5 ms·
The worst aspect of high rent costs in cities is that it forces a long commute on the poorest residents. Those are the people who could benefit the most from ex
by chatmasta 8y ago
The worst aspect of high rent costs in cities is that it forces a long commute on the poorest residents. Those are the people who could benefit the most from extra time in their day. These blue collar workers, who basically run their city, have to live outside it and spend hours each day commuting into it after a short night’s sleep. The long term health effects of such a routine are terrible, and even worse for families.
- busterarm 8y agoThis is by design. You can't keep a class of people poor if you give them the time in their day and resources to think about how to not be poor. And somebody must be poor for society to function. (If you're reading this and are hitting that downvote button, I hope you realize that nobody could seriously be advocating that this is the way things should be. But if this statement makes you that uncomfortable, I did my job.)
- cowpig 8y agoI think you're probably getting downvoted for making the claim that > somebody must be poor for society to function
- busterarm 8y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAmL3F5uylo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAmL3F5uylo I mean, if you can show me any significant society in human history without a servant/working/slave class though, I'll buy you a cookie. A really big cookie.
- throwaway2048 8y agoIf soceity must have poor for it to function, as you claim. Nobody should feel bad about opressive actions towards poor people, or be concerned about making their lot better. Right?
- busterarm 8y agoWhat I'm saying is that somebody will always be 'less-than' in our society because of a base human instinct to feel like 'more-than' our peers. That need is an inevitability. We are a greedy, stupid and spiteful species. Any amount of compassion you have for the downtrodden is not enough (and has never been enough) to overcome this circumstance. Given that there has always been impoverished people, this likely holds true. The best thing that you can do is to engineer systems that spread the misery around a bit and make it a little bit worse for you and a lot better for them.
- ryanwaggoner 8y agoI downvoted for the ridiculous claim that this is by design. Like, we could have plenty of affordable housing in urban centers for the poor, but we don’t, not because of the financial and political cost, but because we’re worried about those people then having too much time to think about escaping poverty, which we just can’t have. Ergo, to the exurbs with them! Hard to imagine a dumber argument for why poverty exists.
- busterarm 8y agoNo, it's because we can't have those people being what we perceive to be better off than we are. You'll be first in line to see low-income housing built next to central park (below the 100s) though, right?
- cascom 8y agoIn order to build public housing on Central Park the effective value of the subsidy to each of the families that receive housing there would be hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. That’s like buying Ferraris for people that can’t afford public transport. It’s a bad idea for two reasons - one is that it basically minimizes as opposes to maximizes the public dollars spent, and two public transfers are not supposed to be lottery tickets but rather safety nets.
- busterarm 8y agoBut the parent poster's argument was that we "could" provide affordable housing in the city center. Your argument refutes what the parent post is saying, not me.
- csomar 8y agoI don't like the fact that you are getting downvoted for having a different opinion. But also you are making a "strong claim" and not just an opinion from the way you wrote it. > And somebody must be poor for society to function. You are making a claim that this is correct. You should have decorated it with "I believe". People then can show you how this is wrong. A poor person adds to dysfunctionality in a society. These poor people cost more to society than they provide (subsided transport, social housing, social health care, subsided food stamps, etc...). The reason for that is that we allow big sprawling corps like McDonalds and such to pay low wages so they can profit on the top.
- busterarm 8y agoI was being sarcastic. Mainly to point out my disgust towards attitudes like this: > these poor people cost more to society than they provide these are mostly the people that staff, clean and feed this city. Something that you will _never_ do.
- csomar 8y agoI'm not saying this people are not giving a valuable service to this city. In fact, they are giving some of the most valuable services to the city. (Like feeding, cleaning and taking care for the rest of us). I'm just saying that they are getting paid below what suffice to self-sustain a person. So their pay is being subsidized by the state for the benefit of the big corps.