4 ms·

This is normal in a country where inequality is too high. The lower class starts to feel excluded from society. Over time as the groups are separated from each

This is normal in a country where inequality is too high. The lower class starts to feel excluded from society. Over time as the groups are separated from each other by wealth, security gates, policing etc, they lose empathy for each other. As inequality grows, the underclass grows resentful, then eventually hostile. "Reaching out" and "being compassionate" won't work, because it does nothing to solve the underlying problem (poverty and exclusion). In fact, it just comes off as condescending (which it is). "Getting tough on crime" only accelerates the decline because now you're declaring war on the underclass. Now they REALLY have nothing to lose, and are fighting for survival. And so you watch in horror as your once beautiful city goes into decline, feeling powerless to do anything. The left pushes for more leniency, the right pushes for more punishment, and the whole city goes to shit while everyone ignores the elephant in the room.

lolive 5y ago
Stop spoiling The Batman, please
captainredbeard 5y ago
Stop excusing bad behavior.
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
Inequality is problem, but the problem sure as heck can’t be solved at the local level. Being tough on crime can help push the problem somewhere else at least: next door Bellevue will send SWAT out on anybody who so much as lays down on a bench (annoying the homeless population enough that they move on to Seattle). Being compassionate works in the opposite way: Seattle attracts people from as far away as Texas who have no chance at housing really anywhere, because they will get more support here than where they are from (recently read about some guy who decided to use their on release Texan prison open bus ticket to head to Seattle and then got caught breaking into someone’s house to sleep). Local solutions obviously have adverse impractical effects: you can push the problem to someone else or try to solve the entire country’s problem, there isn’t much middle ground to be had. Some sort of federal solution really is needed, or our cities could be in huge trouble.
- kstenerud 5y ago
  Unfortunately, history doesn't offer much comfort. The usual way that wealth is redistributed after a period of high inequality is via revolution. FDR managed to stave off disaster last time with the new deal, but congress was far less split along ideological lines then.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    The USA has gone through periods of high inequality before without relying on revolutions to solve the problem. Higher taxes on income and wealth, more support programs for the poor, etc… our political system is robust enough that we can solve our problems without shooting each other (I hope).
    - klyrs 5y ago
      > Higher taxes on income and wealth, more support programs for the poor, etc… Half of the country thinks that doing those things will literally destroy the country. The other half is willing to compromise with the first half. The same folks who preach no compromise, and tend to own more than one gun apiece. Not holding my breath here.
  - yywwbbn 5y ago
    Most social revolutions only occurred because the people in charge were incompetent and almost completely clueless. As long as the regime can co-opt (or otherwise remove) the potential leaders of this revolution and commit to some modest reforms it can survive almost indefinitely (without external interference, e.g. climate change, plague or war) at least this seems to have almost always been the case historically.
hayd 5y ago
Lumping together the violent criminal class as the underclass is pretty offensive. Just because you're poor/working class doesn't mean you have to resort to... er... cracking people's head open with a baseball bat unprovoked. This is not normal.
- bradhe 5y ago
  I think we have to talk in broad swaths here, we can't zoom in on individuals.
- krnlpnc 5y ago
  Unprovoked? Neither “class” has realistic access to social services or health care in the US, so the mental health and addiction issues that often lead a person down this road go unaddressed. Further, the US legal system (and US society) heavily stigmatizes “offenders”. Once a person is down its extremely hard to get back up, and people need money survive. Not saying that violence is ok, but in many cases people just need help instead of punishment.
  - hayd 5y ago
    Agreed, we need to treat addiction much much more aggressively. Here in CA/SF the current policy is to simply ignore low-level crime (which funds their drug addiction aka "to survive")... instead let's take people off the street (and take them off drugs).
- pydry 5y ago
  If you maltreat 10 poverty stricken people to the point of desperation, one or two probably will act out this way. More will probably kill themselves, though.
- kstenerud 5y ago
  Actually, it's quite normal in highly unequal societies, and has been documented time and time again throughout history, as has the cycle of wealth redistribution. Nobody has managed to stop the inevitable march to redistribution, although they have managed to mitigate the late-stage violent period in some cases, and even avoid violent revolution.
esyir 5y ago
My impression here that this sort of problem is a progressive problem though, seeing that the worst cases I see around here are always the progressive cities(Sf, etc). The right have their own issues, but this doesn't seem as severe in their strongholds? Or perhaps it's a city thing. How does this compare to other cities?
- klyrs 5y ago
  Pretty much every major city is seeing skyrocketing housing prices amid wage stagnation. The economy is driving homelessness. Progressive policies attempt to serve the homeless population where in place, authoritarian policies house and feed the homeless in jails. Either approach works in a steady state, but they're addressing symptoms and not the root cause, a sick economy.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  Are there conservative "strongholds" with rising or high population? That's most likely where you would see more of this stuff, areas with more people
  - esyir 5y ago
    No clue to be honest. I've seen the finger pointed at progressive handling of crime in SF and Seattle, so I was curious if anyone had a counterexample for this.

lolive 5y ago

Stop spoiling The Batman, please

captainredbeard 5y ago

Stop excusing bad behavior.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

Inequality is problem, but the problem sure as heck can’t be solved at the local level. Being tough on crime can help push the problem somewhere else at least: next door Bellevue will send SWAT out on anybody who so much as lays down on a bench (annoying the homeless population enough that they move on to Seattle). Being compassionate works in the opposite way: Seattle attracts people from as far away as Texas who have no chance at housing really anywhere, because they will get more support here than where they are from (recently read about some guy who decided to use their on release Texan prison open bus ticket to head to Seattle and then got caught breaking into someone’s house to sleep). Local solutions obviously have adverse impractical effects: you can push the problem to someone else or try to solve the entire country’s problem, there isn’t much middle ground to be had. Some sort of federal solution really is needed, or our cities could be in huge trouble.

kstenerud 5y ago
Unfortunately, history doesn't offer much comfort. The usual way that wealth is redistributed after a period of high inequality is via revolution. FDR managed to stave off disaster last time with the new deal, but congress was far less split along ideological lines then.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  The USA has gone through periods of high inequality before without relying on revolutions to solve the problem. Higher taxes on income and wealth, more support programs for the poor, etc… our political system is robust enough that we can solve our problems without shooting each other (I hope).
  - klyrs 5y ago
    > Higher taxes on income and wealth, more support programs for the poor, etc… Half of the country thinks that doing those things will literally destroy the country. The other half is willing to compromise with the first half. The same folks who preach no compromise, and tend to own more than one gun apiece. Not holding my breath here.
- yywwbbn 5y ago
  Most social revolutions only occurred because the people in charge were incompetent and almost completely clueless. As long as the regime can co-opt (or otherwise remove) the potential leaders of this revolution and commit to some modest reforms it can survive almost indefinitely (without external interference, e.g. climate change, plague or war) at least this seems to have almost always been the case historically.

hayd 5y ago

Lumping together the violent criminal class as the underclass is pretty offensive. Just because you're poor/working class doesn't mean you have to resort to... er... cracking people's head open with a baseball bat unprovoked. This is not normal.

bradhe 5y ago
I think we have to talk in broad swaths here, we can't zoom in on individuals.
krnlpnc 5y ago
Unprovoked? Neither “class” has realistic access to social services or health care in the US, so the mental health and addiction issues that often lead a person down this road go unaddressed. Further, the US legal system (and US society) heavily stigmatizes “offenders”. Once a person is down its extremely hard to get back up, and people need money survive. Not saying that violence is ok, but in many cases people just need help instead of punishment.
- hayd 5y ago
  Agreed, we need to treat addiction much much more aggressively. Here in CA/SF the current policy is to simply ignore low-level crime (which funds their drug addiction aka "to survive")... instead let's take people off the street (and take them off drugs).
pydry 5y ago
If you maltreat 10 poverty stricken people to the point of desperation, one or two probably will act out this way. More will probably kill themselves, though.
kstenerud 5y ago
Actually, it's quite normal in highly unequal societies, and has been documented time and time again throughout history, as has the cycle of wealth redistribution. Nobody has managed to stop the inevitable march to redistribution, although they have managed to mitigate the late-stage violent period in some cases, and even avoid violent revolution.

esyir 5y ago

My impression here that this sort of problem is a progressive problem though, seeing that the worst cases I see around here are always the progressive cities(Sf, etc). The right have their own issues, but this doesn't seem as severe in their strongholds? Or perhaps it's a city thing. How does this compare to other cities?

klyrs 5y ago
Pretty much every major city is seeing skyrocketing housing prices amid wage stagnation. The economy is driving homelessness. Progressive policies attempt to serve the homeless population where in place, authoritarian policies house and feed the homeless in jails. Either approach works in a steady state, but they're addressing symptoms and not the root cause, a sick economy.
netizen-936824 5y ago
Are there conservative "strongholds" with rising or high population? That's most likely where you would see more of this stuff, areas with more people
- esyir 5y ago
  No clue to be honest. I've seen the finger pointed at progressive handling of crime in SF and Seattle, so I was curious if anyone had a counterexample for this.