3 ms·

Numbers of this sort are usually fucking worthless because of the manipulation applied to them in accordance with political goals. Forget the government figure

Numbers of this sort are usually fucking worthless because of the manipulation applied to them in accordance with political goals. Forget the government figures and look at the market. Sure you might make a buck more an hour but the price of meat has doubled (roughly) in the past five years. But the curious thing is we live in an era where being poor isn't as fucking horrible as it was in the past. While homeless I was able to have a smartphone, a laptop, and a couple of things of liquid nicotine. That's a sanity keeping pack right there. I don't care if the rich guy can order custom-made marbelized sculpted horse anuses, my quality of life as a homeless man was increased precisely because rich men were assholes enough to create products general and well-built enough for many environments. The problem of course is the almost never-ending stream of propoganda which tells people to eat sub-standard food and adopt sub-standard lifestyles. You stuff a population full of terrible diets, little personal physicality, and constant dopaminergic stimulation... Well I suppose if I were a rich man I'd be chuckling at the peons who are literally segregating themselves physically as a separate species. It'd make breeding and consolidation a bit easier if you could tell a peon visually by their body fat ratio.

mwfunk 10y ago
If I were addicted to nicotine I wouldn't be quite so smug about people eating junk food.
- LizardLarry 10y ago
  Nicotine is a lifesaver for people on the streets. The majority concern is over carcinogenic particulates that occur in certain delivery vehicles of nicotine (cigarettes). Getting cancer in the future is your least concern. Mitigating the anxiety, fear, and lonliness by using nicotine? That's far far higher up. That's the bigger priority in the timeframe of "being fucking homeless".
Shivetya 10y ago
except I don't see how the NYTimes can bend these numbers to serve their party of choice. being poor in a developed country has rarely been bad and its hard for many to realize that is true. as for the price of meat the government intervention in grain pricing with regards to pushing ethanol and similar didn't help that. the rich can weather a bad storm better than the poor but only if they are properly diversified and not relying on the boom to keep them there
- tbihl 10y ago
  I believe parent's point was that GDP is significantly decoupled from experience of the vitality in a 'main street'perspective. In China they get high GDP growth rates, but if the productive activity was building high rises where no one lives, we may need to reevaluate our notion of 'productive'.
  - anovikov 10y ago
    In China high GDP growth rate is mainly translated into moving people from village to city. It is more like: lives of both city and village people is only very slowly improving (while faster than in developed countries), but there are quickly getting more of the former and less of the latter. Only those who move reap the benefits. This process will be over soon when urbanization hits Western levels (about 10-15 years from now), then the growth rate will moderate.
- wavefunction 10y ago
  >>being poor in a developed country has rarely been bad and its hard for many to realize that is true Have you ever been poor? I understand that absolute poverty in an undeveloped country is worse, but to make a statement like you have shows that you apparently have very little understanding of the reality of poverty in a developed country.
  - LizardLarry 10y ago
    Being merely poor sucks in an environment that is stacked to keep you down by merely ENVIRONMENTAL means. Not even propoganda. As I said before, if you eat substandard food, don't give your body stress in manageable amounts (exercise), and are constantly bombarded by a level of stimuli unthinkable to someone from 1800... Being "poor" or even "homeless" doesn't have to suck as bad. From experience, the whole homeless shelter (particularly within Veteran Affairs) system is ripe for disruption. You wouldn't believe how much money is wasted on absolute bullshit (coughAnyoneWithASocialWorkDegreecough) as opposed to simple procedures and steps which actually help a person to not be homeless. Two things which persisently keep a lot of homeless people down are a lack of employable skills and a lack of supportive social networks that keep a person "in the game" so that they're not bored and smoking crack.
mempko 10y ago
Except you are wrong about them creating the Technology. Most of the tech you mentioned was created in the public sector and then handed over to the private. Same public sector could have provided you a home. You could have had a smartphone, a laptop, AND a roof. But those smug rich assholes don't make money off that, so therefore you don't have it. You only have the droppings of gov research after it was privatized.

mwfunk 10y ago

If I were addicted to nicotine I wouldn't be quite so smug about people eating junk food.

LizardLarry 10y ago
Nicotine is a lifesaver for people on the streets. The majority concern is over carcinogenic particulates that occur in certain delivery vehicles of nicotine (cigarettes). Getting cancer in the future is your least concern. Mitigating the anxiety, fear, and lonliness by using nicotine? That's far far higher up. That's the bigger priority in the timeframe of "being fucking homeless".

Shivetya 10y ago

except I don't see how the NYTimes can bend these numbers to serve their party of choice. being poor in a developed country has rarely been bad and its hard for many to realize that is true. as for the price of meat the government intervention in grain pricing with regards to pushing ethanol and similar didn't help that. the rich can weather a bad storm better than the poor but only if they are properly diversified and not relying on the boom to keep them there

tbihl 10y ago
I believe parent's point was that GDP is significantly decoupled from experience of the vitality in a 'main street'perspective. In China they get high GDP growth rates, but if the productive activity was building high rises where no one lives, we may need to reevaluate our notion of 'productive'.
- anovikov 10y ago
  In China high GDP growth rate is mainly translated into moving people from village to city. It is more like: lives of both city and village people is only very slowly improving (while faster than in developed countries), but there are quickly getting more of the former and less of the latter. Only those who move reap the benefits. This process will be over soon when urbanization hits Western levels (about 10-15 years from now), then the growth rate will moderate.
wavefunction 10y ago
>>being poor in a developed country has rarely been bad and its hard for many to realize that is true Have you ever been poor? I understand that absolute poverty in an undeveloped country is worse, but to make a statement like you have shows that you apparently have very little understanding of the reality of poverty in a developed country.
- LizardLarry 10y ago
  Being merely poor sucks in an environment that is stacked to keep you down by merely ENVIRONMENTAL means. Not even propoganda. As I said before, if you eat substandard food, don't give your body stress in manageable amounts (exercise), and are constantly bombarded by a level of stimuli unthinkable to someone from 1800... Being "poor" or even "homeless" doesn't have to suck as bad. From experience, the whole homeless shelter (particularly within Veteran Affairs) system is ripe for disruption. You wouldn't believe how much money is wasted on absolute bullshit (coughAnyoneWithASocialWorkDegreecough) as opposed to simple procedures and steps which actually help a person to not be homeless. Two things which persisently keep a lot of homeless people down are a lack of employable skills and a lack of supportive social networks that keep a person "in the game" so that they're not bored and smoking crack.

mempko 10y ago

Except you are wrong about them creating the Technology. Most of the tech you mentioned was created in the public sector and then handed over to the private. Same public sector could have provided you a home. You could have had a smartphone, a laptop, AND a roof. But those smug rich assholes don't make money off that, so therefore you don't have it. You only have the droppings of gov research after it was privatized.