Change My Mind: A Society Cannot "Work" Itself to Equality

[kahiljabroni]

The area I live in that you are calling expensive has absurdly high home prices and yet when my wife bought her first home 25 years ago she only spent $20,000 when we bought our second home together an 1800 ft² home in a nice area. It was only 160,000 then when we bought our third home the same square footage but in a nicer area it was 460,000 on a half acre in a nice area of town. My property is now worth probably almost a million dollars.

Don't try to rewrite history and pretend everything's okay because it isn't.

All you talk about is your city. If nobody can afford homes then home will not sell. Obviously some people are buying. If you feel so bad then sell your million dollar home to some young couple for 200k.

 

[kahiljabroni]

My city is not very unique and you're the one that said anyone who works full-time can buy a home which is a stupid, ignorant and ridiculous statement and you know it.

A million dollars for a 2k sq ft home in the US is very unique actually.

 

[terrapin]

All these guys could do that of course, but roommates are terrible and I would rather live in a van personally... They're plugged into my house so they have power and they have water and they have access to a restroom in my office which is also on the property. I also have a big field with lots of beautiful trees so they can barbecue and stuff so it's not so bad.

But also you can't get a room for less than 5 or 600 bucks here so they're only paying me $200 just to cover what they use for utilities. That way they can save much more money more quickly.

All you talk about is your city. If nobody can afford homes then home will not sell. Obviously some people are buying. If you feel so bad then sell your million dollar home to some young couple for 200k.

Are you being stupid on purpose or are you just trolling??? Of course some people can buy homes. The point that I am making is $80,000 a year in this city used to be a whole lot of money and you could get into a home easily on that on way less than that.

When you have a majority of families only making 50,000 a year here getting into a home is not possible. Lots of really good people working. Really important jobs making only 40 or 50 grand a year.

Nobody should be pretending this isn't an absolute tragedy, especially if they're just shilling for the marketplace from a republican standpoint.

 

[terrapin]

A million dollars for a 2k sq ft home in the US is very unique actually.

It's not unique at all I told you I live in an upper middle class area. If I moved 15 miles away for the same money I could have a 4,000 ft home on half an acre maybe even an acre.

 

[kahiljabroni]

Are you being stupid on purpose or are you just trolling??? Of course some people can buy homes. The point that I am making is $80,000 a year in this city used to be a whole lot of money and you could get into a home easily on that on way less than that.

When you have a majority of families only making 50,000 a year here getting into a home is not possible. Lots of really good people working. Really important jobs making only 40 or 50 grand a year.

Nobody should be pretending this isn't an absolute tragedy, especially if they're just shilling for the marketplace from a republican standpoint.

I could pull up 500 zip codes in the US where you can get a decent 2k sq ft home for 300k.

If you dopes wanna live in vans in your zip code then have at it. Doesn't affect me

 

[Bballfan123]

lol... This is maybe the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time...

Lots of full-time jobs right now are paying about 30 grand a year. In many of those same areas rent is 1600 a month for the cheapest place you can get.... I'm not sure what you mean by proper sacrifices.... Two people I know are living in their vans in the back of my property so they can save forna house but not everyone has that luxury!!! And they make 80000 a year!!

This kind of argument seems to be a religious one where you just have to defend the market no matter what at all costs and everything must be people's fault. But the fact is it is absurdly difficult and nearly impossible to get into a home for people that make $50,000 a year in my area, let alone 30.


This whole talking point that it's still completely possible is maybe the most idiotic and irrational argument ive ever heard coming from the right.

Where the FUCK do you live? I'll get your boys a $20k house gimme a $1k finders fee

 

[Bballfan123]

Lol I'm not listening to anyone. I've saved for homes. I've bought homes. I follow home prices in different regions and rates more than most.

You start saving as a young adult and you keep saving while minimizing expenses. It might take a decade. Find an advantageous place in the country to move. When the time is right, pull the trigger.

What's the absolute cheapest region in the US?

 

[kahiljabroni]

What's the absolute cheapest region in the US?

Idk.. doesn't really matter to me. I prefer something in the middle

 

[moreorless87]

Yes this speaks to quality of life and what we as a society deem acceptable, generally speaking. Are we ok with an ever declining quality of life, so long as a certain number of us can still achieve a level of "success?" The "fuck you I got mine" or "I did it so there's absolutely no reason you can't" mentality is counterproductive to a healthy, happy society imo. It's a very narrow, selfish, unempathetic way to go through life; refusing to accept or acknowledge that your experience and/or situation doesn't necessarily reflect everyone else's. And it shouldn't! We are all different and we all face our own set of circumstances and challenges, what works for me might not necessarily work for the next man, and that's ok. I would expect things for the average hard working American to get better, easier with each passing generation, unfortunately it doesn't seem we're headed in that direction.

I think the problem is we were sold the idea of the trend of the post war era lasting forever when in reality it looks like a bit of a blip. A period were the political establishment had to accept some socialist elements to the economy for fear of a strong unionised workforce as well as the threat of the USSR and millions of young soliders returning home, FDR was willing and able to set up a big shift in the economic climate relative to previous US history. The early "american dream" had pretty much died out when the free farmland dried up but ended up being revived with a period of much greater social mobility as a result.

This was never the preffered climate of the ultra wealthy though and they have worked to erode it ever since, worked to shift back to more of a robber baron climage demonising unionised labour, legislating against it, cutting back socialist goverment spending, dropping taxes for the wealthy massively, etc.

I think the main way thats been sold to the general population is playing to the "fuck you i got mine" mindset, playing to peoples egos telling them their relative comfort compared to those less well off is the result purely of hard work. Not to say that there relative comfort isnt deserved or that they do not work hard BUT the fact they have the former is very often not only due to the latter but rather their social background with social mobility having greatly decreased.

Thats what holds up the Reaganist(not just Republicans but a lot of establishment Dems as well) world view IMHO, keep just enough of the population in relative comfort to keep a voting majority and sell them the idea those less well off are lazy and after their money. Honestly though I think you need to be pretty dam wealthy for the current climate to actually be better for you in places like the US and UK, the truth is the middle class is also being fucked by the ultra wealthy, just not quite as hard as the working class.

 

[BreatheSherBro]

Equity (equality of outcome) is a myth, dangled in front of idiots to get them to fall for bad political agendas.

You will never have equality of input so why would you expect equality of outcome? If you think about it it doesn't make sense.

Real equality is equality of opportunity, which again is currently sitting under a giant pile of horseshit and race hustling politics.

Barring an apocalypse of biblical proportions our society is unlikely to ever get even remotely close to what people think of when the word "equality" comes up, as we are on a trajectory where the wealth gap is getting exponentially bigger and the relatively few who have excess wealth are hoarding it.

Even the proposed ideas for attempting to even things out are entirely horseshit. If the wealthy part with (some of) their (excess) wealth, they will only do so for POWER, never out of the goodness of their heart on any meaningful scale and the primary reason they would trade wealth for power is they know they can in return leverage the power for more wealth.

View attachment 1024316

Beautiful post good sir.

I do think social safety nets are needed for the neediest poor, but the goal should not be to attempt to solve inequality. Attempting to solve inequality is an impossible goal short of the kind of massive intervention that would make everyone poorer and have less opportunity. I am totally against any kind of wealth redistribution that hurts the middle class or arbitrary quotas in hiring practices.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

Lol I'm not listening to anyone. I've saved for homes. I've bought homes. I follow home prices in different regions and rates more than most.

You start saving as a young adult and you keep saving while minimizing expenses. It might take a decade. Find an advantageous place in the country to move. When the time is right, pull the trigger.

Yep. That's what I did. Now the same people telling me two years ago that it was impossible are still smoking weed and playing video games all day and I own a house.

 

[kahiljabroni]

Yep. That's what I did. Now the same people telling me two years ago that it was impossible are still smoking weed and playing video games all day and I own a house.

Good for you man. It's not easy but it can be done.

 

[kahiljabroni]

I think the problem is we were sold the idea of the trend of the post war era lasting forever when in reality it looks like a bit of a blip. A period were the political establishment had to accept some socialist elements to the economy for fear of a strong unionised workforce as well as the threat of the USSR and millions of young soliders returning home, FDR was willing and able to set up a big shift in the economic climate relative to previous US history. The early "american dream" had pretty much died out when the free farmland dried up but ended up being revived with a period of much greater social mobility as a result.

This was never the preffered climate of the ultra wealthy though and they have worked to erode it ever since, worked to shift back to more of a robber baron climage demonising unionised labour, legislating against it, cutting back socialist goverment spending, dropping taxes for the wealthy massively, etc.

I think the main way thats been sold to the general population is playing to the "fuck you i got mine" mindset, playing to peoples egos telling them their relative comfort compared to those less well off is the result purely of hard work. Not to say that there relative comfort isnt deserved or that they do not work hard BUT the fact they have the former is very often not only due to the latter but rather their social background with social mobility having greatly decreased.

Thats what holds up the Reaganist(not just Republicans but a lot of establishment Dems as well) world view IMHO, keep just enough of the population in relative comfort to keep a voting majority and sell them the idea those less well off are lazy and after their money. Honestly though I think you need to be pretty dam wealthy for the current climate to actually be better for you in places like the US and UK, the truth is the middle class is also being fucked by the ultra wealthy, just not quite as hard as the working class.

Everyone loves to tout the greatness of the post ww2 era. Was it great? Sure... unless you were any type of minority. And many that benefited had to risk life and limb in a world War to enjoy the spoils. Or their immediate family did. And we also could have lost the war so there's that.


The united states post ww2 was in a very unique and advantageous position. And just because one generation may have had it arguably easier than you by some metrics, that does not mean that you have it difficult. There are countless advantages today that kids and young adults have of all backgrounds.

 

[jeff7b9]

Beautiful post good sir.

I do think social safety nets are needed for the neediest poor, but the goal should not be to attempt to solve inequality. Attempting to solve inequality is an impossible goal short of the kind of massive intervention that would make everyone poorer and have less opportunity. I am totally against any kind of wealth redistribution that hurts the middle class or arbitrary quotas in hiring practices.

I agree.

Key point being safety net and not lazy fuck net or stay home and get pregnant and collect checks net.

 

[moreorless87]

Everyone loves to tout the greatness of the post ww2 era. Was it great? Sure... unless you were any type of minority. And many that benefited had to risk life and limb in a world War to enjoy the spoils. Or their immediate family did. And we also could have lost the war so there's that.

The united states post ww2 was in a very unique and advantageous position. And just because one generation may have had it arguably easier than you by some metrics, that does not mean that you have it difficult. There are countless advantages today that kids and young adults have of all backgrounds.

Theres been a move towards a less bigoted society certainly although of course a lot of that movement happened in the post war era but again economically I think things have clearly gotten worse for a lot of the population.

The idea that simply living frugally is enough to afford to buy a house(well outside of Detroit anyway) is I think simply not true for a lot of the population and ultimately I think someone who had it better in a previous generation deciding whether the current generation "have it easy" or not seems a bit self serving.

I think the potential is definitely there for people to have it far easier in the US today but the economy is no longer being run in a fashion to do so, its being run in a fashion to benefit the very wealthy and keep boomers happy.

 

[kahiljabroni]

Theres been a move towards a less bigoted society certainly although of course a lot of that movement happened in the post war era but again economically I think things have clearly gotten worse for a lot of the population.

The idea that simply living frugally is enough to afford to buy a house(well outside of Detroit anyway) is I think simply not true for a lot of the population and ultimately I think someone who had it better in a previous generation deciding whether the current generation "have it easy" or not seems a bit self serving.

I think the potential is definitely there for people to have it far easier in the US today but the economy is no longer being run in a fashion to do so, its being run in a fashion to benefit the very wealthy and keep boomers happy.

I really wouldn't call the late 40s or 50s less bigoted. Unless by post war you mean the entire 70 years after ww2 which wouldn't help anyone living in the period in which we're discussing.

This entire owning a home thing is pretty trite at this point. First off, owning a home isn't for everyone. It's a massive amount of work and pretty costly to maintain. There can be an argument made for not owning a home.

Young people complain about home ownership but their actions don't show that home ownership is important to them. For those that find it super important their are countless ways to own a home but the same people complaining don't wake to hear it. Not for everyone. Not for the crippled... or mentally deficient... or very unlucky or those who have dug such a massive hole but for most.

If I were 18, living at home, I could literally go out right now and make 20 to 25 an hour with no education or training. If I worked overtime, paid my parents a few hundred a month for rent, I could probably save 15k a year. If I did that for 5 years I'd have 75k to put down on a house. That scenario is not unique. People are regularly living at home until their 30s but they squander it.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

After thinking about it, I just do not see how hard work, and I'm being specific here, can solve inequality.

No tldr but here is summary
A Boss or Owner will NOT allow his employees to profit more than him under ANY circumstances. This is more or less a law of the universe. There are very rare occurrences such as a machinist working 80 hrs a week for a year making more than his supervisor, but in 99.999% of cases the Boss will PROFIT more in EVERY circumstance than a rank and file Employee. Because they have more than one Employee, all the Profits flow to the Boss and it is IMPOSSIBLE to solve this issue, if you consider it an issue.


Example

Walmart pays their employees an average of $27(approx.)
Walmart generates $54 in money per hour per employee. So the shareholders are collecting 50% of the money. As the shareholders are generally richer they can do things like buy apartments houses fast food locations grocery stores. Everything.

Better example a small machine shop wit. 5 employees one owner. One supervisor 4 regular employees.
The workers make $25/hr. The supervisor makes $35/hr.
The company owner will not under any circumstances let his employees make more than him- he collects say 60% of income. 40% of the money earned by the business goes to the employee (this may be even overly generous, ufc pays 17%).
Let's say each employee generates $50 of net revenue per hour worked. So with 5 employees the boss is making (250 - 25*4 - 35) = $115/hr for each hour his shop is open. Minus bills he is making let's say $75/he in profit.
Owner has say $1 million and owns a home and car. He has no bills. No rent. His mortgage is lower than his employees' rent. He can use this $75/hr to purchase his employees apartments. His employees are giving him 25% of their money in rent.

So after purchasing the apartment he is now making

25 + 75 = $100/hr in pure profit.

Meanwhile his employees are pocketing after their expenses let's say $5/hr. That would be $600 per month a pretty good savings for working class.

Under this situation the MORE the workers work the greater the gap between the Owner and his Employees. Every hour they go to work his money is increasing much faster than each of theirs is, both individually and collectively.

These numbers are made up but for any business it seems to hold true. The Owner or shareholders ALWAYS 100% of the time will get richer faster than their employees will as long as their business stays open and is profitable. Which 99% of businesses are especially small local ones. No one's gonna keep a machine shop running unless it's generating profits.


Basically I think "workism" is corporate brainwashing and the only way to reverse inequality is to start your own business and NOT work for others. Or taxes. But I do not think you can "bootstrap" your way to Equality. It's just impossible mathematically.

Change my mind

the only way to start your own business is to be born rich, inherit a business, or borrow money from rich people. you cannot just wake up one day and decide you're working for yourself. wealth is a club, and you can't get in.

 

[Lead]

I don’t think the majority of people want wage equality across the board. You want a floor for able bodied people who do work, with debate on what that should be. And then you get arguments against if there should be a ceiling.

Bringing this up because I think the premise is strawmanning the idea that a more productive society wouldn’t have additional benefits. Like I mentioned above, I think the goal should be to share prosperity across society but it shouldn’t be seen from a limited pie perspective. If everyone gets richer but the 1% gets 10% more rich than the rest, I would take that vs no one getting richer. Inequality isn’t always a problem if the floor issue is addressed.

 

[moreorless87]

I really wouldn't call the late 40s or 50s less bigoted. Unless by post war you mean the entire 70 years after ww2 which wouldn't help anyone living in the period in which we're discussing.

This entire owning a home thing is pretty trite at this point. First off, owning a home isn't for everyone. It's a massive amount of work and pretty costly to maintain. There can be an argument made for not owning a home.

Young people complain about home ownership but their actions don't show that home ownership is important to them. For those that find it super important their are countless ways to own a home but the same people complaining don't wake to hear it. Not for everyone. Not for the crippled... or mentally deficient... or very unlucky or those who have dug such a massive hole but for most.

If I were 18, living at home, I could literally go out right now and make 20 to 25 an hour with no education or training. If I worked overtime, paid my parents a few hundred a month for rent, I could probably save 15k a year. If I did that for 5 years I'd have 75k to put down on a house. That scenario is not unique. People are regularly living at home until their 30s but they squander it.

I mean society was becoming less bigoted over time, it was more bigoted in that era than today but the progression was happening then as well, I think thats something seperate to whats happened economically though.

Owning a home makes a massive difference in terms of your wealth, rather than paying rent and ending up with nothing your potentially building up an asset which increases in value greatly.

Did you do that when you were 18? if not its a bit rich to call out others for not living incredibly frugally for 5 years and again I think for a great deal of people even that is probably not possible, the places that pay for wages AND offer full time dependably labour are probably not that common, far less so than they would have been decades ago taking inflation into account.

Even outside of home ownership though rental rates have increased massively in relative terms in recent years as well.

 

[kahiljabroni]

I mean society was becoming less bigoted over time, it was more bigoted in that era than today but the progression was happening then as well, I think thats something seperate to whats happened economically though.

Owning a home makes a massive difference in terms of your wealth, rather than paying rent and ending up with nothing your potentially building up an asset which increases in value greatly.

Did you do that when you were 18? if not its a bit rich to call out others for not living incredibly frugally for 5 years and again I think for a great deal of people even that is probably not possible, the places that pay for wages AND offer full time dependably labour are probably not that common, far less so than they would have been decades ago taking inflation into account.

Even outside of home ownership though rental rates have increased massively in relative terms in recent years as well.

I didn't do that at 18. I was just presenting one of 100 different scenarios where someone could buy a home. You don't want to be frugal and save? No problem... just don't cry about not being able to buy a home.