|
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 January 23 2018 09:07 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2018 08:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Spineless Democrats, and rampant Corporatism. What's not to love?
In Canada it ranges from $4 / month unless you have a balance of 2K to $30 / month or 5K balance. This is at the largest bank in the country (TD).
TD is not the largest bank in the country though.
That would be RBC, by a bit. Although TD on the consumer banking side is pretty competitive.
But yeah my new immigrant (although I dont think it should count as one) account is still free and i get all sorts of random shit for moving my american money here like tablets and stuff. I dont need it but im not complaining,
|
On January 23 2018 08:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2018 08:20 Gorsameth wrote:An account does not cost the bank money. Every cent on it makes the bank money. Why the F are they charging you for the 'privilege' of making money off of your money without giving you any of the returns. It does cost money. Branch overhead, admin, tellers etc. Hell, I use at least an hour of bank teller time each month. Demand deposits are the bank's least favorite funds as well. You can't really take on much risk when somebody's money has to always be available. There are fair arguments to be made about the public utility of banking services availability, but BoA isn't doing this to be dicks. They're doing it because small denomination demand deposit accounts aren't profitable (i.e they're not really making money like Gorsameth thinks they are).
|
On January 23 2018 14:01 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2018 08:30 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2018 08:20 Gorsameth wrote:An account does not cost the bank money. Every cent on it makes the bank money. Why the F are they charging you for the 'privilege' of making money off of your money without giving you any of the returns. It does cost money. Branch overhead, admin, tellers etc. Hell, I use at least an hour of bank teller time each month. Demand deposits are the bank's least favorite funds as well. You can't really take on much risk when somebody's money has to always be available. There are fair arguments to be made about the public utility of credit availability, but BoA isn't doing this to be dicks. They're doing it because small denomination demand deposit accounts aren't profitable (i.e they're not really making money like Gorsameth thinks they are). On one hand, I definitely understand the problems with profiting off of that sort of account. On the other hand, being poor is expensive. Due to things like bank fees for small balances, being poor literally costs money. It makes it harder for people in poverty to get out of poverty, which is probably bad for society.
|
That's society's problem though, not BoA's. There's no reason BoA should have to shoulder the cost of providing for the poor any more than Google or SpaceX does. If the government wants to subsidize low denomination demand deposits for the public good, that's reasonable. But that currently isn't the case.
At least, in a vacuum. In reality, the bank-government relationship is messy and BoA is subsidized to some extent. But it's still better for BoA to be a corporation and the government to be a government, so I don't see an issue with BoA doing this as long as it doesn't violate reasonable regulations.
|
If BoA wants to remove the option I don't see the problem. Then again, I have 10+ banks within a 5 minute drive that I could do business with, so my options are probably a bit more plentiful than others. If people disagree with the fee, take your business elsewhere. There are plenty of options for most people with simple actions needed to wave any possible fee. Just looking around after reading this I found some great offers from banks near me that might entice me to change or add an additional account soon.
|
On January 23 2018 14:29 mozoku wrote: That's society's problem though, not BoA's. There's no reason BoA should have to shoulder the cost of providing for the poor any more than Google or SpaceX does. If the government wants to subsidize low denomination demand deposits for the public good, that's reasonable. But that currently isn't the case.
At least, in a vacuum. In reality, the bank-government relationship is messy and BoA is subsidized to some extent. But it's still better for BoA to be a corporation and the government to be a government, so I don't see an issue with BoA doing this as long as it doesn't violate reasonable regulations.
It blows my mind that a company that had to pay out billions of dollars in settlements for fucking over their customers is still in business in the first place.
If someone boned 10 people you knew out of 10 bucks you would be roundly considered an idiot beyond redemption for giving them $10 and expecting it back.
Steal/scam people out of BILLIONS of dollars and people will be like "yeah give those guys all my money please!" and our politicians are just like 'yeah I mean they messed up, but it's probably totally the last time they screw a bunch of you out of a shit load of money and we totally bail them out with your money.
Personally I think they should be begging us to take free checking accounts and not their asses to prison, but I suppose the whole "it's not their problem" is a take too.
|
One of the richest counties in California has started evicting hundreds of its poorest residents from a dusty riverbed homeless encampment just a few miles from Disneyland. Activists say the site may be home to as many as 1,000 people.
Yet Orange County has admitted that it has just 250 shelter beds currently available.
Asked how the county would deal with the fact that there would be more evicted residents than shelter beds, a spokesperson, Jennifer Nentwig, said only that county officials would “monitor” the number of shelter beds available, and that “the county is not dictating where people are able to go”.
“That is the comment that I’m able to provide,” she said.
The county’s move is drawing international condemnation. The UN special rapporteur on adequate housing, Leilani Farha, who is on an unofficial visit to homeless encampments in California and is traveling to Los Angeles this week, said the county should halt the riverbed sweeps.
“My suggestion is a moratorium on forced evictions,” she said. “Forcibly evicting people without any alternative housing options for the bulk of them is hugely problematic and not consistent with a human rights approach. It’s about treating people like human beings.”
As in the rest of the US, there are far more homeless people than affordable-housing units. According to last year’s homeless count, Orange County has just under 5,000 residents who are homeless and a meager affordable-housing pipeline.
County officials believe there are about 450 people living in the riverbed encampment, while the ACLU gives a much higher number. The camp has been steadily growing in recent months, despite little to no access to plumbing or clean water. A local activist’s attempt to install portable toilets in the encampment was blocked by county and then city officials, who worried amenities in the riverbed might further entrench the settlement. Housed residents in the area have complained of unsanitary conditions in the riverbed and accused its homeless residents of theft and breaking into cars.
Early this morning, a small crew of county workers picked apart a large pile of clothing mixed with debris, packing items into orange trash bags and hauling them into a truck. Residents stood outside swapping rumors about what was happening and how soon they’d have to leave.
Ricardo Montiel and his girlfriend, who has schizophrenia, have been living in the riverbed encampment for the last few months. They’ve been homeless for about six years, he said, and used to sleep on the streets of different cities in the county, where he was raised.
“It was a nightmare with the police,” he said. “They always wanted to kick us out of their city, to go to another city. They drove me and my [girlfriend] out of my city to another city one day, just so we wouldn’t be homeless in their city.”
When the pair arrived at the riverbed encampment, it was like a refuge, he said.
“It’s a place to call home now. I’m not homeless – I consider this a home. I have somewhere to go every night, instead of being in danger out there on the streets.”
“Yeah, there’s violence. Yeah, there’s drug use,” said Michael, another resident. “You have that in every city. The only difference is this city is on a riverbed.”
Along with the shortage of shelter space and permanent housing, most cities in the county have laws that prohibit sleeping outside, which means a night on the streets can turn into a citation or even jail time.
“This has been the county’s de facto solution to homelessness – to allow cities to push people out of city centers and to remote places,” said a local ACLU policy analyst, Eve Garrow.
“The problem is the encampment gets very large and visible and starts attracting attention, and then the county moves in [to] push people out someplace else.”
Source
|
|
The California homeless solution has always been my favorite: Make it someone else’s problem. Don’t open more shelters and provide them with services, just move them along until they find a community poor enough that they won’t be removed from it.
|
On January 23 2018 23:05 Plansix wrote: The California homeless solution has always been my favorite: Make it someone else’s problem. Don’t open more shelters and provide them with services, just move them along until they find a community poor enough that they won’t be removed from it.
Its against the rules to be homeless in some places. The Irvine corp makes cops pick up any homeless people in Irvine and drive them somewhere else.
The Irvine corp is creepy as fuck btw, never live in Irvine
|
|
On January 23 2018 23:59 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2018 23:05 Plansix wrote: The California homeless solution has always been my favorite: Make it someone else’s problem. Don’t open more shelters and provide them with services, just move them along until they find a community poor enough that they won’t be removed from it. Its against the rules to be homeless in some places. The Irvine corp makes cops pick up any homeless people in Irvine and drive them somewhere else. The Irvine corp is creepy as fuck btw, never live in Irvine We had the same problem in our area. Watertown was driving their homeless to Fitchburg and dropping them off, which was overwhelming Fitchburg’s shelters. But I live in a good state where the legislature governs for real, so Fitchburg raised a complaint and the state told Watertown to knock it off and request additional funding like a normal city. The residents of Watertown were not happy about it, but who cares?
|
This impulse to try and criminalize or shuffle homelessness away is quite puzzling and is, imo, another symptom of our collective overemphasis on "individualism" at the expense of recognizing the extent to which our fates are connected with those around us.
|
I wonder, if someone actually succeeds, will Trump change his tune? Surely by that point he'd realise this has gone too far?
|
|
On January 24 2018 00:13 iamthedave wrote:I wonder, if someone actually succeeds, will Trump change his tune? Surely by that point he'd realise this has gone too far? He just won't say anything about it. Same way he always has when bad shit happens to things/people/places he doesn't care about.
|
On January 24 2018 00:13 iamthedave wrote:I wonder, if someone actually succeeds, will Trump change his tune? Surely by that point he'd realise this has gone too far? Look at Charlottesville and you will find your answer. He sure didn't change his tune when a car drive into a crowd. No, there were 'good people' in the nazi protest and the alt-left was mean to.
|
At some point people in the FBI are going to start resigning in protest. We are already seeing rumors of it. I will critique the FBI like any good citizen should, but my hope and intent is to improve it. Trump and companies like Fox News undermining due process at this point. Lou Dobbs called for US marshals to arrest members of the Justice department last night. That is dictatorship talk right there, arresting perceived political opponents based on zero evidence.
|
On January 24 2018 00:11 farvacola wrote: This impulse to try and criminalize or shuffle homelessness away is quite puzzling and is, imo, another symptom of our collective overemphasis on "individualism" at the expense of recognizing the extent to which our fates are connected with those around us.
NIMBY
|
This sounds a bit crazy, but all it takes is one nice person to change a homeless persons fate. Even if they are crazy. I've worked with some seriously mental people before, and one thing I learned from them is that we're all still people.
|
|
|
|