|
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 09:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 08:51 cLutZ wrote: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.
Capitalism actually is a social system in combination with a way of organizing an economy, so that you don't understand that makes the e rest of this moot, but, the primary cause of those "factors" is government intervention through land use restrictions and price caps.
This isn't a theoretical capitalism debate, its a discussion on why living in cities is expensive and why that makes sense and isn't a humanitarian crisis. I do think that this seems like a proxy debate for a lot of people about race, and whether minority neighborhoods should be preserved as majority-minority.
|
On November 22 2015 09:24 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Nah. Obama would be like Trump if he was always doing that "cling to guns and religion" shit in public and without apology. Guy has his flaws, but he's not an unrepentant asshole.
On November 22 2015 09:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Sure, but you can't just get that kind of thing anymore, like I said. You can't go to the real estate agent and say "I'm ok with dirt floors and outhouses. They literally don't exist anymore and you HAVE to pay for actual floors and bathrooms if you want to live in civilization at all. Though I guess illegally hunting and living off the land would still work in some places.
|
On November 22 2015 09:27 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 09:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 22 2015 08:51 cLutZ wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Capitalism actually is a social system in combination with a way of organizing an economy, so that you don't understand that makes the e rest of this moot, but, the primary cause of those "factors" is government intervention through land use restrictions and price caps. This isn't a theoretical capitalism debate, its a discussion on why living in cities is expensive and why that makes sense and isn't a humanitarian crisis. I do think that this seems like a proxy debate for a lot of people about race, and whether minority neighborhoods should be preserved as majority-minority.
No. The primary cause of these factors is that most houses have people living in them, you can't take away their property to adjust for population growth, and it takes a century before a city full of 2000 square foot, single story homes can start to look like Beijing.
|
United States42689 Posts
On November 22 2015 09:30 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 09:24 Deathstar wrote: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 +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4--cG8h52Ps Crowd's perspective + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/qq4l2eYIsU0 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. Nah. Obama would be like Trump if he was always doing that "cling to guns and religion" shit in public and without apology. Guy has his flaws, but he's not an unrepentant asshole. Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 09:23 KwarK wrote: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. Sure, but you can't just get that kind of thing anymore, like I said. You can't go to the real estate agent and say "I'm ok with dirt floors and outhouses. They literally don't exist anymore and you HAVE to pay for actual floors and bathrooms if you want to live in civilization at all. Though I guess illegally hunting and living off the land would still work in some places.
Plumbing and floors were included in my $250 estimate for rent. Two people splitting a house here can quite easily pay just $500 a month between them. You could get it to three people and $167 per person if a couple shared one room and let out the spare room.
|
On November 22 2015 08:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 08:40 killa_robot 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. 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.
Your rent situation is a miracle. The only $500 place near me was a makeshift bachelor pad in the basement of a house with a prison-like shower for the bathroom. The next step up was $550, and I'm pretty sure the floor of that place was set to collapse at any time.
Car situation is saving you a bunch of money, but I find it hard to believe you'd be able to get a job that close to where you live. Maybe the job situation where you live is better than my area though.
Being debt free (as I assume you are since no loans are mentioned), is also pretty lucky. You must have got a free pass/didn't go to uni, and have never had to deal with any large purchases (AKA - a car).
So yeah, having luck on your side, ignoring taxes completely, and having a secondary income (which kind of undermines your point), makes it possible I suppose.
Still, your take on things is odd. It's like you think that most of the money people spend their income on is things like eating out and having fun.
And fuck, I hate cars. Can't wait until autonomous vehicles run by the government become the norm.
|
On November 22 2015 09:53 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 08:59 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 08:40 killa_robot 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. 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. Your rent situation is a miracle. The only $500 place near me was a makeshift bachelor pad in the basement of a house with a prison-like shower for the bathroom. The next step up was $550, and I'm pretty sure the floor of that place was set to collapse at any time. Car situation is saving you a bunch of money, but I find it hard to believe you'd be able to get a job that close to where you live. Maybe the job situation where you live is better than my area though. Being debt free (as I assume you are since no loans are mentioned), is also pretty lucky. You must have got a free pass/didn't go to uni, and have never had to deal with any large purchases (AKA - a car). So yeah, having luck on your side, ignoring taxes completely, and having a secondary income (which kind of undermines your point), makes it possible I suppose. Still, your take on things is odd. It's like you think that most of the money people spend their income on is things like eating out and having fun. And fuck, I hate cars. Can't wait until autonomous vehicles run by the government become the norm.
He grew up in England which, being outside the US, means he finished his education without debt which is pretty normal in Europe.
|
United States42689 Posts
On November 22 2015 09:53 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 08:59 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 08:40 killa_robot 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. 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. Your rent situation is a miracle. The only $500 place near me was a makeshift bachelor pad in the basement of a house with a prison-like shower for the bathroom. The next step up was $550, and I'm pretty sure the floor of that place was set to collapse at any time. Car situation is saving you a bunch of money, but I find it hard to believe you'd be able to get a job that close to where you live. Maybe the job situation where you live is better than my area though. Being debt free (as I assume you are since no loans are mentioned), is also pretty lucky. You must have got a free pass/didn't go to uni, and have never had to deal with any large purchases (AKA - a car). So yeah, having luck on your side, ignoring taxes completely, and having a secondary income (which kind of undermines your point), makes it possible I suppose. Still, your take on things is odd. It's like you think that most of the money people spend their income on is things like eating out and having fun. And fuck, I hate cars. Can't wait until autonomous vehicles run by the government become the norm.
I'm in a low cost of living area. But that wasn't luck, that was by choice.
A job that close to where you live? Have you ever used a bike before? They're pretty powerful tools. From a central location I could work anywhere in the city and commute by bike in around an hour each way.
Uni counts as a luxury purchase. Buy an education if you must, work more than 6 hours to pay for it.
Taxes? Nobody on that income pays taxes on the first 6 hours a week, it's the other 34 that fuck you. If we wanted to include taxes then suddenly it's easy mode because I also get to include food stamps and the like.
Secondary income was mentioned nowhere in my post.
This is not my personal budget. This is the hypothetical budget of someone who was capable of distinguishing between mandatory purchases and discretionary purchases. That is the exercise going on here. They work their few hours and they can now live in a small house and bike to work and eat their meat and potatoes. At this point they can choose to keep working more hours, incur taxes, buy a car, get a degree and so forth, or they can choose not to. But that is a choice.
I choose to earn all this extra money so I can never step outside of an air conditioned bubble and so I can have a machine move me around the world at crazy speeds by burning the remains of dinosaurs. I choose to live in a far larger house than I need. I choose to pay people to cook and clean up after I eat for me a few nights a week. But that is all discretionary spending and if I couldn't afford to do that anymore I would not demand the government start subsidizing it.
I do not live like the budget I described, I make a shitton of discretionary purchases far above the budget I described. But I view those as discretionary, those are luxuries that I'm trading my time for because I'm soft and live in the future and I can do those things. I'm making a choice on how to allocate my time, labour and money. I could just as easily choose to scrap some of the luxuries to buy myself more time.
|
On November 22 2015 10:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 09:53 killa_robot wrote:On November 22 2015 08:59 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 08:40 killa_robot 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. 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. Your rent situation is a miracle. The only $500 place near me was a makeshift bachelor pad in the basement of a house with a prison-like shower for the bathroom. The next step up was $550, and I'm pretty sure the floor of that place was set to collapse at any time. Car situation is saving you a bunch of money, but I find it hard to believe you'd be able to get a job that close to where you live. Maybe the job situation where you live is better than my area though. Being debt free (as I assume you are since no loans are mentioned), is also pretty lucky. You must have got a free pass/didn't go to uni, and have never had to deal with any large purchases (AKA - a car). So yeah, having luck on your side, ignoring taxes completely, and having a secondary income (which kind of undermines your point), makes it possible I suppose. Still, your take on things is odd. It's like you think that most of the money people spend their income on is things like eating out and having fun. And fuck, I hate cars. Can't wait until autonomous vehicles run by the government become the norm. I'm in a low cost of living area. But that wasn't luck, that was by choice. A job that close to where you live? Have you ever used a bike before? They're pretty powerful tools. From a central location I could work anywhere in the city and commute by bike in around an hour each way. Uni counts as a luxury purchase. Buy an education if you must, work more than 6 hours to pay for it. Taxes? Nobody on that income pays taxes on the first 6 hours a week, it's the other 34 that fuck you. If we wanted to include taxes then suddenly it's easy mode because I also get to include food stamps and the like. Secondary income was mentioned nowhere in my post.This is not my personal budget. This is the hypothetical budget of someone who was capable of distinguishing between mandatory purchases and discretionary purchases. That is the exercise going on here. They work their few hours and they can now live in a small house and bike to work and eat their meat and potatoes. At this point they can choose to keep working more hours, incur taxes, buy a car, get a degree and so forth, or they can choose not to. But that is a choice. I choose to earn all this extra money so I can never step outside of an air conditioned bubble and so I can have a machine move me around the world at crazy speeds by burning the remains of dinosaurs. I choose to live in a far larger house than I need. I choose to pay people to cook and clean up after I eat for me a few nights a week. But that is all discretionary spending and if I couldn't afford to do that anymore I would not demand the government start subsidizing it. I do not live like the budget I described, I make a shitton of discretionary purchases far above the budget I described. But I view those as discretionary, those are luxuries that I'm trading my time for because I'm soft and live in the future and I can do those things. I'm making a choice on how to allocate my time, labour and money. I could just as easily choose to scrap some of the luxuries to buy myself more time.
Yes it was. You said your HALF of the rent. You can't pay half the rent unless someone else is paying the other half.
I'm not sure how you can justify using a hypothetical median wage without having any educational cost to it, but suit yourself. No point in getting into the details of hypotheticals.
|
Kwark why do you think your employer pays you? Do you think you are just engaging in an equivalent exchange: your labor for money wages?
Do you think in your anti-consumer hypothetical where everyone is a Kwarkian and capitalism is dead that anyone would even pay you for 6 hours worth of wages? Why would anyone front money to you for no return, i.e. the equal exchange of labor for money value (the tyranny of capitalist logic)? The reason the unpropertied masses have jobs at all is because capital circulates: people with capital invest it with the expectation of a return on the part of capitalists. Your fantasies here are schizophrenic: a world where everyone can be Kwarkian and capitalist.
While you are ridiculous in your specifics I sympathize with your sentiment. But when are you going to come around and recognize that the kwarktopia you describe would necessitate the overthrow of capitalism? And since that is the case, when are you going to abandon your free market prescription for who has a right to the City?
|
I can't even tell where the discussion started, much less where it is going.
|
David Vitter loses to John Bel Edwards. -AP
|
On November 22 2015 09:24 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +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 +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4--cG8h52Ps Crowd's perspective + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/qq4l2eYIsU0 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.
Trump has pretty much the worst chance out of any Republican candidate in the general election. The man is a monster and completely alienates anyone that's not a hardcore rightwing nutjob.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
|
On November 22 2015 12:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
David Vitter loses to John Bel Edwards. -AP
Yup we elected a dem governor in Louisiana.
I thought for sure diaper Dave was gonna win.
|
Had to google Diaper Dave. Highly recommended.
|
On November 22 2015 12:31 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 12:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
David Vitter loses to John Bel Edwards. -AP Yup we elected a dem governor in Louisiana. I thought for sure diaper Dave was gonna win.
I'm relieved that John Bel Edwards won, it's a testament to how ridiculous politics is that an adulterer representing a party that has run the state into the ground could even stand a chance against a newcomer from a pretty politically established family.
|
United States42689 Posts
On November 22 2015 10:48 IgnE wrote:
Kwark why do you think your employer pays you? Do you think you are just engaging in an equivalent exchange: your labor for money wages?
Do you think in your anti-consumer hypothetical where everyone is a Kwarkian and capitalism is dead that anyone would even pay you for 6 hours worth of wages? Why would anyone front money to you for no return, i.e. the equal exchange of labor for money value (the tyranny of capitalist logic)? The reason the unpropertied masses have jobs at all is because capital circulates: people with capital invest it with the expectation of a return on the part of capitalists. Your fantasies here are schizophrenic: a world where everyone can be Kwarkian and capitalist.
While you are ridiculous in your specifics I sympathize with your sentiment. But when are you going to come around and recognize that the kwarktopia you describe would necessitate the overthrow of capitalism? And since that is the case, when are you going to abandon your free market prescription for who has a right to the City?
You don't have a working understanding of capitalism, this is a waste of time. Capitalism is a mechanism, it doesn't care whether you choose to work 8 hours or 80 hours any more than it cares whether you buy coke or pepsi. You make your choice, that choice has a minuscule impact upon supply and demand and, like snowflakes causing an avalanche, the market moves. The choice to completely drop out of the work force and raise kids rather than putting them in daycare and working yourself is still an economic choice. Capitalism is a mechanism whereby the choices made by participants in the economy signal the value of labour and products to the market as a whole which is made up of other participants each also trying to make rational choices.
Capitalism would be in no way damaged by people shifting away from consumerism. The choice to stay at home and jerk off rather than go to work is an economic choice, the two options are considered, the jerking off is considered the more valuable choice and in doing so a price signal is sent to the market that wages will have to be raised to outbid the appeal of masturbation.
A world filled with people like me would be much like this one, albeit with people working considerably fewer hours due to the huge increase in the value place on not working over owning consumer goods. The free market is efficient at providing people what they decide they value and what people have decided they value is not time with family or friends but rather big trucks, continually replacing goods and the ability to buy customized cupcakes at any hour of the day (this was very strange to me, in England if I wanted baked goods in the middle of the night I either had the foresight to buy them during the day or I waited, in America I find dozens of businesses within a few miles paying employees to keep them open overnight in case I might decide I want one at 2 am). Capitalism provides hugely impractical and inefficient services efficiently, when someone decides they want a cupcake at 2 am the market doesn't call them an idiot, even though they undoubtedly are, it checks to see how many people want cupcakes and if enough of them do then it's time to pay someone to bake and sell through the night. A world filled with me would not in any way impact the functioning of capitalism, the choice to stay at home is, as I have explained countless times, an economic choice that participates in the capitalist economy. All that would change is the way supply and demand allocated labour.
|
The system of capitalism, supply and demand, price fluctuations and income changes, etc. entirely requires that enough people take part in the system for numbers to actually adjust and change to a meaningful degree.
If every individual in the world only worked as much as they needed to live to minimal standards, only purchased goods at the level they needed and at the cost they personally valued those goods, then that's falling into a barter system.
And for someone who complained across the last few pages about people's lifestyles and choices being subsidized, you don't seem to realize that 24 hours of work a month is not enough to produce the food you eat, the electricity you use (even at a minimal amount), the running water you get, the $3 cellphone service you can use. That kind of lifestyle is entirely subsidized by other people.
|
On November 22 2015 14:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 10:48 IgnE wrote:
Kwark why do you think your employer pays you? Do you think you are just engaging in an equivalent exchange: your labor for money wages?
Do you think in your anti-consumer hypothetical where everyone is a Kwarkian and capitalism is dead that anyone would even pay you for 6 hours worth of wages? Why would anyone front money to you for no return, i.e. the equal exchange of labor for money value (the tyranny of capitalist logic)? The reason the unpropertied masses have jobs at all is because capital circulates: people with capital invest it with the expectation of a return on the part of capitalists. Your fantasies here are schizophrenic: a world where everyone can be Kwarkian and capitalist.
While you are ridiculous in your specifics I sympathize with your sentiment. But when are you going to come around and recognize that the kwarktopia you describe would necessitate the overthrow of capitalism? And since that is the case, when are you going to abandon your free market prescription for who has a right to the City? You don't have a working understanding of capitalism, this is a waste of time. Capitalism is a mechanism, it doesn't care whether you choose to work 8 hours or 80 hours any more than it cares whether you buy coke or pepsi. You make your choice, that choice has a minuscule impact upon supply and demand and, like snowflakes causing an avalanche, the market moves. The choice to completely drop out of the work force and raise kids rather than putting them in daycare and working yourself is still an economic choice. Capitalism is a mechanism whereby the choices made by participants in the economy signal the value of labour and products to the market as a whole which is made up of other participants each also trying to make rational choices.
Capitalism would be in no way damaged by people shifting away from consumerism. The choice to stay at home and jerk off rather than go to work is an economic choice, the two options are considered, the jerking off is considered the more valuable choice and in doing so a price signal is sent to the market that wages will have to be raised to outbid the appeal of masturbation. A world filled with people like me would be much like this one, albeit with people working considerably fewer hours due to the huge increase in the value place on not working over owning consumer goods. The free market is efficient at providing people what they decide they value and what people have decided they value is not time with family or friends but rather big trucks, continually replacing goods and the ability to buy customized cupcakes at any hour of the day (this was very strange to me, in England if I wanted baked goods in the middle of the night I either had the foresight to buy them during the day or I waited, in America I find dozens of businesses within a few miles paying employees to keep them open overnight in case I might decide I want one at 2 am). Capitalism provides hugely impractical and inefficient services efficiently, when someone decides they want a cupcake at 2 am the market doesn't call them an idiot, even though they undoubtedly are, it checks to see how many people want cupcakes and if enough of them do then it's time to pay someone to bake and sell through the night. A world filled with me would not in any way impact the functioning of capitalism, the choice to stay at home is, as I have explained countless times, an economic choice that participates in the capitalist economy. All that would change is the way supply and demand allocated labour.
Nope try again. Second failed attempt at a definition. You are talking about a market, kwark. Something that existed long before capitalism. How about answering my questions instead of pretending to know what you are talking about?
Like just to be clear, you are fantasizing. A world willed with you would not be a capitalist world. The word does not mean what you think it means. You seem to think capitalism means classical liberalism or something.
|
On November 22 2015 10:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 09:53 killa_robot wrote:On November 22 2015 08:59 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 08:40 killa_robot 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. 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. Your rent situation is a miracle. The only $500 place near me was a makeshift bachelor pad in the basement of a house with a prison-like shower for the bathroom. The next step up was $550, and I'm pretty sure the floor of that place was set to collapse at any time. Car situation is saving you a bunch of money, but I find it hard to believe you'd be able to get a job that close to where you live. Maybe the job situation where you live is better than my area though. Being debt free (as I assume you are since no loans are mentioned), is also pretty lucky. You must have got a free pass/didn't go to uni, and have never had to deal with any large purchases (AKA - a car). So yeah, having luck on your side, ignoring taxes completely, and having a secondary income (which kind of undermines your point), makes it possible I suppose. Still, your take on things is odd. It's like you think that most of the money people spend their income on is things like eating out and having fun. And fuck, I hate cars. Can't wait until autonomous vehicles run by the government become the norm. I'm in a low cost of living area. But that wasn't luck, that was by choice. A job that close to where you live? Have you ever used a bike before? They're pretty powerful tools. From a central location I could work anywhere in the city and commute by bike in around an hour each way. Uni counts as a luxury purchase. Buy an education if you must, work more than 6 hours to pay for it. Taxes? Nobody on that income pays taxes on the first 6 hours a week, it's the other 34 that fuck you. If we wanted to include taxes then suddenly it's easy mode because I also get to include food stamps and the like. Secondary income was mentioned nowhere in my post. This is not my personal budget. This is the hypothetical budget of someone who was capable of distinguishing between mandatory purchases and discretionary purchases. That is the exercise going on here. They work their few hours and they can now live in a small house and bike to work and eat their meat and potatoes. At this point they can choose to keep working more hours, incur taxes, buy a car, get a degree and so forth, or they can choose not to. But that is a choice. I choose to earn all this extra money so I can never step outside of an air conditioned bubble and so I can have a machine move me around the world at crazy speeds by burning the remains of dinosaurs. I choose to live in a far larger house than I need. I choose to pay people to cook and clean up after I eat for me a few nights a week. But that is all discretionary spending and if I couldn't afford to do that anymore I would not demand the government start subsidizing it. I do not live like the budget I described, I make a shitton of discretionary purchases far above the budget I described. But I view those as discretionary, those are luxuries that I'm trading my time for because I'm soft and live in the future and I can do those things. I'm making a choice on how to allocate my time, labour and money. I could just as easily choose to scrap some of the luxuries to buy myself more time.
Choosing where you live is a luxury. Having a job you can bike to is a luxury. Paying that little on gas/electric would be nearly impossible and would require other expenses (warm layering/extra trips to store to compensate for food spoiling/health expenses incurred)
Living on 50 dollars per month of food, goods, and services is incredibly unrealistic. This wouldn't begin to cover all manner of necessities. Hell, it probably doesn't reasonably cover food and birth control. Unless we're counting sex with your wife as a luxury. But I'm pretty sure that was standard 50 years ago.
|
United States42689 Posts
On November 22 2015 14:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The system of capitalism, supply and demand, price fluctuations and income changes, etc. entirely requires that enough people take part in the system for numbers to actually adjust and change to a meaningful degree.
If every individual in the world only worked as much as they needed to live to minimal standards, only purchased goods at the level they needed and at the cost they personally valued those goods, then that's falling into a barter system.
And for someone who complained across the last few pages about people's lifestyles and choices being subsidized, you don't seem to realize that 24 hours of work a month is not enough to produce the food you eat, the electricity you use (even at a minimal amount), the running water you get, the $3 cellphone service you can use. That kind of lifestyle is entirely subsidized by other people.
You'll have to explain why using money as a universal token denoting value would fall out of fashion simply because people stopped buying bottled water and started filling up reusable bottles. I'm not some kind of anarchistic homesteader, I just buy store brand cereal. This is hardly revolutionary. Jesus. At no point would I go "shit guys, I'm only selling a few hours of my labour a week right now, the rest I'm selling to myself because I value the time hiking in the mountains over the goods I would buy with the money I would receive for my labour, I guess I better start carrying around a box of eggs to trade for things I want to have". There is a huge, huge step between "stop consuming as much" and "start trading milk for things" that you neglected to explain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
