zlacker

[return to "Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not"]
1. TheMag+KY[view] [source] 2018-09-12 07:21:42
>>tysone+(OP)
America is a country of huge wealth. Wealthy in natural resources, capital equipment, labor ... fucking everything.

And yet we have such terrible poverty.

When I read stories about poor people in America, always there is lurking just below the surface the key element of scarcity. Not food. Not transportation. Not clothing. Not even, surprisingly, health care. The missing factor in all these broken lives is the simplest thing. Space. Some space to fucking sleep and live.

How can such a large country suffer from a bigger housing crisis than we find in jammed up dense countries like Singapore, South Korea, and India?

Why hasn't the market solved this problem?

Believe it or not, its not impossible to manufacture a living space in a factory and assemble it on site in a day, to provide extremely well made and affordable housing structures.

There is space enough in American cities if density is allowed to be increased. In other words if these fake "liberal" NIMBYs in American cities can be persuaded to give up the precious "character" of their neighborhoods, we can make space for everyone. CHEAP space.

◧◩
2. ojii+401[view] [source] 2018-09-12 07:43:35
>>TheMag+KY
> Why hasn't the market solved this problem?

Maybe "the market" is not a good tool to solve inequality.

◧◩◪
3. throwa+n01[view] [source] 2018-09-12 07:47:41
>>ojii+401
Solving inequality goes against everything in nature. The market is as close to an evolutionary natural state as we can get.
◧◩◪◨
4. ddnb+C11[view] [source] 2018-09-12 08:04:31
>>throwa+n01
If anything, nature strives for balance and equality. If the market is as you claim it should be working towards an equilibrium.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. ericd+131[view] [source] 2018-09-12 08:23:51
>>ddnb+C11
Not at all. In nature, the strongest lion has all the mates, while the second strongest has none.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. ionise+491[view] [source] 2018-09-12 09:39:39
>>ericd+131
Humans aren't lions, and our society doesn't work the same way, even in more primitive times.

I'm assuming you were referring to survival of the fittest, which is commonly misunderstood to be survival of the strongest.

What survival of the fittest actually means is survival of those most adaptive to change, which is not at all what you are describing.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. ericd+Fa1[view] [source] 2018-09-12 09:58:59
>>ionise+491
Obviously humans aren't lions. I was just saying that the idea that nature tends toward equillibrium between individuals doesn't stand up to even the most cursory look at real nature.

And if you think he meant human nature, I would say that generally, by nature, humans are kind and share with those they see as their people, but the complete opposite with anyone outside that group. Since the market is made up of people only in the abstract to most people, I would say that that nature doesn't tend toward equillibrium between individuals either.

[go to top]