24 ms·

well if you are a capitalist, sir, you believe in market forces, no? if somebody's conditions are bad in one location due to unreasonable rent, but better in ot

well if you are a capitalist, sir, you believe in market forces, no? if somebody's conditions are bad in one location due to unreasonable rent, but better in other why shouldn't they move to this better location but rather expect that market bends itself to support them? I do believe that all people should earn enough to afford adequately good place for their life, but this cannot be simply any location anywhere, because whatever. that's not how free market works. btw this market bending is happening all the time, it's called social programs, progressive taxes etc.

FussyZeus 11y ago
If people don't have money for FOOD and RENT, how on God's green Earth do you think they have money to move to a new city? And even if you could, anyone who's rented before knows you typically need one month's rent as a security deposit, sometimes more if you have children. Then you need to find a way to get all your stuff to said new city, and of course feed yourself while you're looking for that miracle job. This may come as a shock to you but not having liquid assets excruciatingly limiting, including when it comes to finding better work or a cheaper place to live.
Bartweiss 11y ago
There's a bizarre assumption here. It's that the very poor can afford to move. That generally costs a few thousand dollars if you're going any significant distance (UHaul, rental down payment, travel time spent unemployed, etc). If they're hiring in Raleigh, do you really think the people in Detroit can put together the capital to go there? We don't subsidize moving (we should), only ongoing poverty in one location. Similarly: night classes, seeking better jobs without a car, working longer hours. These things all have overhead costs (like tuition, travel, or daycare prices), and the assumption that they're accessible to people with no assets is deeply weird.
isleyaardvark 11y ago
47% of Americans cannot come up with $400 for an emergency room visit, much less moving to a different city. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/47-percent-americans-cannot-even-come-400-cover-emergency-room-visit.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/47-percent-americans-...

FussyZeus 11y ago

If people don't have money for FOOD and RENT, how on God's green Earth do you think they have money to move to a new city? And even if you could, anyone who's rented before knows you typically need one month's rent as a security deposit, sometimes more if you have children. Then you need to find a way to get all your stuff to said new city, and of course feed yourself while you're looking for that miracle job. This may come as a shock to you but not having liquid assets excruciatingly limiting, including when it comes to finding better work or a cheaper place to live.

Bartweiss 11y ago

There's a bizarre assumption here. It's that the very poor can afford to move. That generally costs a few thousand dollars if you're going any significant distance (UHaul, rental down payment, travel time spent unemployed, etc). If they're hiring in Raleigh, do you really think the people in Detroit can put together the capital to go there? We don't subsidize moving (we should), only ongoing poverty in one location. Similarly: night classes, seeking better jobs without a car, working longer hours. These things all have overhead costs (like tuition, travel, or daycare prices), and the assumption that they're accessible to people with no assets is deeply weird.

isleyaardvark 11y ago

47% of Americans cannot come up with $400 for an emergency room visit, much less moving to a different city. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/47-percent-americans-cannot-even-come-400-cover-emergency-room-visit.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/47-percent-americans-...