3 ms·

> Like yes, they could survive there, but most people couldn't get a decently paying job so even if you get a house for 1$, you're still brokr, just not homeles

by mopsi 5y ago

> Like yes, they could survive there, but most people couldn't get a decently paying job so even if you get a house for 1$, you're still brokr, just not homeless. Nobody owes you a beautiful life.

mikem170 5y ago
I would tend to agree with you, with the exception that there are too many regulations preventing new housing from being built, for reasons that have nothing to do with safety.
pessimizer 5y ago
We decide as a group what we owe people. You could just as easily declare that no one owes you the respect of your property rights.
- logicchains 5y ago
  >We decide as a group what we owe people. That's only if you believe that all moral systems are equally valid so whatever the majority wants is right. But I doubt you believe that, because the majority could decide something like "it's okay to rape girls under 15" or "all Jews belong in ovens".
michaelmrose 5y ago
It's not about a beautiful life. Housing is cheap both in places with little economic opportunity and especially in dying areas where former opportunity led to the construction of more housing that is needed after the opportunity dried up. These places are withering plants cut off from sunlight and water. It's like you stood in the oasis and opined that there was all that barren desert to grow in and how silly it was that the plants competed for space near the water. Take a dying area with plentiful houses for cheap move a bunch of people there. It would cease to be cheap and if there is no outside money flowing into an area populated with the poor they wouldn't be able to resolve each others poverty merely by passing the same scant dollars back and forth and pumping each others gas and making each other pancakes. Instead they should all starve together. You are asking to have your cake and eat it too. Half the nation is fairly poor. They can't ALL simultaneously move to the low rent district and simultaneously take advantage of the lesser cost of living while all working the small modicum of low wages jobs that are fewer in number in total than the number of folks and reorganize America based on this new theory if for no other reason than this relocation by people living paycheck to paycheck costs more than they have and they would tend to in a poorer area descend further yet down the economic ladder as they moved from not being able to afford to live well in <insert city> to not being able to live well enough in <insert poor area> where they have no family or support.
franga2000 5y ago
1. That's debatable. Some would argue every person is entitled to a good life in absence of any actions that would take that entitlement away. 2. It's not about anyone owing anyone anything. You can go to the city and have a small chance at a good life or move to Alaska and have guaranteed survival but nothing more. It's a tradeoff like any other. What it isn't is people rushing to live in a big city out of convenience despite the alternative being just as good otherwise, which is what people often claim - that's what I was talking about.

by mopsi 5y ago

> Like yes, they could survive there, but most people couldn't get a decently paying job so even if you get a house for 1$, you're still brokr, just not homeless. Nobody owes you a beautiful life.

mikem170 5y ago

I would tend to agree with you, with the exception that there are too many regulations preventing new housing from being built, for reasons that have nothing to do with safety.

pessimizer 5y ago

We decide as a group what we owe people. You could just as easily declare that no one owes you the respect of your property rights.

logicchains 5y ago
>We decide as a group what we owe people. That's only if you believe that all moral systems are equally valid so whatever the majority wants is right. But I doubt you believe that, because the majority could decide something like "it's okay to rape girls under 15" or "all Jews belong in ovens".

michaelmrose 5y ago

It's not about a beautiful life. Housing is cheap both in places with little economic opportunity and especially in dying areas where former opportunity led to the construction of more housing that is needed after the opportunity dried up. These places are withering plants cut off from sunlight and water. It's like you stood in the oasis and opined that there was all that barren desert to grow in and how silly it was that the plants competed for space near the water. Take a dying area with plentiful houses for cheap move a bunch of people there. It would cease to be cheap and if there is no outside money flowing into an area populated with the poor they wouldn't be able to resolve each others poverty merely by passing the same scant dollars back and forth and pumping each others gas and making each other pancakes. Instead they should all starve together. You are asking to have your cake and eat it too. Half the nation is fairly poor. They can't ALL simultaneously move to the low rent district and simultaneously take advantage of the lesser cost of living while all working the small modicum of low wages jobs that are fewer in number in total than the number of folks and reorganize America based on this new theory if for no other reason than this relocation by people living paycheck to paycheck costs more than they have and they would tend to in a poorer area descend further yet down the economic ladder as they moved from not being able to afford to live well in <insert city> to not being able to live well enough in <insert poor area> where they have no family or support.

franga2000 5y ago

1. That's debatable. Some would argue every person is entitled to a good life in absence of any actions that would take that entitlement away. 2. It's not about anyone owing anyone anything. You can go to the city and have a small chance at a good life or move to Alaska and have guaranteed survival but nothing more. It's a tradeoff like any other. What it isn't is people rushing to live in a big city out of convenience despite the alternative being just as good otherwise, which is what people often claim - that's what I was talking about.