5 ms·

> They would get some government assistence with the condition that this was the first and only time that the governmnet would help. We'll see how well that ho

> They would get some government assistence with the condition that this was the first and only time that the governmnet would help. We'll see how well that holds up next time those people need assistance. Somehow I don't see any elected politician telling his voters "sorry, we already helped you".

quotemstr 8y ago
Right. Intending to break a bad habit carries no weight. Actually doing it is what counts. The government's action here wasn't smart: it was in fact cowardly.
craftyguy 8y ago
That's a common problem with any elected government. Tough decisions like "we need everyone here to move away right now" never get made because doing so would result in some elected politician not winning re-election.
- beat 8y ago
  Not necessarily. My mother lived briefly in Shawneetown, IL, on the Ohio River (before I was born). After a particularly bad flood, the locals just packed the whole town up and moved a couple of miles inland to higher ground. I took her down to visit once, and she was totally weirded out. The house she lived in still stood there, abandoned. People move away when a location is no longer economically viable, period. They won't move away until then, despite the risks. If they did, no one would live in volcano or earthquake zones. Think San Francisco Bay is going to be depopulated just because it's a dangerous place to live?
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    That's not my point. Obviously people will move away on their own accord if living in a location is no longer safe/viable. My point is, until a location is no longer safe, they will generally stay put and resist any pressure to leave, even if all evidence points to it becoming unsafe in the not so distant future. Elected officials live in the moment, and will not make decisions that impact constituents today in preparation for a future disaster.
    - beat 8y ago
      Remember, in Jaws 2, the people had re-elected the mayor.
- planteen 8y ago
  Elected officials force people to move in Rapid City, South Dakota after the 1972 flood. Today, the flood plain is a very nice bike path with no houses. This probably happened due to the high deal toll (238 fatalities). "Many businesses were permitted to stay in the flood plain, but houses and motels were either raised or moved due to the likelihood that a flood would occur while a person may be sleeping. The majority of the flood plain was made into large parks, which have increased in number and have been improved and updated on a continuing basis." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Black_Hills_flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Black_Hills_flood
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    > after the 1972 flood. Again, that was a reaction to something that already happened. Are there any examples of elected officials forcing folks to leave an area well before something bad happens?
    - planteen 8y ago
      When did we switch to talking about that (the 'before' part)? This thread is debating the OP's comment about how flooding in Calgary either gave people the choice in moving or never receiving assistance in the future.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ryandrake 8y ago
I know people who deliberately don’t save for retirement because they are betting that few people in their generation will have enough to retire on, and the government politically can’t let elderly people mass-die on the street.
- grasshopperpurp 8y ago
  Curious - what age group?
  - brandonmenc 8y ago
    In my experience, anyone under age 40, for sure.
    - grasshopperpurp 8y ago
      I'm 34, and that's not my experience. >According to a new survey from Discover, millennials are outperforming older generations when it comes to saving for their future. In a national study of 2,205 people, Discover finds that 81 percent of millennials are currently saving in some capacity, compared to 74 percent of Generation Xers and 77 percent of baby boomers. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180110005313/en/Discover-Study-Finds-Millennials-Saving-Generations https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180110005313/en/Dis...
      - brandonmenc 8y ago
        How many boomers are actually pulling in wages? Aren't most of them spending their savings precisely on what they saved it for? i.e., retirement?
        grasshopperpurp 8y ago
        >Where did baby boomers go wrong? This generation isn’t financially prepared for retirement I couldn't find the percentage of Baby Boomers that are retired, but they certainly (as a generation) are not prepared for retirement. The Baby Boomers are (again, as a generation) incredibly reckless in all facets. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/where-did-baby-boomers-go-wrong-this-generation-isnt-financially-prepared-for-retirement-2017-07-05 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/where-did-baby-boomers-go-...

quotemstr 8y ago

Right. Intending to break a bad habit carries no weight. Actually doing it is what counts. The government's action here wasn't smart: it was in fact cowardly.

craftyguy 8y ago

That's a common problem with any elected government. Tough decisions like "we need everyone here to move away right now" never get made because doing so would result in some elected politician not winning re-election.

beat 8y ago
Not necessarily. My mother lived briefly in Shawneetown, IL, on the Ohio River (before I was born). After a particularly bad flood, the locals just packed the whole town up and moved a couple of miles inland to higher ground. I took her down to visit once, and she was totally weirded out. The house she lived in still stood there, abandoned. People move away when a location is no longer economically viable, period. They won't move away until then, despite the risks. If they did, no one would live in volcano or earthquake zones. Think San Francisco Bay is going to be depopulated just because it's a dangerous place to live?
- craftyguy 8y ago
  That's not my point. Obviously people will move away on their own accord if living in a location is no longer safe/viable. My point is, until a location is no longer safe, they will generally stay put and resist any pressure to leave, even if all evidence points to it becoming unsafe in the not so distant future. Elected officials live in the moment, and will not make decisions that impact constituents today in preparation for a future disaster.
  - beat 8y ago
    Remember, in Jaws 2, the people had re-elected the mayor.
planteen 8y ago
Elected officials force people to move in Rapid City, South Dakota after the 1972 flood. Today, the flood plain is a very nice bike path with no houses. This probably happened due to the high deal toll (238 fatalities). "Many businesses were permitted to stay in the flood plain, but houses and motels were either raised or moved due to the likelihood that a flood would occur while a person may be sleeping. The majority of the flood plain was made into large parks, which have increased in number and have been improved and updated on a continuing basis." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Black_Hills_flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Black_Hills_flood
- craftyguy 8y ago
  > after the 1972 flood. Again, that was a reaction to something that already happened. Are there any examples of elected officials forcing folks to leave an area well before something bad happens?
  - planteen 8y ago
    When did we switch to talking about that (the 'before' part)? This thread is debating the OP's comment about how flooding in Calgary either gave people the choice in moving or never receiving assistance in the future.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ryandrake 8y ago

I know people who deliberately don’t save for retirement because they are betting that few people in their generation will have enough to retire on, and the government politically can’t let elderly people mass-die on the street.

grasshopperpurp 8y ago
Curious - what age group?
- brandonmenc 8y ago
  In my experience, anyone under age 40, for sure.
  - grasshopperpurp 8y ago
    I'm 34, and that's not my experience. >According to a new survey from Discover, millennials are outperforming older generations when it comes to saving for their future. In a national study of 2,205 people, Discover finds that 81 percent of millennials are currently saving in some capacity, compared to 74 percent of Generation Xers and 77 percent of baby boomers. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180110005313/en/Discover-Study-Finds-Millennials-Saving-Generations https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180110005313/en/Dis...
    - brandonmenc 8y ago
      How many boomers are actually pulling in wages? Aren't most of them spending their savings precisely on what they saved it for? i.e., retirement?
      - grasshopperpurp 8y ago
        >Where did baby boomers go wrong? This generation isn’t financially prepared for retirement I couldn't find the percentage of Baby Boomers that are retired, but they certainly (as a generation) are not prepared for retirement. The Baby Boomers are (again, as a generation) incredibly reckless in all facets. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/where-did-baby-boomers-go-wrong-this-generation-isnt-financially-prepared-for-retirement-2017-07-05 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/where-did-baby-boomers-go-...