3 ms·

The vast majority of the net value present in my life compared to a like individual from 50 years ago is attributable to 1) gay and black civil rights advocates

The vast majority of the net value present in my life compared to a like individual from 50 years ago is attributable to 1) gay and black civil rights advocates, 2) university researchers, and 3) Japanese and Chinese/Taiwanese manufacturers, in that order. I can also confirm that there are millions of Chinese and Indians living better than me, if only because their countries have a functional (if corrupt) college-placement-test-score-to-comfortable-employment pipeline. As for bubbles, I would hazard that your accusation is a confession.

alex_sf 4y ago
Your evaluation of yourself and your position in the world is apparently solely informed by what Twitter tells you to think and the availability of gadgets around you. And clearly not informed by ever actually having visited China or India, or having formed any significant friendships with people there. To think the 3rd most significant source of value in your life is cheap microcontrollers is.. wild. Indoor plumbing? Refrigeration? A health department that ensures you aren't eating food fried in gutter oil? You are taking these entirely for granted, because everyone has those, right? This is a great example of what privilege actually is. Let's make this simpler for you. Your original proposal is that, of course, the wealthy (read: anyone that makes more than you) have too much, the homeless have too little. So, like a child faced with this problem, you surmise we should take things from the wealthy and give them to the poor. SF spends $100,000 per year, per homeless resident, on 'fixing homelessness'. Exactly how much more should they be spending, and why would that change anything?
- ESTheComposer 4y ago
  Good luck, this kind of logic doesn't seem to work too much with people who don't think too far ahead about the economics or don't want to think too much about it. Throwing more money at things usually doesn't solve it and taking it from others for reasons(?) doesn't either. Had someone like this tell me Venezuelans should be supporting Democratic candidates...like what. A country whose people are so poor a lot of them wonder what they're going to eat next should be focusing on another country's politicians?
- gentoo 4y ago
  they should stop spending it on bullshit bandaid solutions and just give people permanent housing. there are a lot of countervailing forces that make that difficult, but conceptually the solution is pretty simple.
  - alex_sf 4y ago
    Ok, everyone gets permanent housing. You've now just fired 2 million people, just in the immediate vicinity of the real estate and mortgage markets. The US homeless population is only a quarter of that, but, let's not actually think about numbers or anything. Next will be the inevitable fallout of destroying ~45 trillion in wealth. The consequences of which, bluntly, I can't even really fathom at the moment. I'm assuming you'll be planning to tax more to give the effected some sort of UBI? Please confirm and I'll explain how that will also blow up in your face. > conceptually the solution is pretty simple It is if you don't actually think about it. At all.
    - PixyMisa 4y ago
      "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
    - mattdotc 4y ago
      unhoused people were never prospective clients of the real estate industry, but of course this is irrelevant when you can just twist and contort someone else's argument to make it easier to dismiss. your arrogance is surpassed only by your foolishness.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - ESTheComposer 4y ago
        Their point is that those landlords now have something they invested in where they aren't getting the returns they expected...but of course this is irrelevant when you can just twist and contort someone else's argument to make it easier to dismiss.
- artsytrashcan 4y ago
  You asked me to compare my life to any human in 1973. I chose someone like me. Same identity, same geographic location, different time. Less than 5 years after the assassination of MLK and the Stonewall riots, that person would have been significantly more at risk than me of depression, destitution, or death from deficits in access to basic rights and resources - including, for all practical purposes, indoor plumbing (absent from my ancestral homestead in North Carolina), refrigeration (same), and a functional health department (same, particularly for gay men) - because of their race and sexuality. Nothing coming out of San Francisco office towers other than Harvey Milk was involved in changing those circumstances between then and now. I know this because I actually received an education in the humanities (which, informally, included working with Chinese and Indian legal professionals on a day-to-day basis). Did you? As for the gadgets which you alluded to as contemporary society's savior just a few replies ago, I tend to attribute their existence to the basic research and, yes, cheap microcontrollers that made them possible, rather than the glorified middlemen who repackaged them as high-margin luxuries and sold them with spyware. > So, like a child faced with this problem, you surmise we should take things from the wealthy and give them to the poor. Also, like a concerned and informed adult, but yes. >Exactly how much more should they be spending, However much it would cost to house them permanently (and reduce housing insecurity in general), bounded by tax revenues, of course. >and why would that change anything? Well, generally-speaking, when a homeless person has housing, they cease to be homeless. >Let's make this simpler for you. I'd like you to stop projecting your own insecurities on me.

alex_sf 4y ago

Your evaluation of yourself and your position in the world is apparently solely informed by what Twitter tells you to think and the availability of gadgets around you. And clearly not informed by ever actually having visited China or India, or having formed any significant friendships with people there. To think the 3rd most significant source of value in your life is cheap microcontrollers is.. wild. Indoor plumbing? Refrigeration? A health department that ensures you aren't eating food fried in gutter oil? You are taking these entirely for granted, because everyone has those, right? This is a great example of what privilege actually is. Let's make this simpler for you. Your original proposal is that, of course, the wealthy (read: anyone that makes more than you) have too much, the homeless have too little. So, like a child faced with this problem, you surmise we should take things from the wealthy and give them to the poor. SF spends $100,000 per year, per homeless resident, on 'fixing homelessness'. Exactly how much more should they be spending, and why would that change anything?

ESTheComposer 4y ago
Good luck, this kind of logic doesn't seem to work too much with people who don't think too far ahead about the economics or don't want to think too much about it. Throwing more money at things usually doesn't solve it and taking it from others for reasons(?) doesn't either. Had someone like this tell me Venezuelans should be supporting Democratic candidates...like what. A country whose people are so poor a lot of them wonder what they're going to eat next should be focusing on another country's politicians?
gentoo 4y ago
they should stop spending it on bullshit bandaid solutions and just give people permanent housing. there are a lot of countervailing forces that make that difficult, but conceptually the solution is pretty simple.
- alex_sf 4y ago
  Ok, everyone gets permanent housing. You've now just fired 2 million people, just in the immediate vicinity of the real estate and mortgage markets. The US homeless population is only a quarter of that, but, let's not actually think about numbers or anything. Next will be the inevitable fallout of destroying ~45 trillion in wealth. The consequences of which, bluntly, I can't even really fathom at the moment. I'm assuming you'll be planning to tax more to give the effected some sort of UBI? Please confirm and I'll explain how that will also blow up in your face. > conceptually the solution is pretty simple It is if you don't actually think about it. At all.
  - PixyMisa 4y ago
    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
  - mattdotc 4y ago
    unhoused people were never prospective clients of the real estate industry, but of course this is irrelevant when you can just twist and contort someone else's argument to make it easier to dismiss. your arrogance is surpassed only by your foolishness.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - ESTheComposer 4y ago
      Their point is that those landlords now have something they invested in where they aren't getting the returns they expected...but of course this is irrelevant when you can just twist and contort someone else's argument to make it easier to dismiss.
artsytrashcan 4y ago
You asked me to compare my life to any human in 1973. I chose someone like me. Same identity, same geographic location, different time. Less than 5 years after the assassination of MLK and the Stonewall riots, that person would have been significantly more at risk than me of depression, destitution, or death from deficits in access to basic rights and resources - including, for all practical purposes, indoor plumbing (absent from my ancestral homestead in North Carolina), refrigeration (same), and a functional health department (same, particularly for gay men) - because of their race and sexuality. Nothing coming out of San Francisco office towers other than Harvey Milk was involved in changing those circumstances between then and now. I know this because I actually received an education in the humanities (which, informally, included working with Chinese and Indian legal professionals on a day-to-day basis). Did you? As for the gadgets which you alluded to as contemporary society's savior just a few replies ago, I tend to attribute their existence to the basic research and, yes, cheap microcontrollers that made them possible, rather than the glorified middlemen who repackaged them as high-margin luxuries and sold them with spyware. > So, like a child faced with this problem, you surmise we should take things from the wealthy and give them to the poor. Also, like a concerned and informed adult, but yes. >Exactly how much more should they be spending, However much it would cost to house them permanently (and reduce housing insecurity in general), bounded by tax revenues, of course. >and why would that change anything? Well, generally-speaking, when a homeless person has housing, they cease to be homeless. >Let's make this simpler for you. I'd like you to stop projecting your own insecurities on me.