4 ms·
>The architecture of their home is telling them that they are inferior every time they enter their homes. Well, they don't belong there. They are there because
by vwdhx 7y ago
>The architecture of their home is telling them that they are inferior every time they enter their homes.
Well, they don't belong there. They are there because the government has mandated it. It's unnatural, and this is the result.
- xorcist 7y agoNot sure what the argument is here. Living in an apartment is completely unnatural in itself.
- kgwgk 7y agoDesirable things being (expensive and therefore) affordable when you are rich enough is “natural”. Desirable things being affordable when you are rich enough or poor enough is “unnatural”.
- em-bee 7y agowhat would you consider natural? living outside in the bush? in germany, owning property is considered unnatural or rather not the norm unless you are a farmer. it's all about how society develops and what it chooses as their lifestyle.
- quibbler 7y agoThat is not true about Germany. Renting is more common than elsewhere, but plenty of people buy, too.
- madaxe_again 7y agoI see. So, who is going to make your coffee, sweep your streets, drive your buses, collect your trash, teach your children, and cook your meals, once all of the lower wage earners have been excluded from the area? You?
- Freestyler_3 7y agoProbably much better paid versions of what you listed.
- quibbler 7y agoThe funny thing is, by state funding cheaper living in expensive areas, you are just giving state subsidies to rich people. You subsidize services for rich people. Without that, they'd have to pay their service workers higher wages, so that they could afford living nearby or commuting. Or do you think rich people would juslt suck it up and do the cleaning themselves? They'd either pay more for services, or move away, which would lower the rents. Socialism - reliably fails every time.