on things we actually need, the rest is on stuff we would like to have. In some areas rent is very high but those are the areas in which living there is a thing you would like, not a thing you need. If we return to the issue that started this all, rent control in LA, do low income people need to live in LA, or just want to live there? I would argue that it's a want, not a need. If you're spending all your income paying for rent for the place you really want to live, well, how is that different to spending all your money on pokemon cards? They could afford a perfectly acceptable house somewhere else but they don't want that house, they want this house that they can't afford to live in and that somehow becomes the problem of everyone else. The government can solve a great many problems but it cannot create something out of nothing. Too many people, too few houses, someone has to live elsewhere. No, individuals do not need to live in LA. Yes, LA needs low income people living in the city. What kind of question is that?
Why does it need low income people? If they didn't have subbed housing wages for currently low income jobs would necessarily increase to either make commuting worthwhile or so people performing those jobs could live there. Also, the increase in cost of goods resulting from this would have a negative feedback the cost of housing, also benefiting people.
|
On November 22 2015 08:51 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 08:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 22 2015 08:41 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 08:17 Yoav wrote:On November 22 2015 07:59 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2015 07:36 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 07:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 21 2015 17:05 KwarK wrote:
If we were content living with the standard of living from just a few decades ago we could already exist on a 6 hour week. Instead every member of society now attempts to purchase goods that were luxuries beyond imagining in their grandparents generation. They spend the first few hours of the first day of the week earning enough to put meat and potatoes on the table and the rest on car payments, cable tv and paying a legion of Chinese workers to make shit for them. And that's fine, if that's what they want to do then so be it. They are trading their time for the things they want, which is their prerogative. But if they wanted to work a 6 hour week and spend the other 34 caring for their family they could just as easily buy that with their time. Wow, rent must basically be free where you live. And I guess heating isn't a concern for wherever you live either. Or electricity. Or gas. Or water. Or cleaning products to maintain a clean home and clothes and body. Or things like washing machines. Rivers aren't safe to wash in where I live. Working 6 hours a week on minimum wage barely covers water and food. Actually stuff that, I dispute that you can afford meat and potatoes on the table on 6 hours a week. Maybe use a carboard box for a table, sure. Potatoes? No problem. You still need cutlery and pots and pans an plates and a source of heat. That costs money, unless you like to eat potatoes raw. Don't eat potatoes raw, it's dangerous. Meat? No way. Meat is expensive. And I aren't even taking into account of transportation costs to live near a place of work. How can anybody afford to live on 6 hours of work a week? Smell and live and eat like a homeless person? You need to stop using a new table for every meal. That's where you're leaking the money. You can reuse them. Same with pots and pans. But yeah, the 6 hours a week would also cover rent and heating. Where is it that less than $200 a month covers that stuff? Or even ~$240 if you make well above minimum wage? I'd go with median wage rather than minimum. I'm also talking about living the way your grandparents did so cable isn't included in that budget. But I ran the numbers. Using a 40 hour work week as a basis for the median wage of the US I multiplied it by 6/40 to get an annual estimate for that. You can totally live on that in a two income household out here if you don't view having a giant truck, cable, internet, dining out four times a week and so forth as your birthright. There are luxuries which would have been unimaginable fifty years ago that are now considered basic necessities. People choose to work beyond that because they want all that extra stuff and that's absolutely fine by me, I do the same. I don't want to live with the conditions of the richest country in the world just a few decades ago, that's unacceptably poor, I want to live with the conditions of the richest country today. But that does not mean that I'm not making a choice with resource allocation. Every single person posting on this forum is rich beyond imagining in the eyes of their ancestors. When you claim poverty it's a comparative poverty, not an absolute poverty. Being unable to afford a townhouse in a city that cannot possibly fit all the people who feel entitled to live there does not make you poor. I get the concept, but it doesn't work out in reality. Yes, the internet is an unimaginable luxury. But you can't opt out of it; it's basically mandatory to hold many jobs, connect with people socially, etc. You can't just go to the town square and ask for buddies to go drinking with; you have to call or text or fb message. Things that used to be available in simple ways no longer are. Sprawl means you have to own a car to get by in most cities, and the exceptions are generally expensive places to live in general. Median household income is ~53k. If you make less than 12k/year, you cannot buy healthcare in a red state for an affordable price (price goes UP tenfold below that bracket.) I think of a 40 hour workweek as relatively tame already compared to lots of my friends schedules. But going down to a fifth of that? For starters, very few jobs would actually let you work that little. The ones that would will often be very low wage. At minimum or low wages, 5 hrs a week won't even cover rent, nevermind foodstuffs or cars or insurance or phones or the other necessities of life. Whether or not employers in the current market would let you work that little is beside the point. My argument was that only a tiny fraction of the money we earn is spent on things we actually need, the rest is on stuff we would like to have. In some areas rent is very high but those are the areas in which living there is a thing you would like, not a thing you need. If we return to the issue that started this all, rent control in LA, do low income people need to live in LA, or just want to live there? I would argue that it's a want, not a need. If you're spending all your income paying for rent for the place you really want to live, well, how is that different to spending all your money on pokemon cards? They could afford a perfectly acceptable house somewhere else but they don't want that house, they want this house that they can't afford to live in and that somehow becomes the problem of everyone else. The government can solve a great many problems but it cannot create something out of nothing. Too many people, too few houses, someone has to live elsewhere. No, individuals do not need to live in LA. Yes, LA needs low income people living in the city. What kind of question is that? Why does it need low income people? If they didn't have subbed housing wages for currently low income jobs would necessarily increase to either make commuting worthwhile or so people performing those jobs could live there. Also, the increase in cost of goods resulting from this would have a negative feedback the cost of housing, also benefiting people.
Which is basically Kwarks argument. If poor people cannot afford to live in a city then the jobs those poor people generally do will not get done. Since those jobs are often needed businesses will need to pay more to allow poor people to afford the houses they need to work the jobs in the city.
|
United States42024 Posts
On November 22 2015 08:40 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 07:59 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2015 07:36 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 07:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 21 2015 17:05 KwarK wrote:
If we were content living with the standard of living from just a few decades ago we could already exist on a 6 hour week. Instead every member of society now attempts to purchase goods that were luxuries beyond imagining in their grandparents generation. They spend the first few hours of the first day of the week earning enough to put meat and potatoes on the table and the rest on car payments, cable tv and paying a legion of Chinese workers to make shit for them. And that's fine, if that's what they want to do then so be it. They are trading their time for the things they want, which is their prerogative. But if they wanted to work a 6 hour week and spend the other 34 caring for their family they could just as easily buy that with their time. Wow, rent must basically be free where you live. And I guess heating isn't a concern for wherever you live either. Or electricity. Or gas. Or water. Or cleaning products to maintain a clean home and clothes and body. Or things like washing machines. Rivers aren't safe to wash in where I live. Working 6 hours a week on minimum wage barely covers water and food. Actually stuff that, I dispute that you can afford meat and potatoes on the table on 6 hours a week. Maybe use a carboard box for a table, sure. Potatoes? No problem. You still need cutlery and pots and pans an plates and a source of heat. That costs money, unless you like to eat potatoes raw. Don't eat potatoes raw, it's dangerous. Meat? No way. Meat is expensive. And I aren't even taking into account of transportation costs to live near a place of work. How can anybody afford to live on 6 hours of work a week? Smell and live and eat like a homeless person? You need to stop using a new table for every meal. That's where you're leaking the money. You can reuse them. Same with pots and pans. But yeah, the 6 hours a week would also cover rent and heating. Where is it that less than $200 a month covers that stuff? Or even ~$240 if you make well above minimum wage? I'd go with median wage rather than minimum. I'm also talking about living the way your grandparents did so cable isn't included in that budget. But I ran the numbers. Using a 40 hour work week as a basis for the median wage of the US I multiplied it by 6/40 to get an annual estimate for that. You can totally live on that in a two income household out here if you don't view having a giant truck, cable, internet, dining out four times a week and so forth as your birthright. There are luxuries which would have been unimaginable fifty years ago that are now considered basic necessities. People choose to work beyond that because they want all that extra stuff and that's absolutely fine by me, I do the same. I don't want to live with the conditions of the richest country in the world just a few decades ago, that's unacceptably poor, I want to live with the conditions of the richest country today. But that does not mean that I'm not making a choice with resource allocation. Every single person posting on this forum is rich beyond imagining in the eyes of their ancestors. When you claim poverty it's a comparative poverty, not an absolute poverty. Being unable to afford a townhouse in a city that cannot possibly fit all the people who feel entitled to live there does not make you poor. Inflation is a bitch. Again, actually price out these expenses of yours to make this work out. I want to know what part in particular you're being delusional about.
$250, my share of rent in a house I share with my wife.
$50 month, I could live on that, especially cooking joint meals with my wife.
$20 month gas and electric. I would learn to live with beverages served at room temperature and to dress appropriately for the weather instead of living in a permanent microclimate.
$3 month phone plan, I have wifi at 90% of the places I spend my time.
I wouldn't have modern healthcare but there again nor did people 50 years ago, that was more or less my point.
I'd cycle to work, thus saving on gas, insurance and gym membership.
I wouldn't pay other people to cook for me, I can do that myself. It wouldn't be much fun but I don't believe I have a universal right to fun, that's why I don't make other people pay for my fun, I work far more than I have to. Hell, I'd be in better shape if I started doing that. All this income has made me soft.
|
On November 22 2015 08:51 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 08:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 22 2015 08:41 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 08:17 Yoav wrote:On November 22 2015 07:59 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2015 07:36 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 07:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 21 2015 17:05 KwarK wrote:
If we were content living with the standard of living from just a few decades ago we could already exist on a 6 hour week. Instead every member of society now attempts to purchase goods that were luxuries beyond imagining in their grandparents generation. They spend the first few hours of the first day of the week earning enough to put meat and potatoes on the table and the rest on car payments, cable tv and paying a legion of Chinese workers to make shit for them. And that's fine, if that's what they want to do then so be it. They are trading their time for the things they want, which is their prerogative. But if they wanted to work a 6 hour week and spend the other 34 caring for their family they could just as easily buy that with their time. Wow, rent must basically be free where you live. And I guess heating isn't a concern for wherever you live either. Or electricity. Or gas. Or water. Or cleaning products to maintain a clean home and clothes and body. Or things like washing machines. Rivers aren't safe to wash in where I live. Working 6 hours a week on minimum wage barely covers water and food. Actually stuff that, I dispute that you can afford meat and potatoes on the table on 6 hours a week. Maybe use a carboard box for a table, sure. Potatoes? No problem. You still need cutlery and pots and pans an plates and a source of heat. That costs money, unless you like to eat potatoes raw. Don't eat potatoes raw, it's dangerous. Meat? No way. Meat is expensive. And I aren't even taking into account of transportation costs to live near a place of work. How can anybody afford to live on 6 hours of work a week? Smell and live and eat like a homeless person? You need to stop using a new table for every meal. That's where you're leaking the money. You can reuse them. Same with pots and pans. But yeah, the 6 hours a week would also cover rent and heating. Where is it that less than $200 a month covers that stuff? Or even ~$240 if you make well above minimum wage? I'd go with median wage rather than minimum. I'm also talking about living the way your grandparents did so cable isn't included in that budget. But I ran the numbers. Using a 40 hour work week as a basis for the median wage of the US I multiplied it by 6/40 to get an annual estimate for that. You can totally live on that in a two income household out here if you don't view having a giant truck, cable, internet, dining out four times a week and so forth as your birthright. There are luxuries which would have been unimaginable fifty years ago that are now considered basic necessities. People choose to work beyond that because they want all that extra stuff and that's absolutely fine by me, I do the same. I don't want to live with the conditions of the richest country in the world just a few decades ago, that's unacceptably poor, I want to live with the conditions of the richest country today. But that does not mean that I'm not making a choice with resource allocation. Every single person posting on this forum is rich beyond imagining in the eyes of their ancestors. When you claim poverty it's a comparative poverty, not an absolute poverty. Being unable to afford a townhouse in a city that cannot possibly fit all the people who feel entitled to live there does not make you poor. I get the concept, but it doesn't work out in reality. Yes, the internet is an unimaginable luxury. But you can't opt out of it; it's basically mandatory to hold many jobs, connect with people socially, etc. You can't just go to the town square and ask for buddies to go drinking with; you have to call or text or fb message. Things that used to be available in simple ways no longer are. Sprawl means you have to own a car to get by in most cities, and the exceptions are generally expensive places to live in general. Median household income is ~53k. If you make less than 12k/year, you cannot buy healthcare in a red state for an affordable price (price goes UP tenfold below that bracket.) I think of a 40 hour workweek as relatively tame already compared to lots of my friends schedules. But going down to a fifth of that? For starters, very few jobs would actually let you work that little. The ones that would will often be very low wage. At minimum or low wages, 5 hrs a week won't even cover rent, nevermind foodstuffs or cars or insurance or phones or the other necessities of life. Whether or not employers in the current market would let you work that little is beside the point. My argument was that only a tiny fraction of the money we earn is spent on things we actually need, the rest is on stuff we would like to have. In some areas rent is very high but those are the areas in which living there is a thing you would like, not a thing you need. If we return to the issue that started this all, rent control in LA, do low income people need to live in LA, or just want to live there? I would argue that it's a want, not a need. If you're spending all your income paying for rent for the place you really want to live, well, how is that different to spending all your money on pokemon cards? They could afford a perfectly acceptable house somewhere else but they don't want that house, they want this house that they can't afford to live in and that somehow becomes the problem of everyone else. The government can solve a great many problems but it cannot create something out of nothing. Too many people, too few houses, someone has to live elsewhere. No, individuals do not need to live in LA. Yes, LA needs low income people living in the city. What kind of question is that? Why does it need low income people? If they didn't have subbed housing wages for currently low income jobs would necessarily increase to either make commuting worthwhile or so people performing those jobs could live there. Also, the increase in cost of goods resulting from this would have a negative feedback the cost of housing, also benefiting people.
You sound like someone who had "capitalism" hammered into their head without any thought of how it works.
The entire capitalistic system is a financial system, not a community or societal one. Even the most basic concept of supply and demand involves pricing out the lowest consumer to maximize profit from the middle and upper demographics. No matter how much inflation or deflation kicks in, there will always be a level of consumer that will be priced out, unless you force the market to cater to them.
Not to mention the dozens of factors preventing things like housing markets from actually following free market theory.
|
Lol you pay much more than 20 in various fees and taxes before you even get into your electric usage. Have you ever paid a bill in real life?
|
United States42024 Posts
On November 22 2015 09:02 heliusx wrote:
Lol you pay much more than 20 in various fees and taxes before you even get into your electric usage. Have you ever paid a bill in real life?
I'm 27, married, living with my wife in our own home. I'm gonna go with yes.
|
So then you would know 20 USD for water and power is a fairy tale. I don't believe you've ever seen an electric bill, there are more than a half dozen fees.
|
United States42024 Posts
On November 22 2015 09:08 heliusx wrote:
So then you would know 20 USD for water and power is a fairy tale. I don't believe you've ever seen an electric bill, there are more than a half dozen fees.
My electric bills are way higher but I insist on living in a desert and cooling it down and my wife leaves windows open all the time and I shower in hot water daily. Did you forget the subject? 1950s living.
|
You could literally use zero power and the fees would go above $20.
|
I think you're underestimating 1950s living standards; it feels more like you're aiming for early 1900s Kwark.
|
Dunno, maybe you just get majorly ripped off? I don't have 20 bucks a month of random fees on my electricity bill either. It is higher than 20€, but i also use electricity for a lot of things that i don't exactly need, like a computer running 8 hours a day, or a fridge.
And even if you go with a 400€ budget to calculate all those massive fees on everything, you can still get that much money in ~25 hours a month. The argument goes mostly that most of the things you think you need are actually things you want. There is nothing wrong with wanting things. I like things. But if you really wanted to, you could value your time a lot more highly and money a lot less highly, and only work an hour a day and still survive.
I am currently living on a 600€/month budget. I could do with less if i really wanted to, but i like having a pc, internet and some additional other luxuries.
|
United States42024 Posts
On November 22 2015 09:12 zlefin wrote:
I think you're underestimating 1950s living standards; it feels more like you're aiming for early 1900s Kwark.
Ask old people. You'll be amazed how many grew up in houses with dirt floors and outhouses. I'm not having any of that ofc but I am doing 50s luxury.
|
I know plenty of old people, and their experience does not match what you describe. Perhaps I simply don't know the right old people, or perhaps you have an odd set.
|
United States42024 Posts
On November 22 2015 09:21 zlefin wrote:
I know plenty of old people, and their experience does not match what you describe. Perhaps I simply don't know the right old people, or perhaps you have an odd set.
My grandmother and mother in law both had dirt floors for example. My grandmother on the other side had an outhouse.
There is discretionary spending and there is mandatory spending and if we took a few generations ago as our baseline for mandatory spending then almost everything we do would be discretionary. Now I'm not one of the "how can the poor call themselves poor if they have fridges!!!" nuts but at the same time I'm not about to start subsidizing limited supplies of expensive housing to give priority to the poor over the rich whom the free market has deemed get greater value from it. People need shelter, people do not need to live in LA.
|
On November 22 2015 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Meanwhile the leading Republican candidate eggs on a crowd as they beat on a protester. Godwin's law may have to be suspended if Trump keeps on as he is. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/JDiamond1/status/668168739100172289
Trump's perspective while this mess was going on. He knows how to energize the base.
+ Show Spoiler +
Crowd's perspective
+ Show Spoiler +
I'll look into the numbers, but I'm pretty sure Trump has a better chance against Hillary than moderates/establishments like Rubio, Jeb, or Kasich. These guys are too much like Mitt Romney, who lost badly in 2012. Mitt Romney doesn't energize people. He doesn't get them excited. Trump is like the Republican Obama.
|
On November 22 2015 09:14 Simberto wrote:
Dunno, maybe you just get majorly ripped off? I don't have 20 bucks a month of random fees on my electricity bill either. It is higher than 20€, but i also use electricity for a lot of things that i don't exactly need, like a computer running 8 hours a day, or a fridge.
And even if you go with a 400€ budget to calculate all those massive fees on everything, you can still get that much money in ~25 hours a month. The argument goes mostly that most of the things you think you need are actually things you want. There is nothing wrong with wanting things. I like things. But if you really wanted to, you could value your time a lot more highly and money a lot less highly, and only work an hour a day and still survive.
I am currently living on a 600€/month budget. I could do with less if i really wanted to, but i like having a pc, internet and some additional other luxuries.
Its not about being ripped off or not it's about the cost of doing business with the power company you have no choice in picking.
On my bill here are the fees, not even taking into account the various taxes.
Munincipal Franchise fee
Storm restoration offset
Federally mandated eac rider
Meter charge
Service charge
Environmental recovery
This alone runs up to over $20 and I have the cheapest company in the area. Having 20 a month power and water is literally impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
