The fact that you need $4.4m to be the top 1% proves that the US still provides the best financial life for everybody. People that bitch and moan about the US being unfair, if told they could leave to anywhere else for free, most would stay here.
What? No it doesn't. It doesn't do that at all. It just proves that--assuming whatever the hell Knight Frank is is reporting accurately--the U.S. provides the third best financial life for its top percent. The U.S. is decent when it comes to percent below the poverty line, but not even close to the best. It's downright terrible when it comes to income inequality (the denominator in the above graphic having much to do with that), with a GINI coefficient ranked lower than UW men's basketball by both the World Bank and CIA (ranked one spot ahead of the Ivory Coast in 2016, so we got that going for us, which is nice).
It's good to be rich in the USA. Same as it's ever been.
Income inequality is an idiotic measure. Compare our bottom 20% with the bottom 20% in all other countries, and you'll see our 20% have it better. In about 20-25 years when that won't be the case, you idiots will continue to blame the rich, but gladly ignore the millions of low skilled workers storming the southern border.
You can't continue to grow the bottom, and expect the top to support it. That has never worked, and it will eventually drive money out of the US, and causing the government to print even more of it. Then comes hyper-inflation, and you become Venezuela only on a much larger scale.
I don't do income inequality myself, so we're in general agreement there. What do I care how much 7 or 8 guys have as long as I have a chance to do the same and if I miss still live quite well? What business is it of mine how wealthy Bezos is? As long it's not illegal, it's none-ya-business.
Where we part company is the low-skilled workers "problem". Reform the welfare state so as not to provide any government benefits (other than the most basic human needs) to the newly-arrived. Those people are finding work by and large and if they're willing to do it for less that's the American way. We spend a lot of time arguing against minimum wage laws and $22 / hr. at McDonald's, and not nearly enough time examining what labor protectionist policies would do the the American economy ... short- and long-term.
IDK when this changed, but conservatism used to mean freedom of capital deployment as well. So are we for or against low-skill workers making $22 / hr.? We seem to go back and forth on this depending on whether the worker is an immigrant or a citizen.
On minimum wage, I think the federal government needs to stay out of it. The minimum survival wage in Southern California is much more than Jackson Mississippi. Let the states determine their own minimum wage, based on the economic conditions of their state. We live in a much more economically diverse country, and our pay scale should be reflective of that.
I should clarify on the low skilled workers. We already have a large pool of low skilled workers in this country, and the percentage compared to high skilled workers continues to expand. How does bringing in millions of additional low skilled workers every year help solve this problem? All this does is put greater emphasis on the need of a welfare state. When this happens, the rich move their money (because they can) and the money starts to dry up. I think as a country, we need to do a better job offering more trade schools and work programs for the people already here, and fix this first, then we can look at opening up the gates, once we have a system in place.
I would take it a step further and say all governments need to stay out of it. Let the market work. If you don't have what it takes to get a job in LA that will allow you to afford to live in LA, then you need to leave LA. IDC.
On the legal vs. illegal, I've been consistent on this: we need to regulate the borders because we need to know who is coming and going; but not to have some labor czar take count of who is coming and what skill level they have and in what. The welfare piece is the key. I am no expert on what they get or what they don't get. My wife's family is convinced there are secret federal welfare offices that give "illegals" more benies than our veterans!!!!!! Not sure that seems plausible to me, but I haven't disproven it so I guess it's true. Even if it's not, say they get something. Or say they come and have kids and those kids are now citizens. I would nix all that shit. All of it.
We? let you in, you and your fam. don't pull off the public tit (other than your kids in public school) for 10 years. Make it 15 years. And you need to be gainfully employed for 85% of that time. After that, you're an American and can go on welfare.
If you did something like that, mostly what you'd get are people filling labor gaps in the U.S. and the market would work.
As for skill/no skill, that's Race's wheelhouse and I'll stay out of it. I'll just say that I'm guessing most of the, say, Mexicans who come over with any skill acquired it working and not through special trade school. I see a lot of Mexican framing teams in the Seattle area residential construction bidness just from the eyeball test. Of course landscaping, food service, and agriculture are big employers. If those jobs were readily filled by American workers at prevailing market wages, as opposed to inflated wages set by protectionist labor policies, then the inflow would slow down dramatically assuming, again, you are not providing other incentives to come (like the free stuff).
As far as this notion that we're importing socialism, which you didn't offer but which I read about a lot, I wonder how we feel about Euro-immigrants. I'm serious when I say this: I have not met a single, solitary Euro here on visa (usually student) who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool socialist and can't believe Sanders has not won the Presidency. Remember, guys, the Hispanics didn't invent socialism. That's another thing to lay on the Germans.
The fact that you need $4.4m to be the top 1% proves that the US still provides the best financial life for everybody. People that bitch and moan about the US being unfair, if told they could leave to anywhere else for free, most would stay here.
What? No it doesn't. It doesn't do that at all. It just proves that--assuming whatever the hell Knight Frank is is reporting accurately--the U.S. provides the third best financial life for its top percent. The U.S. is decent when it comes to percent below the poverty line, but not even close to the best. It's downright terrible when it comes to income inequality (the denominator in the above graphic having much to do with that), with a GINI coefficient ranked lower than UW men's basketball by both the World Bank and CIA (ranked one spot ahead of the Ivory Coast in 2016, so we got that going for us, which is nice).
It's good to be rich in the USA. Same as it's ever been.
Income inequality is an idiotic measure. Compare our bottom 20% with the bottom 20% in all other countries, and you'll see our 20% have it better. In about 20-25 years when that won't be the case, you idiots will continue to blame the rich, but gladly ignore the millions of low skilled workers storming the southern border.
You can't continue to grow the bottom, and expect the top to support it. That has never worked, and it will eventually drive money out of the US, and causing the government to print even more of it. Then comes hyper-inflation, and you become Venezuela only on a much larger scale.
Reading comprehension is hard. I'll repeat: The USA is not in the top 10 in percentage of citizenry below the poverty line. You could compare our bottom 20% to the bottom 20% in several other countries and come away disappointed. We? are not the best. At pretty much anything but diabeetus.
The fact that you need $4.4m to be the top 1% proves that the US still provides the best financial life for everybody. People that bitch and moan about the US being unfair, if told they could leave to anywhere else for free, most would stay here.
What? No it doesn't. It doesn't do that at all. It just proves that--assuming whatever the hell Knight Frank is is reporting accurately--the U.S. provides the third best financial life for its top percent. The U.S. is decent when it comes to percent below the poverty line, but not even close to the best. It's downright terrible when it comes to income inequality (the denominator in the above graphic having much to do with that), with a GINI coefficient ranked lower than UW men's basketball by both the World Bank and CIA (ranked one spot ahead of the Ivory Coast in 2016, so we got that going for us, which is nice).
It's good to be rich in the USA. Same as it's ever been.
Income inequality is an idiotic measure. Compare our bottom 20% with the bottom 20% in all other countries, and you'll see our 20% have it better. In about 20-25 years when that won't be the case, you idiots will continue to blame the rich, but gladly ignore the millions of low skilled workers storming the southern border.
You can't continue to grow the bottom, and expect the top to support it. That has never worked, and it will eventually drive money out of the US, and causing the government to print even more of it. Then comes hyper-inflation, and you become Venezuela only on a much larger scale.
I don't do income inequality myself, so we're in general agreement there. What do I care how much 7 or 8 guys have as long as I have a chance to do the same and if I miss still live quite well? What business is it of mine how wealthy Bezos is? As long it's not illegal, it's none-ya-business.
Where we part company is the low-skilled workers "problem". Reform the welfare state so as not to provide any government benefits (other than the most basic human needs) to the newly-arrived. Those people are finding work by and large and if they're willing to do it for less that's the American way. We spend a lot of time arguing against minimum wage laws and $22 / hr. at McDonald's, and not nearly enough time examining what labor protectionist policies would do the the American economy ... short- and long-term.
IDK when this changed, but conservatism used to mean freedom of capital deployment as well. So are we for or against low-skill workers making $22 / hr.? We seem to go back and forth on this depending on whether the worker is an immigrant or a citizen.
On minimum wage, I think the federal government needs to stay out of it. The minimum survival wage in Southern California is much more than Jackson Mississippi. Let the states determine their own minimum wage, based on the economic conditions of their state. We live in a much more economically diverse country, and our pay scale should be reflective of that.
I should clarify on the low skilled workers. We already have a large pool of low skilled workers in this country, and the percentage compared to high skilled workers continues to expand. How does bringing in millions of additional low skilled workers every year help solve this problem? All this does is put greater emphasis on the need of a welfare state. When this happens, the rich move their money (because they can) and the money starts to dry up. I think as a country, we need to do a better job offering more trade schools and work programs for the people already here, and fix this first, then we can look at opening up the gates, once we have a system in place.
I would take it a step further and say all governments need to stay out of it. Let the market work. If you don't have what it takes to get a job in LA that will allow you to afford to live in LA, then you need to leave LA. IDC.
On the legal vs. illegal, I've been consistent on this: we need to regulate the borders because we need to know who is coming and going; but not to have some labor czar take count of who is coming and what skill level they have and in what. The welfare piece is the key. I am no expert on what they get or what they don't get. My wife's family is convinced there are secret federal welfare offices that give "illegals" more benies than our veterans!!!!!! Not sure that seems plausible to me, but I haven't disproven it so I guess it's true. Even if it's not, say they get something. Or say they come and have kids and those kids are now citizens. I would nix all that shit. All of it.
We? let you in, you and your fam. don't pull off the public tit (other than your kids in public school) for 10 years. Make it 15 years. And you need to be gainfully employed for 85% of that time. After that, you're an American and can go on welfare.
If you did something like that, mostly what you'd get are people filling labor gaps in the U.S. and the market would work.
As for skill/no skill, that's Race's wheelhouse and I'll stay out of it. I'll just say that I'm guessing most of the, say, Mexicans who come over with any skill acquired it working and not through special trade school. I see a lot of Mexican framing teams in the Seattle area residential construction bidness just from the eyeball test. Of course landscaping, food service, and agriculture are big employers. If those jobs were readily filled by American workers at prevailing market wages, as opposed to inflated wages set by protectionist labor policies, then the inflow would slow down dramatically assuming, again, you are not providing other incentives to come (like the free stuff).
As far as this notion that we're importing socialism, which you didn't offer but which I read about a lot, I wonder how we feel about Euro-immigrants. I'm serious when I say this: I have not met a single, solitary Euro here on visa (usually student) who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool socialist and can't believe Sanders has not won the Presidency. Remember, guys, the Hispanics didn't invent socialism. That's another thing to lay on the Germans.
You could apply that same concept in the State of Washington and most of the shitheads living in tents and pooping on streets would pick up and go elsewhere.
You don't see homeless in CDA, Idaho - you just don't. Maybe up in the woods or some shit but NEVER in town.
Drive 30 miles west, downtown Spokane has some zombie zone/tent outposts that would give cascade shitholes Seattle and Portland a run for their money.
People behave in ways they are incented to behave. You give them free shit, they'll flock like moths to light. You don't give them free shit, they won't.
This is basic economics, not Tug shit. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the freeloaders go where the free-est load is.
The fact that you need $4.4m to be the top 1% proves that the US still provides the best financial life for everybody. People that bitch and moan about the US being unfair, if told they could leave to anywhere else for free, most would stay here.
What? No it doesn't. It doesn't do that at all. It just proves that--assuming whatever the hell Knight Frank is is reporting accurately--the U.S. provides the third best financial life for its top percent. The U.S. is decent when it comes to percent below the poverty line, but not even close to the best. It's downright terrible when it comes to income inequality (the denominator in the above graphic having much to do with that), with a GINI coefficient ranked lower than UW men's basketball by both the World Bank and CIA (ranked one spot ahead of the Ivory Coast in 2016, so we got that going for us, which is nice).
It's good to be rich in the USA. Same as it's ever been.
Income inequality is an idiotic measure. Compare our bottom 20% with the bottom 20% in all other countries, and you'll see our 20% have it better. In about 20-25 years when that won't be the case, you idiots will continue to blame the rich, but gladly ignore the millions of low skilled workers storming the southern border.
You can't continue to grow the bottom, and expect the top to support it. That has never worked, and it will eventually drive money out of the US, and causing the government to print even more of it. Then comes hyper-inflation, and you become Venezuela only on a much larger scale.
The fact that you need $4.4m to be the top 1% proves that the US still provides the best financial life for everybody. People that bitch and moan about the US being unfair, if told they could leave to anywhere else for free, most would stay here.
What? No it doesn't. It doesn't do that at all. It just proves that--assuming whatever the hell Knight Frank is is reporting accurately--the U.S. provides the third best financial life for its top percent. The U.S. is decent when it comes to percent below the poverty line, but not even close to the best. It's downright terrible when it comes to income inequality (the denominator in the above graphic having much to do with that), with a GINI coefficient ranked lower than UW men's basketball by both the World Bank and CIA (ranked one spot ahead of the Ivory Coast in 2016, so we got that going for us, which is nice).
It's good to be rich in the USA. Same as it's ever been.
Income inequality is an idiotic measure. Compare our bottom 20% with the bottom 20% in all other countries, and you'll see our 20% have it better. In about 20-25 years when that won't be the case, you idiots will continue to blame the rich, but gladly ignore the millions of low skilled workers storming the southern border.
You can't continue to grow the bottom, and expect the top to support it. That has never worked, and it will eventually drive money out of the US, and causing the government to print even more of it. Then comes hyper-inflation, and you become Venezuela only on a much larger scale.
I don't do income inequality myself, so we're in general agreement there. What do I care how much 7 or 8 guys have as long as I have a chance to do the same and if I miss still live quite well? What business is it of mine how wealthy Bezos is? As long it's not illegal, it's none-ya-business.
Where we part company is the low-skilled workers "problem". Reform the welfare state so as not to provide any government benefits (other than the most basic human needs) to the newly-arrived. Those people are finding work by and large and if they're willing to do it for less that's the American way. We spend a lot of time arguing against minimum wage laws and $22 / hr. at McDonald's, and not nearly enough time examining what labor protectionist policies would do the the American economy ... short- and long-term.
IDK when this changed, but conservatism used to mean freedom of capital deployment as well. So are we for or against low-skill workers making $22 / hr.? We seem to go back and forth on this depending on whether the worker is an immigrant or a citizen.
On minimum wage, I think the federal government needs to stay out of it. The minimum survival wage in Southern California is much more than Jackson Mississippi. Let the states determine their own minimum wage, based on the economic conditions of their state. We live in a much more economically diverse country, and our pay scale should be reflective of that.
I should clarify on the low skilled workers. We already have a large pool of low skilled workers in this country, and the percentage compared to high skilled workers continues to expand. How does bringing in millions of additional low skilled workers every year help solve this problem? All this does is put greater emphasis on the need of a welfare state. When this happens, the rich move their money (because they can) and the money starts to dry up. I think as a country, we need to do a better job offering more trade schools and work programs for the people already here, and fix this first, then we can look at opening up the gates, once we have a system in place.
I would take it a step further and say all governments need to stay out of it. Let the market work. If you don't have what it takes to get a job in LA that will allow you to afford to live in LA, then you need to leave LA. IDC.
On the legal vs. illegal, I've been consistent on this: we need to regulate the borders because we need to know who is coming and going; but not to have some labor czar take count of who is coming and what skill level they have and in what. The welfare piece is the key. I am no expert on what they get or what they don't get. My wife's family is convinced there are secret federal welfare offices that give "illegals" more benies than our veterans!!!!!! Not sure that seems plausible to me, but I haven't disproven it so I guess it's true. Even if it's not, say they get something. Or say they come and have kids and those kids are now citizens. I would nix all that shit. All of it.
We? let you in, you and your fam. don't pull off the public tit (other than your kids in public school) for 10 years. Make it 15 years. And you need to be gainfully employed for 85% of that time. After that, you're an American and can go on welfare.
If you did something like that, mostly what you'd get are people filling labor gaps in the U.S. and the market would work.
As for skill/no skill, that's Race's wheelhouse and I'll stay out of it. I'll just say that I'm guessing most of the, say, Mexicans who come over with any skill acquired it working and not through special trade school. I see a lot of Mexican framing teams in the Seattle area residential construction bidness just from the eyeball test. Of course landscaping, food service, and agriculture are big employers. If those jobs were readily filled by American workers at prevailing market wages, as opposed to inflated wages set by protectionist labor policies, then the inflow would slow down dramatically assuming, again, you are not providing other incentives to come (like the free stuff).
As far as this notion that we're importing socialism, which you didn't offer but which I read about a lot, I wonder how we feel about Euro-immigrants. I'm serious when I say this: I have not met a single, solitary Euro here on visa (usually student) who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool socialist and can't believe Sanders has not won the Presidency. Remember, guys, the Hispanics didn't invent socialism. That's another thing to lay on the Germans.
You could apply that same concept in the State of Washington and most of the shitheads living in tents and pooping on streets would pick up and go elsewhere.
You don't see homeless in CDA, Idaho - you just don't. Maybe up in the woods or some shit but NEVER in town.
Drive 30 miles west, downtown Spokane has some zombie zone/tent outposts that would give cascade shitholes Seattle and Portland a run for their money.
People behave in ways they are incented to behave. You give them free shit, they'll flock like moths to light. You don't give them free shit, they won't.
This is basic economics, not Tug shit. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the freeloaders go where the free-est load is.
I get it. If you feed the crows, they keep coming back. And I live near Lake City, which is a shithole country.
Yet, you can be as fucked up and lacking in agency as anyone living on the street, but have a family or other safety net that doesn't put you out in a tent. If you don't have that, should you simply become irredeemable?
The fact that you need $4.4m to be the top 1% proves that the US still provides the best financial life for everybody. People that bitch and moan about the US being unfair, if told they could leave to anywhere else for free, most would stay here.
What? No it doesn't. It doesn't do that at all. It just proves that--assuming whatever the hell Knight Frank is is reporting accurately--the U.S. provides the third best financial life for its top percent. The U.S. is decent when it comes to percent below the poverty line, but not even close to the best. It's downright terrible when it comes to income inequality (the denominator in the above graphic having much to do with that), with a GINI coefficient ranked lower than UW men's basketball by both the World Bank and CIA (ranked one spot ahead of the Ivory Coast in 2016, so we got that going for us, which is nice).
It's good to be rich in the USA. Same as it's ever been.
Income inequality is an idiotic measure. Compare our bottom 20% with the bottom 20% in all other countries, and you'll see our 20% have it better. In about 20-25 years when that won't be the case, you idiots will continue to blame the rich, but gladly ignore the millions of low skilled workers storming the southern border.
You can't continue to grow the bottom, and expect the top to support it. That has never worked, and it will eventually drive money out of the US, and causing the government to print even more of it. Then comes hyper-inflation, and you become Venezuela only on a much larger scale.
I don't do income inequality myself, so we're in general agreement there. What do I care how much 7 or 8 guys have as long as I have a chance to do the same and if I miss still live quite well? What business is it of mine how wealthy Bezos is? As long it's not illegal, it's none-ya-business.
Where we part company is the low-skilled workers "problem". Reform the welfare state so as not to provide any government benefits (other than the most basic human needs) to the newly-arrived. Those people are finding work by and large and if they're willing to do it for less that's the American way. We spend a lot of time arguing against minimum wage laws and $22 / hr. at McDonald's, and not nearly enough time examining what labor protectionist policies would do the the American economy ... short- and long-term.
IDK when this changed, but conservatism used to mean freedom of capital deployment as well. So are we for or against low-skill workers making $22 / hr.? We seem to go back and forth on this depending on whether the worker is an immigrant or a citizen.
On minimum wage, I think the federal government needs to stay out of it. The minimum survival wage in Southern California is much more than Jackson Mississippi. Let the states determine their own minimum wage, based on the economic conditions of their state. We live in a much more economically diverse country, and our pay scale should be reflective of that.
I should clarify on the low skilled workers. We already have a large pool of low skilled workers in this country, and the percentage compared to high skilled workers continues to expand. How does bringing in millions of additional low skilled workers every year help solve this problem? All this does is put greater emphasis on the need of a welfare state. When this happens, the rich move their money (because they can) and the money starts to dry up. I think as a country, we need to do a better job offering more trade schools and work programs for the people already here, and fix this first, then we can look at opening up the gates, once we have a system in place.
I would take it a step further and say all governments need to stay out of it. Let the market work. If you don't have what it takes to get a job in LA that will allow you to afford to live in LA, then you need to leave LA. IDC.
On the legal vs. illegal, I've been consistent on this: we need to regulate the borders because we need to know who is coming and going; but not to have some labor czar take count of who is coming and what skill level they have and in what. The welfare piece is the key. I am no expert on what they get or what they don't get. My wife's family is convinced there are secret federal welfare offices that give "illegals" more benies than our veterans!!!!!! Not sure that seems plausible to me, but I haven't disproven it so I guess it's true. Even if it's not, say they get something. Or say they come and have kids and those kids are now citizens. I would nix all that shit. All of it.
We? let you in, you and your fam. don't pull off the public tit (other than your kids in public school) for 10 years. Make it 15 years. And you need to be gainfully employed for 85% of that time. After that, you're an American and can go on welfare.
If you did something like that, mostly what you'd get are people filling labor gaps in the U.S. and the market would work.
As for skill/no skill, that's Race's wheelhouse and I'll stay out of it. I'll just say that I'm guessing most of the, say, Mexicans who come over with any skill acquired it working and not through special trade school. I see a lot of Mexican framing teams in the Seattle area residential construction bidness just from the eyeball test. Of course landscaping, food service, and agriculture are big employers. If those jobs were readily filled by American workers at prevailing market wages, as opposed to inflated wages set by protectionist labor policies, then the inflow would slow down dramatically assuming, again, you are not providing other incentives to come (like the free stuff).
As far as this notion that we're importing socialism, which you didn't offer but which I read about a lot, I wonder how we feel about Euro-immigrants. I'm serious when I say this: I have not met a single, solitary Euro here on visa (usually student) who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool socialist and can't believe Sanders has not won the Presidency. Remember, guys, the Hispanics didn't invent socialism. That's another thing to lay on the Germans.
You could apply that same concept in the State of Washington and most of the shitheads living in tents and pooping on streets would pick up and go elsewhere.
You don't see homeless in CDA, Idaho - you just don't. Maybe up in the woods or some shit but NEVER in town.
Drive 30 miles west, downtown Spokane has some zombie zone/tent outposts that would give cascade shitholes Seattle and Portland a run for their money.
People behave in ways they are incented to behave. You give them free shit, they'll flock like moths to light. You don't give them free shit, they won't.
This is basic economics, not Tug shit. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the freeloaders go where the free-est load is.
I get it. If you feed the crows, they keep coming back. And I live near Lake City, which is a shithole country.
Yet, you can be as fucked up and lacking in agency as anyone living on the street, but have a family or other safety net that doesn't put you out in a tent. If you don't have that, should you simply become irredeemable?
The people who don't take advantage of the resources available are, yes, irredeemable. There are so many options available.
If you're still falling through the cracks at that point, you're either choosing that lifestyle (see also 'free shit > working for shit') or you're mentally ill and need to be put in a place where you can't harm others or yourself - Vantage is nice. This endless tent city stuff isn't helping anyone. Definition of insanity at this point.
Again, people behave in the manner in which their own self interest is incentivized.
The fact that you need $4.4m to be the top 1% proves that the US still provides the best financial life for everybody. People that bitch and moan about the US being unfair, if told they could leave to anywhere else for free, most would stay here.
What? No it doesn't. It doesn't do that at all. It just proves that--assuming whatever the hell Knight Frank is is reporting accurately--the U.S. provides the third best financial life for its top percent. The U.S. is decent when it comes to percent below the poverty line, but not even close to the best. It's downright terrible when it comes to income inequality (the denominator in the above graphic having much to do with that), with a GINI coefficient ranked lower than UW men's basketball by both the World Bank and CIA (ranked one spot ahead of the Ivory Coast in 2016, so we got that going for us, which is nice).
It's good to be rich in the USA. Same as it's ever been.
Income inequality is an idiotic measure. Compare our bottom 20% with the bottom 20% in all other countries, and you'll see our 20% have it better. In about 20-25 years when that won't be the case, you idiots will continue to blame the rich, but gladly ignore the millions of low skilled workers storming the southern border.
You can't continue to grow the bottom, and expect the top to support it. That has never worked, and it will eventually drive money out of the US, and causing the government to print even more of it. Then comes hyper-inflation, and you become Venezuela only on a much larger scale.
I don't do income inequality myself, so we're in general agreement there. What do I care how much 7 or 8 guys have as long as I have a chance to do the same and if I miss still live quite well? What business is it of mine how wealthy Bezos is? As long it's not illegal, it's none-ya-business.
Where we part company is the low-skilled workers "problem". Reform the welfare state so as not to provide any government benefits (other than the most basic human needs) to the newly-arrived. Those people are finding work by and large and if they're willing to do it for less that's the American way. We spend a lot of time arguing against minimum wage laws and $22 / hr. at McDonald's, and not nearly enough time examining what labor protectionist policies would do the the American economy ... short- and long-term.
IDK when this changed, but conservatism used to mean freedom of capital deployment as well. So are we for or against low-skill workers making $22 / hr.? We seem to go back and forth on this depending on whether the worker is an immigrant or a citizen.
On minimum wage, I think the federal government needs to stay out of it. The minimum survival wage in Southern California is much more than Jackson Mississippi. Let the states determine their own minimum wage, based on the economic conditions of their state. We live in a much more economically diverse country, and our pay scale should be reflective of that.
I should clarify on the low skilled workers. We already have a large pool of low skilled workers in this country, and the percentage compared to high skilled workers continues to expand. How does bringing in millions of additional low skilled workers every year help solve this problem? All this does is put greater emphasis on the need of a welfare state. When this happens, the rich move their money (because they can) and the money starts to dry up. I think as a country, we need to do a better job offering more trade schools and work programs for the people already here, and fix this first, then we can look at opening up the gates, once we have a system in place.
I would take it a step further and say all governments need to stay out of it. Let the market work. If you don't have what it takes to get a job in LA that will allow you to afford to live in LA, then you need to leave LA. IDC.
On the legal vs. illegal, I've been consistent on this: we need to regulate the borders because we need to know who is coming and going; but not to have some labor czar take count of who is coming and what skill level they have and in what. The welfare piece is the key. I am no expert on what they get or what they don't get. My wife's family is convinced there are secret federal welfare offices that give "illegals" more benies than our veterans!!!!!! Not sure that seems plausible to me, but I haven't disproven it so I guess it's true. Even if it's not, say they get something. Or say they come and have kids and those kids are now citizens. I would nix all that shit. All of it.
We? let you in, you and your fam. don't pull off the public tit (other than your kids in public school) for 10 years. Make it 15 years. And you need to be gainfully employed for 85% of that time. After that, you're an American and can go on welfare.
If you did something like that, mostly what you'd get are people filling labor gaps in the U.S. and the market would work.
As for skill/no skill, that's Race's wheelhouse and I'll stay out of it. I'll just say that I'm guessing most of the, say, Mexicans who come over with any skill acquired it working and not through special trade school. I see a lot of Mexican framing teams in the Seattle area residential construction bidness just from the eyeball test. Of course landscaping, food service, and agriculture are big employers. If those jobs were readily filled by American workers at prevailing market wages, as opposed to inflated wages set by protectionist labor policies, then the inflow would slow down dramatically assuming, again, you are not providing other incentives to come (like the free stuff).
As far as this notion that we're importing socialism, which you didn't offer but which I read about a lot, I wonder how we feel about Euro-immigrants. I'm serious when I say this: I have not met a single, solitary Euro here on visa (usually student) who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool socialist and can't believe Sanders has not won the Presidency. Remember, guys, the Hispanics didn't invent socialism. That's another thing to lay on the Germans.
You could apply that same concept in the State of Washington and most of the shitheads living in tents and pooping on streets would pick up and go elsewhere.
You don't see homeless in CDA, Idaho - you just don't. Maybe up in the woods or some shit but NEVER in town.
Drive 30 miles west, downtown Spokane has some zombie zone/tent outposts that would give cascade shitholes Seattle and Portland a run for their money.
People behave in ways they are incented to behave. You give them free shit, they'll flock like moths to light. You don't give them free shit, they won't.
This is basic economics, not Tug shit. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the freeloaders go where the free-est load is.
I get it. If you feed the crows, they keep coming back. And I live near Lake City, which is a shithole country.
Yet, you can be as fucked up and lacking in agency as anyone living on the street, but have a family or other safety net that doesn't put you out in a tent. If you don't have that, should you simply become irredeemable?
The people who don't take advantage of the resources available are, yes, irredeemable. There are so many options available.
If you're still falling through the cracks at that point, you're either choosing that lifestyle (see also 'free shit > working for shit') or you're mentally ill and need to be put in a place where you can't harm others or yourself - Vantage is nice. This endless tent city stuff isn't helping anyone. Definition of insanity at this point.
Again, people behave in the manner in which their own self interest is incentivized.
So are there many resources available in Vantage? This is just a suburban NIMBY argument, isn't it? You know, where Mercer Island and Kirkland complain that homelessness is a Seattle issue simply because the homeless usually gravitate to cities.
My brother-in-law is in health care. He sees staffers living in their cars between shifts because it's their best option. People can work and be on the streets. And that's not to ignore that many of those living on the street are mentally ill, and don't have the agency you attribute to them.
Forget humanitarianism, I selfishly want some solution to this for me. I've never aspired to have US cities look and smell like Mumbai. I don't want the tents either. But the answer isn't to dump people in Vantage.
The fact that you need $4.4m to be the top 1% proves that the US still provides the best financial life for everybody. People that bitch and moan about the US being unfair, if told they could leave to anywhere else for free, most would stay here.
What? No it doesn't. It doesn't do that at all. It just proves that--assuming whatever the hell Knight Frank is is reporting accurately--the U.S. provides the third best financial life for its top percent. The U.S. is decent when it comes to percent below the poverty line, but not even close to the best. It's downright terrible when it comes to income inequality (the denominator in the above graphic having much to do with that), with a GINI coefficient ranked lower than UW men's basketball by both the World Bank and CIA (ranked one spot ahead of the Ivory Coast in 2016, so we got that going for us, which is nice).
It's good to be rich in the USA. Same as it's ever been.
Income inequality is an idiotic measure. Compare our bottom 20% with the bottom 20% in all other countries, and you'll see our 20% have it better. In about 20-25 years when that won't be the case, you idiots will continue to blame the rich, but gladly ignore the millions of low skilled workers storming the southern border.
You can't continue to grow the bottom, and expect the top to support it. That has never worked, and it will eventually drive money out of the US, and causing the government to print even more of it. Then comes hyper-inflation, and you become Venezuela only on a much larger scale.
I don't do income inequality myself, so we're in general agreement there. What do I care how much 7 or 8 guys have as long as I have a chance to do the same and if I miss still live quite well? What business is it of mine how wealthy Bezos is? As long it's not illegal, it's none-ya-business.
Where we part company is the low-skilled workers "problem". Reform the welfare state so as not to provide any government benefits (other than the most basic human needs) to the newly-arrived. Those people are finding work by and large and if they're willing to do it for less that's the American way. We spend a lot of time arguing against minimum wage laws and $22 / hr. at McDonald's, and not nearly enough time examining what labor protectionist policies would do the the American economy ... short- and long-term.
IDK when this changed, but conservatism used to mean freedom of capital deployment as well. So are we for or against low-skill workers making $22 / hr.? We seem to go back and forth on this depending on whether the worker is an immigrant or a citizen.
On minimum wage, I think the federal government needs to stay out of it. The minimum survival wage in Southern California is much more than Jackson Mississippi. Let the states determine their own minimum wage, based on the economic conditions of their state. We live in a much more economically diverse country, and our pay scale should be reflective of that.
I should clarify on the low skilled workers. We already have a large pool of low skilled workers in this country, and the percentage compared to high skilled workers continues to expand. How does bringing in millions of additional low skilled workers every year help solve this problem? All this does is put greater emphasis on the need of a welfare state. When this happens, the rich move their money (because they can) and the money starts to dry up. I think as a country, we need to do a better job offering more trade schools and work programs for the people already here, and fix this first, then we can look at opening up the gates, once we have a system in place.
I would take it a step further and say all governments need to stay out of it. Let the market work. If you don't have what it takes to get a job in LA that will allow you to afford to live in LA, then you need to leave LA. IDC.
On the legal vs. illegal, I've been consistent on this: we need to regulate the borders because we need to know who is coming and going; but not to have some labor czar take count of who is coming and what skill level they have and in what. The welfare piece is the key. I am no expert on what they get or what they don't get. My wife's family is convinced there are secret federal welfare offices that give "illegals" more benies than our veterans!!!!!! Not sure that seems plausible to me, but I haven't disproven it so I guess it's true. Even if it's not, say they get something. Or say they come and have kids and those kids are now citizens. I would nix all that shit. All of it.
We? let you in, you and your fam. don't pull off the public tit (other than your kids in public school) for 10 years. Make it 15 years. And you need to be gainfully employed for 85% of that time. After that, you're an American and can go on welfare.
If you did something like that, mostly what you'd get are people filling labor gaps in the U.S. and the market would work.
As for skill/no skill, that's Race's wheelhouse and I'll stay out of it. I'll just say that I'm guessing most of the, say, Mexicans who come over with any skill acquired it working and not through special trade school. I see a lot of Mexican framing teams in the Seattle area residential construction bidness just from the eyeball test. Of course landscaping, food service, and agriculture are big employers. If those jobs were readily filled by American workers at prevailing market wages, as opposed to inflated wages set by protectionist labor policies, then the inflow would slow down dramatically assuming, again, you are not providing other incentives to come (like the free stuff).
As far as this notion that we're importing socialism, which you didn't offer but which I read about a lot, I wonder how we feel about Euro-immigrants. I'm serious when I say this: I have not met a single, solitary Euro here on visa (usually student) who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool socialist and can't believe Sanders has not won the Presidency. Remember, guys, the Hispanics didn't invent socialism. That's another thing to lay on the Germans.
You could apply that same concept in the State of Washington and most of the shitheads living in tents and pooping on streets would pick up and go elsewhere.
You don't see homeless in CDA, Idaho - you just don't. Maybe up in the woods or some shit but NEVER in town.
Drive 30 miles west, downtown Spokane has some zombie zone/tent outposts that would give cascade shitholes Seattle and Portland a run for their money.
People behave in ways they are incented to behave. You give them free shit, they'll flock like moths to light. You don't give them free shit, they won't.
This is basic economics, not Tug shit. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the freeloaders go where the free-est load is.
I get it. If you feed the crows, they keep coming back. And I live near Lake City, which is a shithole country.
Yet, you can be as fucked up and lacking in agency as anyone living on the street, but have a family or other safety net that doesn't put you out in a tent. If you don't have that, should you simply become irredeemable?
The people who don't take advantage of the resources available are, yes, irredeemable. There are so many options available.
If you're still falling through the cracks at that point, you're either choosing that lifestyle (see also 'free shit > working for shit') or you're mentally ill and need to be put in a place where you can't harm others or yourself - Vantage is nice. This endless tent city stuff isn't helping anyone. Definition of insanity at this point.
Again, people behave in the manner in which their own self interest is incentivized.
So are there many resources available in Vantage? This is just a suburban NIMBY argument, isn't it? You know, where Mercer Island and Kirkland complain that homelessness is a Seattle issue simply because the homeless usually gravitate to cities.
My brother-in-law is in health care. He sees staffers living in their cars between shifts because it's their best option. People can work and be on the streets. And that's not to ignore that many of those living on the street are mentally ill, and don't have the agency you attribute to them.
Forget humanitarianism, I selfishly want some solution to this for me. I've never aspired to have US cities look and smell like Mumbai. I don't want the tents either. But the answer isn't to dump people in Vantage.
How do you know? Put them out in Vantage to dry out. Get rehabbed, retrained. Parking them in Ravenna Park sure ain't working out well.
If you're that dumb that you're going to live in a car to be a health care worker in Seattle when there is demand for healthcare workers elsewhere and housing is dirt cheap, that's on you, not society.
The Okies packed up and moved to Cali when they couldn't cut it in OK because of the dust bowl....sixth largest economy because of it....people have faced hard times before and come out on the other side just fine when they had to take care of themselves.
The fact that you need $4.4m to be the top 1% proves that the US still provides the best financial life for everybody. People that bitch and moan about the US being unfair, if told they could leave to anywhere else for free, most would stay here.
What? No it doesn't. It doesn't do that at all. It just proves that--assuming whatever the hell Knight Frank is is reporting accurately--the U.S. provides the third best financial life for its top percent. The U.S. is decent when it comes to percent below the poverty line, but not even close to the best. It's downright terrible when it comes to income inequality (the denominator in the above graphic having much to do with that), with a GINI coefficient ranked lower than UW men's basketball by both the World Bank and CIA (ranked one spot ahead of the Ivory Coast in 2016, so we got that going for us, which is nice).
It's good to be rich in the USA. Same as it's ever been.
Income inequality is an idiotic measure. Compare our bottom 20% with the bottom 20% in all other countries, and you'll see our 20% have it better. In about 20-25 years when that won't be the case, you idiots will continue to blame the rich, but gladly ignore the millions of low skilled workers storming the southern border.
You can't continue to grow the bottom, and expect the top to support it. That has never worked, and it will eventually drive money out of the US, and causing the government to print even more of it. Then comes hyper-inflation, and you become Venezuela only on a much larger scale.
I don't do income inequality myself, so we're in general agreement there. What do I care how much 7 or 8 guys have as long as I have a chance to do the same and if I miss still live quite well? What business is it of mine how wealthy Bezos is? As long it's not illegal, it's none-ya-business.
Where we part company is the low-skilled workers "problem". Reform the welfare state so as not to provide any government benefits (other than the most basic human needs) to the newly-arrived. Those people are finding work by and large and if they're willing to do it for less that's the American way. We spend a lot of time arguing against minimum wage laws and $22 / hr. at McDonald's, and not nearly enough time examining what labor protectionist policies would do the the American economy ... short- and long-term.
IDK when this changed, but conservatism used to mean freedom of capital deployment as well. So are we for or against low-skill workers making $22 / hr.? We seem to go back and forth on this depending on whether the worker is an immigrant or a citizen.
On minimum wage, I think the federal government needs to stay out of it. The minimum survival wage in Southern California is much more than Jackson Mississippi. Let the states determine their own minimum wage, based on the economic conditions of their state. We live in a much more economically diverse country, and our pay scale should be reflective of that.
I should clarify on the low skilled workers. We already have a large pool of low skilled workers in this country, and the percentage compared to high skilled workers continues to expand. How does bringing in millions of additional low skilled workers every year help solve this problem? All this does is put greater emphasis on the need of a welfare state. When this happens, the rich move their money (because they can) and the money starts to dry up. I think as a country, we need to do a better job offering more trade schools and work programs for the people already here, and fix this first, then we can look at opening up the gates, once we have a system in place.
I would take it a step further and say all governments need to stay out of it. Let the market work. If you don't have what it takes to get a job in LA that will allow you to afford to live in LA, then you need to leave LA. IDC.
On the legal vs. illegal, I've been consistent on this: we need to regulate the borders because we need to know who is coming and going; but not to have some labor czar take count of who is coming and what skill level they have and in what. The welfare piece is the key. I am no expert on what they get or what they don't get. My wife's family is convinced there are secret federal welfare offices that give "illegals" more benies than our veterans!!!!!! Not sure that seems plausible to me, but I haven't disproven it so I guess it's true. Even if it's not, say they get something. Or say they come and have kids and those kids are now citizens. I would nix all that shit. All of it.
We? let you in, you and your fam. don't pull off the public tit (other than your kids in public school) for 10 years. Make it 15 years. And you need to be gainfully employed for 85% of that time. After that, you're an American and can go on welfare.
If you did something like that, mostly what you'd get are people filling labor gaps in the U.S. and the market would work.
As for skill/no skill, that's Race's wheelhouse and I'll stay out of it. I'll just say that I'm guessing most of the, say, Mexicans who come over with any skill acquired it working and not through special trade school. I see a lot of Mexican framing teams in the Seattle area residential construction bidness just from the eyeball test. Of course landscaping, food service, and agriculture are big employers. If those jobs were readily filled by American workers at prevailing market wages, as opposed to inflated wages set by protectionist labor policies, then the inflow would slow down dramatically assuming, again, you are not providing other incentives to come (like the free stuff).
As far as this notion that we're importing socialism, which you didn't offer but which I read about a lot, I wonder how we feel about Euro-immigrants. I'm serious when I say this: I have not met a single, solitary Euro here on visa (usually student) who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool socialist and can't believe Sanders has not won the Presidency. Remember, guys, the Hispanics didn't invent socialism. That's another thing to lay on the Germans.
You could apply that same concept in the State of Washington and most of the shitheads living in tents and pooping on streets would pick up and go elsewhere.
You don't see homeless in CDA, Idaho - you just don't. Maybe up in the woods or some shit but NEVER in town.
Drive 30 miles west, downtown Spokane has some zombie zone/tent outposts that would give cascade shitholes Seattle and Portland a run for their money.
People behave in ways they are incented to behave. You give them free shit, they'll flock like moths to light. You don't give them free shit, they won't.
This is basic economics, not Tug shit. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the freeloaders go where the free-est load is.
I get it. If you feed the crows, they keep coming back. And I live near Lake City, which is a shithole country.
Yet, you can be as fucked up and lacking in agency as anyone living on the street, but have a family or other safety net that doesn't put you out in a tent. If you don't have that, should you simply become irredeemable?
The people who don't take advantage of the resources available are, yes, irredeemable. There are so many options available.
If you're still falling through the cracks at that point, you're either choosing that lifestyle (see also 'free shit > working for shit') or you're mentally ill and need to be put in a place where you can't harm others or yourself - Vantage is nice. This endless tent city stuff isn't helping anyone. Definition of insanity at this point.
Again, people behave in the manner in which their own self interest is incentivized.
So are there many resources available in Vantage? This is just a suburban NIMBY argument, isn't it? You know, where Mercer Island and Kirkland complain that homelessness is a Seattle issue simply because the homeless usually gravitate to cities.
My brother-in-law is in health care. He sees staffers living in their cars between shifts because it's their best option. People can work and be on the streets. And that's not to ignore that many of those living on the street are mentally ill, and don't have the agency you attribute to them.
Forget humanitarianism, I selfishly want some solution to this for me. I've never aspired to have US cities look and smell like Mumbai. I don't want the tents either. But the answer isn't to dump people in Vantage.
How do you know? Put them out in Vantage to dry out. Get rehabbed, retrained. Parking them in Ravenna Park sure ain't working out well.
If you're that dumb that you're going to live in a car to be a health care worker in Seattle when there is demand for healthcare workers elsewhere and housing is dirt cheap, that's on you, not society.
The Okies packed up and moved to Cali when they couldn't cut it in OK because of the dust bowl....sixth largest economy because of it....people have faced hard times before and come out on the other side just fine when they had to take care of themselves.
So embrace your inner Great Depression resolve, in other words, as if most places in the US that are empty today aren't empty for a reason.
My $0.02 is that this is an area where I'm willing to send some tax dollars, or embrace some public/private partnership, to get people off the streets and cleaned up.
There will always be an irredeemable % of the population. They need to go somewhere too.
We should also be chasing at whatever problem is causing such a rash of this shit. I guess opioids are the whipping post now. I'm generally more libertarian when it comes to allow people to kill themselves, whether slowly or quickly; but I'm also tired of stepping over shit in the streets.
This is what we call an intractable issue. I know this: throwing $$ at it and nothing more won't do shit. I've lost the last count, but the city of Seattle has burned through hundreds of millions (or more) and the problem has only gotten worse.
The idea of collecting folks and getting them to one place to clean them up appeals to me. It's also an infringement on civil liberties. There will always be that tension.
My $0.02 is that this is an area where I'm willing to send some tax dollars, or embrace some public/private partnership, to get people off the streets and cleaned up.
There will always be an irredeemable % of the population. They need to go somewhere too.
We should also be chasing at whatever problem is causing such a rash of this shit. I guess opioids are the whipping post now. I'm generally more libertarian when it comes to allow people to kill themselves, whether slowly or quickly; but I'm also tired of stepping over shit in the streets.
This is what we call an intractable issue. I know this: throwing $$ at it and nothing more won't do shit. I've lost the last count, but the city of Seattle has burned through hundreds of millions (or more) and the problem has only gotten worse.
The idea of collecting folks and getting them to one place to clean them up appeals to me. It's also an infringement on civil liberties. There will always be that tension.
It's a major infringement - but why is it ok to infringe on some constitutional rights but somehow homeless people are off limits? We've kinda been infringed as fuck the last year on our ability to move around, express and gather for religious reasons, etc. My pursuit of happiness has been a real buzz kill for the last 12 months.
If "they" are going to play fast and loose with the Constitution for a year, why not burn a year on the dregs of society and see if maybe we could clean up a good chunk of them up.
Otherwise, just place pallets of meth out in the middle of Central Washington and lets the dregs kill themselves - because that's essentially the slow death that's going on in major cities up and down the west coast right now by spending 'compassionate' taxpayer money on them.
My $0.02 is that this is an area where I'm willing to send some tax dollars, or embrace some public/private partnership, to get people off the streets and cleaned up.
There will always be an irredeemable % of the population. They need to go somewhere too.
We should also be chasing at whatever problem is causing such a rash of this shit. I guess opioids are the whipping post now. I'm generally more libertarian when it comes to allow people to kill themselves, whether slowly or quickly; but I'm also tired of stepping over shit in the streets.
This is what we call an intractable issue. I know this: throwing $$ at it and nothing more won't do shit. I've lost the last count, but the city of Seattle has burned through hundreds of millions (or more) and the problem has only gotten worse.
The idea of collecting folks and getting them to one place to clean them up appeals to me. It's also an infringement on civil liberties. There will always be that tension.
It's a major infringement - but why is it ok to infringe on some constitutional rights but somehow homeless people are off limits? We've kinda been infringed as fuck the last year on our ability to move around, express and gather for religious reasons, etc. My pursuit of happiness has been a real buzz kill for the last 12 months.
If "they" are going to play fast and loose with the Constitution for a year, why not burn a year on the dregs of society and see if maybe we could clean up a good chunk of them up.
Otherwise, just place pallets of meth out in the middle of Central Washington and lets the dregs kill themselves - because that's essentially the slow death that's going on in major cities up and down the west coast right now by spending 'compassionate' taxpayer money on them.
I agree with a fair amount. In essence, the human waste - and I don't mean to be harsh and insensitive; it's a fucking travesty to see anyone wind up that way - at some point interferes with my ability to freely enjoy outdoor space. Sure, I can go somewhere else, but I like the city and cities weren't built so that they could be occupied by campers. And when you don't manage your shit - literally shit as in feces - it's a public health hazard.
I can get around a lot of the virus stuff on this basis: if you believe the virus is real and is a real public health emergency (you either do or you don't - not gonna litigate that one in the club), then you can rationalize on civil liberties in the same sense that you do during wartime. It's a war on a virus. Just like lights out after a certain time so the Japanese wouldn't see where they were flying were they to launch an air attack. Or rationing or other shit that the country did. Or, fuck, the draft for that matter. Is there a greater infringement on civil liberties than the draft?
Anyway, back on topic, yes. I think there is a sense in which the royal "we" can haul your ass off to a facility to get you to quit shitting on the streets and spitting at people. We're not taking your agency, to use HH's term; for you have no agency really to speak of when you're pulling your pants down in broad daylight on the 3rd avenue and pinching off a loaf. I have actually seen this happen. More than once.
Like I said in another thread. I may be joining you in Idaho before it's all said and done. I like CDA. A lot.
My $0.02 is that this is an area where I'm willing to send some tax dollars, or embrace some public/private partnership, to get people off the streets and cleaned up.
There will always be an irredeemable % of the population. They need to go somewhere too.
We should also be chasing at whatever problem is causing such a rash of this shit. I guess opioids are the whipping post now. I'm generally more libertarian when it comes to allow people to kill themselves, whether slowly or quickly; but I'm also tired of stepping over shit in the streets.
This is what we call an intractable issue. I know this: throwing $$ at it and nothing more won't do shit. I've lost the last count, but the city of Seattle has burned through hundreds of millions (or more) and the problem has only gotten worse.
The idea of collecting folks and getting them to one place to clean them up appeals to me. It's also an infringement on civil liberties. There will always be that tension.
To me the issue is that it's a regional problem that every municipality treats differently, so there is no comprehensive approach. (Mercer Island recently responded to the problem by criminalizing sleeping outdoors or in a car and deciding that it would drive offenders to Bellevue. I heard tell Puyallup just drives homeless people to Tacoma.)
Opioids is a part of the issue. But if you're an addict, free will is an elusive concept. Addiction is a throw of the genetic dice. Most people won't get addicted to opioids because they don't have that predisposition.
Mental illness is part of the problem. Not exactly a matter of free will.
Personally, I'd live with the risks of being overly paternalistic and intrusive. Many people can't simply white knuckle themselves into a solution to their issues.
My $0.02 is that this is an area where I'm willing to send some tax dollars, or embrace some public/private partnership, to get people off the streets and cleaned up.
There will always be an irredeemable % of the population. They need to go somewhere too.
We should also be chasing at whatever problem is causing such a rash of this shit. I guess opioids are the whipping post now. I'm generally more libertarian when it comes to allow people to kill themselves, whether slowly or quickly; but I'm also tired of stepping over shit in the streets.
This is what we call an intractable issue. I know this: throwing $$ at it and nothing more won't do shit. I've lost the last count, but the city of Seattle has burned through hundreds of millions (or more) and the problem has only gotten worse.
The idea of collecting folks and getting them to one place to clean them up appeals to me. It's also an infringement on civil liberties. There will always be that tension.
It's a major infringement - but why is it ok to infringe on some constitutional rights but somehow homeless people are off limits? We've kinda been infringed as fuck the last year on our ability to move around, express and gather for religious reasons, etc. My pursuit of happiness has been a real buzz kill for the last 12 months.
If "they" are going to play fast and loose with the Constitution for a year, why not burn a year on the dregs of society and see if maybe we could clean up a good chunk of them up.
Otherwise, just place pallets of meth out in the middle of Central Washington and lets the dregs kill themselves - because that's essentially the slow death that's going on in major cities up and down the west coast right now by spending 'compassionate' taxpayer money on them.
I think there is a sense in which the royal "we" can haul your ass off to a facility to get you to quit shitting on the streets and spitting at people. We're not taking your agency, to use HH's term; for you have no agency really to speak of when you're pulling your pants down in broad daylight on the 3rd avenue and pinching off a loaf.
I had this discussion with a coworker of mine, and it definitely changed my thinking on the subject. His brother works for Kent PD, and he also has spent a lot of time volunteering with the homeless. He said it's a more intractable situation than it seems. The city was paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to a private contractor to break up homeless encampments and shoo them away. It's actually dangerous, technical work dealing with the needles, hazardous waste, etc., and often involves heavy equipment and dump trucks and whatnot. This contractor retired or moved on or something, so they were in a bind. The strategy, though, was kind of sad, and whoever created the policy's hands were in a bind. Of course a new camp would appear shortly after somewhere nearby, they'd ignore it as long as they could, then eventually it would become enough of a public nuisance that they'd be forced to play Sisyphus and push the boulder up the hill some more. They had a choice between wasting a fuckton of money merely shuffling the homeless around between camping spots or appearing to do nothing about it and getting the public all pissed off.
The part that blew my mind, though, when I was going off on my bleeding heart argument about spending a ton of money to house them all being cheaper perhaps than the damage they're causing, he responded with: "You're not getting it. You ever visited one of these camps? You ever talked to these people? Tried helping them? Ever helped clean one of these camps up?"
I mean, of course I haven't. I only tell people how they should solve problems from the comfort of my basement, not actually go outside and do the work, COME ON!
He said, "You realize it's even more fucked than you thought when you find out that a significant percentage of them want to live that way. You could hand them the keys to a free brand new, clean, furnished apartment, and they'd be living in another camp a week later. For many it's drugs or mental illness, but plenty of them just don't want your help. Being homeless is the lifestyle they choose."
I've thought about that a lot since, and I really just don't know what to make of it. I want to be compassionate, and I'd spend good money to help rehabilitate these people as opposed to just dumping them in Vantage to die out of sight. But if a significant number don't want to be helped, I don't see what options remain but Street-Shitting Theater° or some form of banishment (institutionalizing, geographical, etc.).
I had this discussion with a coworker of mine, and it definitely changed my thinking on the subject. His brother works for Kent PD, and he also has spent a lot of time volunteering with the homeless. He said it's a more intractable situation than it seems. The city was paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to a private contractor to break up homeless encampments and shoo them away. It's actually dangerous, technical work dealing with the needles, hazardous waste, etc., and often involves heavy equipment and dump trucks and whatnot. This contractor retired or moved on or something, so they were in a bind. The strategy, though, was kind of sad, and whoever created the policy's hands were in a bind. Of course a new camp would appear shortly after somewhere nearby, they'd ignore it as long as they could, then eventually it would become enough of a public nuisance that they'd be forced to play Sisyphus and push the boulder up the hill some more. They had a choice between wasting a fuckton of money merely shuffling the homeless around between camping spots or appearing to do nothing about it and getting the public all pissed off.
The part that blew my mind, though, when I was going off on my bleeding heart argument about spending a ton of money to house them all being cheaper perhaps than the damage they're causing, he responded with: "You're not getting it. You ever visited one of these camps? You ever talked to these people? Tried helping them? Ever helped clean one of these camps up?"
I mean, of course I haven't. I only tell people how they should solve problems from the comfort of my basement, not actually go outside and do the work, COME ON!
He said, "You realize it's even more fucked than you thought when you find out that a significant percentage of them want to live that way. You could hand them the keys to a free brand new, clean, furnished apartment, and they'd be living in another camp a week later. For many it's drugs or mental illness, but plenty of them just don't want your help. Being homeless is the lifestyle they choose."
I've thought about that a lot since, and I really just don't know what to make of it. I want to be compassionate, and I'd spend good money to help rehabilitate these people as opposed to just dumping them in Vantage to die out of sight. But if a significant number don't want to be helped, I don't see what options remain but Street-Shitting Theater° or some form of banishment (institutionalizing, geographical, etc.).
Not that I have any experience with it either, but I've assumed it's a mixed bag of people whose brains are misfiring, addiction, bad lives so they think they want this one, or a mix of those. I've also always said, "yeah, sure move it. get it the fuck outta here. but they'll pop up somewhere else."
I really don't know what to do about it, which is why sometimes I think Vantage is the only solution. Keep it isolated somewhere and do the best you can.
What's happening in the cities now is simply not sustainable. Eventually we'll all abandon them and it'll be like Mad Max down there.
I had this discussion with a coworker of mine, and it definitely changed my thinking on the subject. His brother works for Kent PD, and he also has spent a lot of time volunteering with the homeless. He said it's a more intractable situation than it seems. The city was paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to a private contractor to break up homeless encampments and shoo them away. It's actually dangerous, technical work dealing with the needles, hazardous waste, etc., and often involves heavy equipment and dump trucks and whatnot. This contractor retired or moved on or something, so they were in a bind. The strategy, though, was kind of sad, and whoever created the policy's hands were in a bind. Of course a new camp would appear shortly after somewhere nearby, they'd ignore it as long as they could, then eventually it would become enough of a public nuisance that they'd be forced to play Sisyphus and push the boulder up the hill some more. They had a choice between wasting a fuckton of money merely shuffling the homeless around between camping spots or appearing to do nothing about it and getting the public all pissed off.
The part that blew my mind, though, when I was going off on my bleeding heart argument about spending a ton of money to house them all being cheaper perhaps than the damage they're causing, he responded with: "You're not getting it. You ever visited one of these camps? You ever talked to these people? Tried helping them? Ever helped clean one of these camps up?"
I mean, of course I haven't. I only tell people how they should solve problems from the comfort of my basement, not actually go outside and do the work, COME ON!
He said, "You realize it's even more fucked than you thought when you find out that a significant percentage of them want to live that way. You could hand them the keys to a free brand new, clean, furnished apartment, and they'd be living in another camp a week later. For many it's drugs or mental illness, but plenty of them just don't want your help. Being homeless is the lifestyle they choose."
I've thought about that a lot since, and I really just don't know what to make of it. I want to be compassionate, and I'd spend good money to help rehabilitate these people as opposed to just dumping them in Vantage to die out of sight. But if a significant number don't want to be helped, I don't see what options remain but Street-Shitting Theater° or some form of banishment (institutionalizing, geographical, etc.).
I had this discussion with a coworker of mine, and it definitely changed my thinking on the subject. His brother works for Kent PD, and he also has spent a lot of time volunteering with the homeless. He said it's a more intractable situation than it seems. The city was paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to a private contractor to break up homeless encampments and shoo them away. It's actually dangerous, technical work dealing with the needles, hazardous waste, etc., and often involves heavy equipment and dump trucks and whatnot. This contractor retired or moved on or something, so they were in a bind. The strategy, though, was kind of sad, and whoever created the policy's hands were in a bind. Of course a new camp would appear shortly after somewhere nearby, they'd ignore it as long as they could, then eventually it would become enough of a public nuisance that they'd be forced to play Sisyphus and push the boulder up the hill some more. They had a choice between wasting a fuckton of money merely shuffling the homeless around between camping spots or appearing to do nothing about it and getting the public all pissed off.
The part that blew my mind, though, when I was going off on my bleeding heart argument about spending a ton of money to house them all being cheaper perhaps than the damage they're causing, he responded with: "You're not getting it. You ever visited one of these camps? You ever talked to these people? Tried helping them? Ever helped clean one of these camps up?"
I mean, of course I haven't. I only tell people how they should solve problems from the comfort of my basement, not actually go outside and do the work, COME ON!
He said, "You realize it's even more fucked than you thought when you find out that a significant percentage of them want to live that way. You could hand them the keys to a free brand new, clean, furnished apartment, and they'd be living in another camp a week later. For many it's drugs or mental illness, but plenty of them just don't want your help. Being homeless is the lifestyle they choose."
I've thought about that a lot since, and I really just don't know what to make of it. I want to be compassionate, and I'd spend good money to help rehabilitate these people as opposed to just dumping them in Vantage to die out of sight. But if a significant number don't want to be helped, I don't see what options remain but Street-Shitting Theater° or some form of banishment (institutionalizing, geographical, etc.).
This is a great post. Surprised to find it here
lol
Must have been ghost written by someone who posts on the Tug.
I had this discussion with a coworker of mine, and it definitely changed my thinking on the subject. His brother works for Kent PD, and he also has spent a lot of time volunteering with the homeless. He said it's a more intractable situation than it seems. The city was paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to a private contractor to break up homeless encampments and shoo them away. It's actually dangerous, technical work dealing with the needles, hazardous waste, etc., and often involves heavy equipment and dump trucks and whatnot. This contractor retired or moved on or something, so they were in a bind. The strategy, though, was kind of sad, and whoever created the policy's hands were in a bind. Of course a new camp would appear shortly after somewhere nearby, they'd ignore it as long as they could, then eventually it would become enough of a public nuisance that they'd be forced to play Sisyphus and push the boulder up the hill some more. They had a choice between wasting a fuckton of money merely shuffling the homeless around between camping spots or appearing to do nothing about it and getting the public all pissed off.
The part that blew my mind, though, when I was going off on my bleeding heart argument about spending a ton of money to house them all being cheaper perhaps than the damage they're causing, he responded with: "You're not getting it. You ever visited one of these camps? You ever talked to these people? Tried helping them? Ever helped clean one of these camps up?"
I mean, of course I haven't. I only tell people how they should solve problems from the comfort of my basement, not actually go outside and do the work, COME ON!
He said, "You realize it's even more fucked than you thought when you find out that a significant percentage of them want to live that way. You could hand them the keys to a free brand new, clean, furnished apartment, and they'd be living in another camp a week later. For many it's drugs or mental illness, but plenty of them just don't want your help. Being homeless is the lifestyle they choose."
I've thought about that a lot since, and I really just don't know what to make of it. I want to be compassionate, and I'd spend good money to help rehabilitate these people as opposed to just dumping them in Vantage to die out of sight. But if a significant number don't want to be helped, I don't see what options remain but Street-Shitting Theater° or some form of banishment (institutionalizing, geographical, etc.).
I rest my case.
I actually know a shit ton about homelessness and government intervention and programs and shit but I don't want to get all angered right now.
They are a tremendous resource suck relative to the other 99.9% of people who try to live normal lives.
I had this discussion with a coworker of mine, and it definitely changed my thinking on the subject. His brother works for Kent PD, and he also has spent a lot of time volunteering with the homeless. He said it's a more intractable situation than it seems. The city was paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to a private contractor to break up homeless encampments and shoo them away. It's actually dangerous, technical work dealing with the needles, hazardous waste, etc., and often involves heavy equipment and dump trucks and whatnot. This contractor retired or moved on or something, so they were in a bind. The strategy, though, was kind of sad, and whoever created the policy's hands were in a bind. Of course a new camp would appear shortly after somewhere nearby, they'd ignore it as long as they could, then eventually it would become enough of a public nuisance that they'd be forced to play Sisyphus and push the boulder up the hill some more. They had a choice between wasting a fuckton of money merely shuffling the homeless around between camping spots or appearing to do nothing about it and getting the public all pissed off.
The part that blew my mind, though, when I was going off on my bleeding heart argument about spending a ton of money to house them all being cheaper perhaps than the damage they're causing, he responded with: "You're not getting it. You ever visited one of these camps? You ever talked to these people? Tried helping them? Ever helped clean one of these camps up?"
I mean, of course I haven't. I only tell people how they should solve problems from the comfort of my basement, not actually go outside and do the work, COME ON!
He said, "You realize it's even more fucked than you thought when you find out that a significant percentage of them want to live that way. You could hand them the keys to a free brand new, clean, furnished apartment, and they'd be living in another camp a week later. For many it's drugs or mental illness, but plenty of them just don't want your help. Being homeless is the lifestyle they choose."
I've thought about that a lot since, and I really just don't know what to make of it. I want to be compassionate, and I'd spend good money to help rehabilitate these people as opposed to just dumping them in Vantage to die out of sight. But if a significant number don't want to be helped, I don't see what options remain but Street-Shitting Theater° or some form of banishment (institutionalizing, geographical, etc.).
This is a great post. Surprised to find it here
lol
Must have been ghost written by someone who posts on the Tug.
Comments
On the legal vs. illegal, I've been consistent on this: we need to regulate the borders because we need to know who is coming and going; but not to have some labor czar take count of who is coming and what skill level they have and in what. The welfare piece is the key. I am no expert on what they get or what they don't get. My wife's family is convinced there are secret federal welfare offices that give "illegals" more benies than our veterans!!!!!! Not sure that seems plausible to me, but I haven't disproven it so I guess it's true. Even if it's not, say they get something. Or say they come and have kids and those kids are now citizens. I would nix all that shit. All of it.
We? let you in, you and your fam. don't pull off the public tit (other than your kids in public school) for 10 years. Make it 15 years. And you need to be gainfully employed for 85% of that time. After that, you're an American and can go on welfare.
If you did something like that, mostly what you'd get are people filling labor gaps in the U.S. and the market would work.
As for skill/no skill, that's Race's wheelhouse and I'll stay out of it. I'll just say that I'm guessing most of the, say, Mexicans who come over with any skill acquired it working and not through special trade school. I see a lot of Mexican framing teams in the Seattle area residential construction bidness just from the eyeball test. Of course landscaping, food service, and agriculture are big employers. If those jobs were readily filled by American workers at prevailing market wages, as opposed to inflated wages set by protectionist labor policies, then the inflow would slow down dramatically assuming, again, you are not providing other incentives to come (like the free stuff).
As far as this notion that we're importing socialism, which you didn't offer but which I read about a lot, I wonder how we feel about Euro-immigrants. I'm serious when I say this: I have not met a single, solitary Euro here on visa (usually student) who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool socialist and can't believe Sanders has not won the Presidency. Remember, guys, the Hispanics didn't invent socialism. That's another thing to lay on the Germans.
You don't see homeless in CDA, Idaho - you just don't. Maybe up in the woods or some shit but NEVER in town.
Drive 30 miles west, downtown Spokane has some zombie zone/tent outposts that would give cascade shitholes Seattle and Portland a run for their money.
People behave in ways they are incented to behave. You give them free shit, they'll flock like moths to light. You don't give them free shit, they won't.
This is basic economics, not Tug shit. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the freeloaders go where the free-est load is.
Yet, you can be as fucked up and lacking in agency as anyone living on the street, but have a family or other safety net that doesn't put you out in a tent. If you don't have that, should you simply become irredeemable?
If you're still falling through the cracks at that point, you're either choosing that lifestyle (see also 'free shit > working for shit') or you're mentally ill and need to be put in a place where you can't harm others or yourself - Vantage is nice. This endless tent city stuff isn't helping anyone. Definition of insanity at this point.
Again, people behave in the manner in which their own self interest is incentivized.
My brother-in-law is in health care. He sees staffers living in their cars between shifts because it's their best option. People can work and be on the streets. And that's not to ignore that many of those living on the street are mentally ill, and don't have the agency you attribute to them.
Forget humanitarianism, I selfishly want some solution to this for me. I've never aspired to have US cities look and smell like Mumbai. I don't want the tents either. But the answer isn't to dump people in Vantage.
If you're that dumb that you're going to live in a car to be a health care worker in Seattle when there is demand for healthcare workers elsewhere and housing is dirt cheap, that's on you, not society.
The Okies packed up and moved to Cali when they couldn't cut it in OK because of the dust bowl....sixth largest economy because of it....people have faced hard times before and come out on the other side just fine when they had to take care of themselves.
There will always be an irredeemable % of the population. They need to go somewhere too.
We should also be chasing at whatever problem is causing such a rash of this shit. I guess opioids are the whipping post now. I'm generally more libertarian when it comes to allow people to kill themselves, whether slowly or quickly; but I'm also tired of stepping over shit in the streets.
This is what we call an intractable issue. I know this: throwing $$ at it and nothing more won't do shit. I've lost the last count, but the city of Seattle has burned through hundreds of millions (or more) and the problem has only gotten worse.
The idea of collecting folks and getting them to one place to clean them up appeals to me. It's also an infringement on civil liberties. There will always be that tension.
If "they" are going to play fast and loose with the Constitution for a year, why not burn a year on the dregs of society and see if maybe we could clean up a good chunk of them up.
Otherwise, just place pallets of meth out in the middle of Central Washington and lets the dregs kill themselves - because that's essentially the slow death that's going on in major cities up and down the west coast right now by spending 'compassionate' taxpayer money on them.
I can get around a lot of the virus stuff on this basis: if you believe the virus is real and is a real public health emergency (you either do or you don't - not gonna litigate that one in the club), then you can rationalize on civil liberties in the same sense that you do during wartime. It's a war on a virus. Just like lights out after a certain time so the Japanese wouldn't see where they were flying were they to launch an air attack. Or rationing or other shit that the country did. Or, fuck, the draft for that matter. Is there a greater infringement on civil liberties than the draft?
Anyway, back on topic, yes. I think there is a sense in which the royal "we" can haul your ass off to a facility to get you to quit shitting on the streets and spitting at people. We're not taking your agency, to use HH's term; for you have no agency really to speak of when you're pulling your pants down in broad daylight on the 3rd avenue and pinching off a loaf. I have actually seen this happen. More than once.
Like I said in another thread. I may be joining you in Idaho before it's all said and done. I like CDA. A lot.
Opioids is a part of the issue. But if you're an addict, free will is an elusive concept. Addiction is a throw of the genetic dice. Most people won't get addicted to opioids because they don't have that predisposition.
Mental illness is part of the problem. Not exactly a matter of free will.
Personally, I'd live with the risks of being overly paternalistic and intrusive. Many people can't simply white knuckle themselves into a solution to their issues.
The part that blew my mind, though, when I was going off on my bleeding heart argument about spending a ton of money to house them all being cheaper perhaps than the damage they're causing, he responded with: "You're not getting it. You ever visited one of these camps? You ever talked to these people? Tried helping them? Ever helped clean one of these camps up?"
I mean, of course I haven't. I only tell people how they should solve problems from the comfort of my basement, not actually go outside and do the work, COME ON!
He said, "You realize it's even more fucked than you thought when you find out that a significant percentage of them want to live that way. You could hand them the keys to a free brand new, clean, furnished apartment, and they'd be living in another camp a week later. For many it's drugs or mental illness, but plenty of them just don't want your help. Being homeless is the lifestyle they choose."
I've thought about that a lot since, and I really just don't know what to make of it. I want to be compassionate, and I'd spend good money to help rehabilitate these people as opposed to just dumping them in Vantage to die out of sight. But if a significant number don't want to be helped, I don't see what options remain but Street-Shitting Theater° or some form of banishment (institutionalizing, geographical, etc.).
I really don't know what to do about it, which is why sometimes I think Vantage is the only solution. Keep it isolated somewhere and do the best you can.
What's happening in the cities now is simply not sustainable. Eventually we'll all abandon them and it'll be like Mad Max down there.
lol
I actually know a shit ton about homelessness and government intervention and programs and shit but I don't want to get all angered right now.
They are a tremendous resource suck relative to the other 99.9% of people who try to live normal lives.