4 ms·
> And while the first apartment I showed you was in a relatively nice, livable part of town this one is in a more gun-fire prone area ominously referred to by l
by jl6 3y ago
> And while the first apartment I showed you was in a relatively nice, livable part of town this one is in a more gun-fire prone area ominously referred to by locals as “the triangle”. Phoenix’s mostly gravel-and-concrete landscaping style cleans up nice (note the still-wet recently hosed concrete), but make no mistake: this isn’t the kind of apartment complex where hypodermic needles are exclusively owned by diabetics.
This is the worst part. Being financially poor automatically lumps you in with the “morally poor”, which is devastating to empathy levels.
- hikingsimulator 3y agoDon't worry, the "morally poor" also exist in rich(er) circles. Wealth just buys the sheep's clothing.
- jl6 3y agoThe point is that a major barrier to a more charitable mindset is the association between low income and low morals. The usually-unspoken sentiment goes: “I’m not giving them anything, it will only be wasted on drugs and crime.” As the article points out, there is a huge and literal gap in the market for low-cost housing that adequately protects low-income households from drugs and crime, and from the association with drugs and crime. Those things aren’t a necessary consequence of poverty, and yet if your income is low, you have no choice but to live amongst them. The article uses the phrase “the murder-iest part of town”. Why do there have to be such places? Low income becomes associated with low morals, and the hearts of the rich harden: “I don’t want to give money to people in the murder-iest part of town”. The #1 thing we could do to address the hardship of poverty is to break the forced association between low income and low morals. And yes of course low morals exist in all strata of society, but their effect is particularly pernicious amongst the poor because the poor can’t afford to disassociate themselves from them.
- hermitcrab 3y agoThe film "Trading places" comes to mind. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086465/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086465/
- Gigachad 3y agoI’d say the real difference is less impulsive behaviour. Rich people aren’t likely to assault you on the street or vandalise your property.
- lightbritefight 3y agoRich people are just as impulsive as poor people. They are simply insulated from consequences of that impulsiveness. The things they do get covered up, or are behind closed doors because they can afford to close those doors. Wealth does not buy you impulse control, at all. The exact opposite, actually, as every whim can be met.
- badpun 3y ago> Rich people are just as impulsive as poor people. Citation needed?
- inglor_cz 3y agoOh, absolutely, but what really interests me as a person is whether my neighbor is going to stab me one day, or not.