Aerial photos reveal the stark divide between rich and poor(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Aerial photos reveal the stark divide between rich and poor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-45257901
97 comments
What am I missing?
The shack-dwellers have no land or strata title or security, often reduced access to utilities and services (or none at all), and thereby live in a state of relative fear and insecurity.
Often owing to this situation they also periodically lose what little they have to thug-teams called in to clear illegal dwellings, and even if they can hold on tend to lack access to education for their children who grow up with stigma and reduced opportunities which results in a cycle of poverty.
Simplistically, you can look at slum-dwellers as landless peasants.
The shack-dwellers have no land or strata title or security, often reduced access to utilities and services (or none at all), and thereby live in a state of relative fear and insecurity.
Often owing to this situation they also periodically lose what little they have to thug-teams called in to clear illegal dwellings, and even if they can hold on tend to lack access to education for their children who grow up with stigma and reduced opportunities which results in a cycle of poverty.
Simplistically, you can look at slum-dwellers as landless peasants.
Location, location, location.
Price per square m/ft is much lower in the slum than in the gated community.
If you couldn't aford a place in the gated community, would you use that money to buy a place in the slum? Or would you try elsewhere?
The problem in general is not absolute lack of space for building (except islands like Japan, ...), but lack of place to build in desirable locations.
Price per square m/ft is much lower in the slum than in the gated community.
If you couldn't aford a place in the gated community, would you use that money to buy a place in the slum? Or would you try elsewhere?
The problem in general is not absolute lack of space for building (except islands like Japan, ...), but lack of place to build in desirable locations.
They are across a fence from one another. If land was at a premium, I'd assume somebody in power would burn the slums and sell the land? That's what I don't get.
Apparently that happens:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mumbais-slums-make-way-for-luxu...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mumbais-slums-make-way-for-luxu...
In Brazil as well (as India), though it mostly happened in the 20th century.
I think the preferred approach these days is create lots of high-paying jobs in close proximity to the slums and wait for gentrification to happen. Makes a bunch of yuppies do the dirty work and take all the risk of displacing communities as tenants while the rents skyrocket.
Then when they finally reach the point where they can afford to buy, they'll apply for huge mortgages to buy in the slum they effectively converted into a desirable place. Profit.
This is what seemed to play out in The Mission district of SF over the past decade or so.
Then when they finally reach the point where they can afford to buy, they'll apply for huge mortgages to buy in the slum they effectively converted into a desirable place. Profit.
This is what seemed to play out in The Mission district of SF over the past decade or so.
[deleted]
This becomes pretty clear when you look at housing prices vs commute times in some of the larger, wealthier metro areas like NYC, Boston, Seattle, and the Bay
Sure, you can get a 2500 sq ft house on a quarter acre lot for $500k, if you’re also willing to drive for 2 or more hours a day to go to/from work. If you want a 15 minute or less commute, prepare to spend 3 times more for the same sized house on a smaller plot of land.
What’s crazy to me is when you have communities like Medina, WA or Atherton, CA where this extremely conveniently located land is all single family houses. When inequality is low you have people living close to employers for convenience and living far to get more house per $ - now inequality, especially in certain regions, is making it so that the rich people are able to get the best of both worlds
To me the high premium on convenience these days indicates that these regions are in need of a public transportation upgrade, but that’s another story.
Sure, you can get a 2500 sq ft house on a quarter acre lot for $500k, if you’re also willing to drive for 2 or more hours a day to go to/from work. If you want a 15 minute or less commute, prepare to spend 3 times more for the same sized house on a smaller plot of land.
What’s crazy to me is when you have communities like Medina, WA or Atherton, CA where this extremely conveniently located land is all single family houses. When inequality is low you have people living close to employers for convenience and living far to get more house per $ - now inequality, especially in certain regions, is making it so that the rich people are able to get the best of both worlds
To me the high premium on convenience these days indicates that these regions are in need of a public transportation upgrade, but that’s another story.
And a recent extension of the location problem:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/technology/google-maps-ne...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17670267
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/technology/google-maps-ne...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17670267
I think the key differentiator in most of these pictures is the amount of area without buildings. With shacks, the whole area is covered with tin roofs. In the wealthier areas, the cheaper housing is higher density apartment towers, and the expensive housing is single family homes (or townhouses) with lots of lawn.
You're not wrong in that the land value often isn't in line with the shacks.
But a few things to consider:
One is that shacks tend not to be built by the owners on their own land. i.e., they're not paying for the land, therefore the value of the land plays does not prohibit them from building a shack there. Instead, they're occupying the space illegally. A shack only costs a little in bricks (these lowgrade ones are probably about 10 cents a piece) and some metal roofing.
Second is that shacks in some countries are built in high-demand locations as a political and economic instrument by poor people. In Morocco for example, those who live in slums often get bought about for about 25k per family by a public-private investment project aimed at building luxury apartments. They then take this money to build/buy-into a low-quality apartment building in the city's poor periphery. They're often staying illegally and refusing low-ball offers. If you kick them out by force, you have a moral and socio-political problems and the problem only relocates (waterbed effect). Further, local politicians will often cater to these people for their votes, when the majority of the country is below middle-class, that's who you pander to. In essence, these slums and the related buyout acts like a sort of earmarked social-housing tax on luxury housing projects.
Sometimes the slums are actually owned by those who live there (unlikely, usually it's based on forged documents). But even then, no developer will buy a small plot in the middle of a slum for luxury apartments. You need to be able to buy-out families consisting of hundreds of people before you have a large enough plot of land to develop in. That isn't easy and people know they can fetch a high-price. They also know they have to, finding another place to live isn't cheap.
And lastly, there actually are tons of shacks being sold every day, replaced by apartments due to the value dynamics you described. It just doesn't happen overnight to the entire stock.
But a few things to consider:
One is that shacks tend not to be built by the owners on their own land. i.e., they're not paying for the land, therefore the value of the land plays does not prohibit them from building a shack there. Instead, they're occupying the space illegally. A shack only costs a little in bricks (these lowgrade ones are probably about 10 cents a piece) and some metal roofing.
Second is that shacks in some countries are built in high-demand locations as a political and economic instrument by poor people. In Morocco for example, those who live in slums often get bought about for about 25k per family by a public-private investment project aimed at building luxury apartments. They then take this money to build/buy-into a low-quality apartment building in the city's poor periphery. They're often staying illegally and refusing low-ball offers. If you kick them out by force, you have a moral and socio-political problems and the problem only relocates (waterbed effect). Further, local politicians will often cater to these people for their votes, when the majority of the country is below middle-class, that's who you pander to. In essence, these slums and the related buyout acts like a sort of earmarked social-housing tax on luxury housing projects.
Sometimes the slums are actually owned by those who live there (unlikely, usually it's based on forged documents). But even then, no developer will buy a small plot in the middle of a slum for luxury apartments. You need to be able to buy-out families consisting of hundreds of people before you have a large enough plot of land to develop in. That isn't easy and people know they can fetch a high-price. They also know they have to, finding another place to live isn't cheap.
And lastly, there actually are tons of shacks being sold every day, replaced by apartments due to the value dynamics you described. It just doesn't happen overnight to the entire stock.
The higher density seen in the upmarket development isn't necessarily an indicator that land values in the area are high, or that space is at a premium. Rather, it correlates with the developer's belief in achieving a higher return from the development (despite the increase in construction cost) vs. building out lower density. Despite the two places meters apart and separated by a fence, it's the amenities of the upmarket development (e.g. degree of repair, safety, security, facilities, prestige) that makes it valuable, but only in an improved state after the fact.
In places where upscale market demand isn't overwhelmingly high, this keeps land prices low enough that residents of nearby low-class housing aren't priced out, or the landowner (who may or may not be the resident of the dwellings above) doesn't feel sufficient pressure to sell.
In places where upscale market demand isn't overwhelmingly high, this keeps land prices low enough that residents of nearby low-class housing aren't priced out, or the landowner (who may or may not be the resident of the dwellings above) doesn't feel sufficient pressure to sell.
What am I missing?
The article starts out talking about the airport being surrounded by shacks. Airports cause tremendous air pollution and noise pollution.
The shacks are likely concentrated in areas that wealthier people generally wouldn't want to live as those areas tend to take a toll on health no matter how nice the building.
There is plenty of evidence that poor people generally live in places with serious environmental issues which negatively impact their health. This just compounds their poverty by adding medical expenses and reducing productivity.
I think we need to rewrite budding codes to say, in essence, that you can live in a small space, but it needs to be one that doesn't harm your health. This would eliminate one of the mist profound differences between rich and poor, a difference that helps keep poverty entrenched.
The article starts out talking about the airport being surrounded by shacks. Airports cause tremendous air pollution and noise pollution.
The shacks are likely concentrated in areas that wealthier people generally wouldn't want to live as those areas tend to take a toll on health no matter how nice the building.
There is plenty of evidence that poor people generally live in places with serious environmental issues which negatively impact their health. This just compounds their poverty by adding medical expenses and reducing productivity.
I think we need to rewrite budding codes to say, in essence, that you can live in a small space, but it needs to be one that doesn't harm your health. This would eliminate one of the mist profound differences between rich and poor, a difference that helps keep poverty entrenched.
And then you have countries that are one step ahead where the 'poor' enjoy much cleaner air than the 'rich' because the rich all have their fireplaces going. No joke.
> If land is at such a premium (and the towers seem to indicate this) then how on earth does the shack-dweller afford so much land (relatively) for their very-much-lower density housing?
The land that the shacks are built on is much cheaper because the surrounding land is covered in shacks.
The land that the shacks are built on is much cheaper because the surrounding land is covered in shacks.
It is also usually not owned by the owners of the shacks, and is government property through land trusts. This makes for one hell of a nightmare to unbundle when government occasionally offers land amnesty where you can buy the land your shack sits on, because the borders of ‘your parcel’ is effectively undefined.
Source: an acquaintance is going through something functionally similar in Turkey, though the material conditions are much different (its a modern apartment, not shacks, and it’s because of a mis-issued land grant, not just building on gov’t land like these shacks I assume are)
Source: an acquaintance is going through something functionally similar in Turkey, though the material conditions are much different (its a modern apartment, not shacks, and it’s because of a mis-issued land grant, not just building on gov’t land like these shacks I assume are)
Look at the parking in several of the early pictures. The development there is clearly much lower density than the shacks. They have yards and shared greenspace and driveways and garages and so on.
In CA, 101 acts as that wall between PA and EPA. The differences are more subtle: less trees.
https://goo.gl/maps/c6t8e6dtHbn
Trees are one of the major factors affecting property value. If antifa really wanted to attack the 1%, they would covertly kill trees around the richest folks' homes and start fast-food franchises nearby.
https://goo.gl/maps/c6t8e6dtHbn
Trees are one of the major factors affecting property value. If antifa really wanted to attack the 1%, they would covertly kill trees around the richest folks' homes and start fast-food franchises nearby.
> If antifa really wanted to attack the 1%
They don't, as such. The Anti-Fascist movement overlaps very strongly with (and was originally a project of) various far-left communist/socialist groups, but it's rather central to the point of that project that it is a unifying front in which cooperation can occur with people who don't share the broader politico-economic agenda of the groups who established the movement.
They don't, as such. The Anti-Fascist movement overlaps very strongly with (and was originally a project of) various far-left communist/socialist groups, but it's rather central to the point of that project that it is a unifying front in which cooperation can occur with people who don't share the broader politico-economic agenda of the groups who established the movement.
Antifa is anti-fascist not anti-wealth. The are a lot of leftists who are both, but they are not the same thing. Antifa groups don’t protest Republican political rally’s, for example.
Right/left is a divide-and-conquer gambit. There are rich Democrats and rich Republicans whom are nearly indistinguishable in action and vary only on minor supposed values, both wings of as Gore Vidal called it, "The Property" party. The non-ideological property owners hedge bets on both team D and team R, and really don't care which win, so long as they keep voting for their interests first.
Antifa is fail because they're usually usurped by anarchists and hooligan mobs whom don't know whom they're fighting other than brands and slogans... like tilting at windmills. The enemy of 99% and the planet is most definitely the rich... not D, not R, not Chevron, not [insert astroturfing group] but those whom powerful people whom pull more of the strings to corrupt government in their favor.
Antifa is fail because they're usually usurped by anarchists and hooligan mobs whom don't know whom they're fighting other than brands and slogans... like tilting at windmills. The enemy of 99% and the planet is most definitely the rich... not D, not R, not Chevron, not [insert astroturfing group] but those whom powerful people whom pull more of the strings to corrupt government in their favor.
It says "Anti-Capitalist" right on their banner:
https://static.westernjournal.com/ct/wp-content/uploads/2017...
https://static.westernjournal.com/ct/wp-content/uploads/2017...
Antifa isn't any more "anti-fascist" than the People's Democratic Republic of (North) Korea is a "democratic republic", or than old-school Pravda contained truth.
They are violent communists.
P.S. there haven't been any real fascists for, like, 70 years. So, mission accomplished then?
They are violent communists.
P.S. there haven't been any real fascists for, like, 70 years. So, mission accomplished then?
Wikipedia: Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy,[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
Putin? Dictatorial power: yes, suppression of opposition: yes, forcible regimentation of society and of the economy: yes, radical ultranationalism: yes.
Putin? Dictatorial power: yes, suppression of opposition: yes, forcible regimentation of society and of the economy: yes, radical ultranationalism: yes.
I have not noticed any "antifa" "protests" in Moscow, have you?
Wikipedia is a poor source for such definitions, by the way. It reflects the political agenda of the last person to edit the page.
In fact, fascism (and national socialism in general) are heresies of socialism. Fascists are only "on the right" if you're Stalin. Fascism and communism have far more commonalities than they have differences.
For example, Mussolini was a high official in the Italian Socialist party until he broke with the "international" socialists during WWI, and switched to his own brand of "national" socialism.
Neither type of socialism has much in common with the classical liberalism that has historically been the guiding philosophy of the United States.
In practice, "fascist" today appears to simply mean "someone who isn't a communist".
Wikipedia is a poor source for such definitions, by the way. It reflects the political agenda of the last person to edit the page.
In fact, fascism (and national socialism in general) are heresies of socialism. Fascists are only "on the right" if you're Stalin. Fascism and communism have far more commonalities than they have differences.
For example, Mussolini was a high official in the Italian Socialist party until he broke with the "international" socialists during WWI, and switched to his own brand of "national" socialism.
Neither type of socialism has much in common with the classical liberalism that has historically been the guiding philosophy of the United States.
In practice, "fascist" today appears to simply mean "someone who isn't a communist".
This exists probably in all countries. I also don't quite get the message out of these pictures. Or if it is even a matter which needs to be solved. If it is, redistribution of wealth is not practical IMO.
Does it, though? I can tell you that the contrast in, say, The Netherlands is a lot smaller.
Take a look at Bilthoven [0], one of the the most extreme examples I know of. The (roughly) north side is obviously richer, but the contrast is an awful lot smaller than the examples from the BBC.
Now let's look at a somewhat average city, Utrecht. [1] Can you tell me which parts the ultra-rich live? How about now? [2] Amsterdam is pretty much the same story, just like Rotterdam, Den Haag, etc. Sure, there are of course rich and poor people, but there are no slums, let alone slums right next to mansions!
About the message: poor people are living in small, filthy, dilapidated houses right next to the immaculate mansions of the rich. Perhaps the rich could contribute a little towards the living conditions of the poor who helped them to gain their wealth?
[0]: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.1278844,5.1932405,3071m/data=... [1]: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.0981346,5.1310086,3074m/data=... [2]: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.0999022,5.1106661,2583m/data=...
Take a look at Bilthoven [0], one of the the most extreme examples I know of. The (roughly) north side is obviously richer, but the contrast is an awful lot smaller than the examples from the BBC.
Now let's look at a somewhat average city, Utrecht. [1] Can you tell me which parts the ultra-rich live? How about now? [2] Amsterdam is pretty much the same story, just like Rotterdam, Den Haag, etc. Sure, there are of course rich and poor people, but there are no slums, let alone slums right next to mansions!
About the message: poor people are living in small, filthy, dilapidated houses right next to the immaculate mansions of the rich. Perhaps the rich could contribute a little towards the living conditions of the poor who helped them to gain their wealth?
[0]: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.1278844,5.1932405,3071m/data=... [1]: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.0981346,5.1310086,3074m/data=... [2]: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.0999022,5.1106661,2583m/data=...
Every healthcare system on earth save for a few operates by redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Even in the US about 1/3 or more of its healthcare system operates by redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor.
There are good reasons to be critical of many forms of wealth redistribution, however it does clearly work in some instances. Just ask all the most developed nations, including the US (which has both one of the most progressive taxation systems and one of the largest welfare systems as a share of GDP).
The primary debate is whether there are better approaches, or what degree / what manner of wealth redistribution is ideal, not whether any wealth redistribution can be effective.
There are good reasons to be critical of many forms of wealth redistribution, however it does clearly work in some instances. Just ask all the most developed nations, including the US (which has both one of the most progressive taxation systems and one of the largest welfare systems as a share of GDP).
The primary debate is whether there are better approaches, or what degree / what manner of wealth redistribution is ideal, not whether any wealth redistribution can be effective.
Let me paraphrase what you said:
"I dont see the problem. If there is a problem I dont know we should solve it. If there is a problem we shouldnt solve it because its natural. If it is a problem and we should deal with it we shouldnt use redistribution."
Isnt there a name for this type of reasoning?
"I dont see the problem. If there is a problem I dont know we should solve it. If there is a problem we shouldnt solve it because its natural. If it is a problem and we should deal with it we shouldnt use redistribution."
Isnt there a name for this type of reasoning?
> Isnt there a name for this type of reasoning?
counterfactual reasoning? if it weren't for the fact that you disagree, you might just call it being thorough.
counterfactual reasoning? if it weren't for the fact that you disagree, you might just call it being thorough.
Rationalizing a system from which you perceive yourself to be benefiting from and thus wish not to alter the status quo?
Kettle logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic
Why do legal arguments constantly seem to use this method all the time?
Guessing: a defense needs to establish reasonable doubt, not an airtight theory of the case.
This should explain why:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_in_the_alternative
Originating in the legal profession, argument in the alternative is a strategy in which a lawyer advances several competing (and possibly mutually exclusive) arguments in order to pre-empt objections by his adversary, with the goal of showing that regardless of interpretation there is no reasonable conclusion other than the advocate's.
Originating in the legal profession, argument in the alternative is a strategy in which a lawyer advances several competing (and possibly mutually exclusive) arguments in order to pre-empt objections by his adversary, with the goal of showing that regardless of interpretation there is no reasonable conclusion other than the advocate's.
It sounds like the Narcissist’s Prayer.
That didn’t happen.
And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.
And if it was, that’s not a big deal.
And if it is, that’s not my fault.
And if it was, I didn’t mean it.
And if I did…
You deserved it.
That didn’t happen.
And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.
And if it was, that’s not a big deal.
And if it is, that’s not my fault.
And if it was, I didn’t mean it.
And if I did…
You deserved it.
And if you had a dog...
http://acronymrequired.com/2011/10/the-four-dog-defense.html
http://acronymrequired.com/2011/10/the-four-dog-defense.html
Ill try follow the guidelines here
You really don't see the issue here? The migration of poor peasants to the cities living in slums is a well known phenomenon even in the UK a lot of slums existed until well after ww2
Of course South Africa has its own tragic post ww2 history I would have thought that most people would have some understanding
You really don't see the issue here? The migration of poor peasants to the cities living in slums is a well known phenomenon even in the UK a lot of slums existed until well after ww2
Of course South Africa has its own tragic post ww2 history I would have thought that most people would have some understanding
"Ill try follow the guidelines here"
Ya Im guessing my response was a bit borderline. I wish HN had a private response.
>redistribution of wealth is not practical IMO.
Why not? We essentially distributed it up, why can't it come back down?
Why not? We essentially distributed it up, why can't it come back down?
No we didn’t. There isn’t a fixed amount of wealth that we just need to divvy up fairly. Wealth can be created and destroyed. It’s not a zero sum game.
> It’s not a zero sum game.
The very definition of inequality, unfortunately.
The very definition of inequality, unfortunately.
That’s not how inequality works.
Two people each having $5 is a low—inequality situation. One person having $10 and another having $100 is a high inequality situation, even though minimum and average wealth are both higher.
Two people each having $5 is a low—inequality situation. One person having $10 and another having $100 is a high inequality situation, even though minimum and average wealth are both higher.
ryandrake(1)
Many developing countries have increased the average income over the last 40 or so years quite substantially - from a low base of course.
You don't have the regular famines in Bangladesh which I recall from when I was a child.
You don't have the regular famines in Bangladesh which I recall from when I was a child.
This set of images is just an example of the extreme consolidation of wealth amongst some select few individuals. I agree that redistributing wealth equally is no easy feat, however, we need to be aware that this growing inequality is progressing exponentially. If precautions are not taken (i.e. net neutrality for example) the 1% will continue to acquire most of the world's wealth, making it more and more difficult for any social mobility.
You're jumping the gun. Start by just acknowledging that the phenomenon exists.
billybolton(3)
The message the photographer is trying to convey is that our world economy relies on startling wealth inequality to keep functioning. There is no escape, and no solution without the wealthiest folks massively sacrificing. In order to live in a nice suburban home, drive a nice car, eat well, and have TVs and computers, slavery must exist. Important and useful minerals must be robbed from places like the Congo. Places like the Amazon must be slashed and burned. Otherwise, those conveniences would cost astronomical amounts of money, and only the likes of Jeff Bezos would have access.
the real test is, which side of the picture is growing. because the respect for private property and personal rights has reduced poverty more than any other means
But as I said else where the average wealth of a lot of developing countries has gone up a lot - take China 30/40 years ago to today and the Rise of the middle class in India.
Just because average wealth has increased, doesn't mean life is better. Who is more poor: a farmer who lives in the middle of no where in a hut, but has fresh water, fruit trees, and a couple goats, or a person who works at McDonalds in the USA?
Those statistics would say the person in the hut is poorer of course, but I would disagree.
Those statistics would say the person in the hut is poorer of course, but I would disagree.
On a bigger scale, Whole Foods versus Walmart in California:
https://i2.wp.com/famvin.org/en/files/2013/03/Walmart-and-Wh...
https://i2.wp.com/famvin.org/en/files/2013/03/Walmart-and-Wh...
Interesting where the 2 spots that have both a Walmart and Whole Foods.
The Mountain View Whole Foods and Walmart are across the street from each other (along with Target and Trader Joe’s).
If you aren't familiar with this neighborhood, it is incredibly pedestrian friendly, not only can you walk to all of those stores, it is located next to a Caltrain station.
Pedestrian friendly _for the Bay Area_. It's still a car-strewn wasteland by most civilized standards. I used to walk to lunch there multiple times a week, and bike to work a few times a week also. I do not care much for the Bay Area's suburban form.
I worked at your old company :-)
We have to give credit to the foresight of whoever planned this out, allowed it or luck, I remember about 20 years ago, there was a mall with a Sears and Montgomery Wards where the Safeway/3-4 story condos/apartments/restaurants are now and that Whole Foods was not there, though it seems as if San Antonio Road has had one lane or more blocked over that time continuously as buildings have been torn down/going up.
Interestingly, that area was home to not just one mall, but three: http://web.archive.org/web/20080112061658/http://members.aol...
I've been around long enough to remember the Old Mill, and San Antonio Shopping Center in its prime (if it had one), but Mayfield Mall was already HP when I was young.
I've been around long enough to remember the Old Mill, and San Antonio Shopping Center in its prime (if it had one), but Mayfield Mall was already HP when I was young.
Not to quite the same degree, but I find it interesting how you can discern the border of Atherton, CA from the surrounding area just by looking at the density of trees in the satellite view.
The visual difference is almost as pronounced in this view: https://binged.it/2wgPj2m (easier to see in Bing). The difference being the houses on the "poor" side are multi-million dollar homes.
These sort of photos, while interesting visually, prove nothing and say even less.
Except that rich people and poor people exist and that if you're a developer you should be careful where you build lest your new development appear in a moralizing photographic exhibition.
To be clear, I am not saying inequality does not exist or that there aren't real problems of disparity of wealth, just that drawing very wide conclusions from proximity is probably a bad idea.
Except that rich people and poor people exist and that if you're a developer you should be careful where you build lest your new development appear in a moralizing photographic exhibition.
To be clear, I am not saying inequality does not exist or that there aren't real problems of disparity of wealth, just that drawing very wide conclusions from proximity is probably a bad idea.
These photos are powerful, and say a lot about inequality in just a handful of scenes.
The ideal situation would be for everyone to live in functionally identical dwellings that provide their every need. Somewhat like the world described by E. M. Forster in The Machine Stops, except without the dystopian aspect of fully enclosed spaces and unmaintained infrastructure.
Until we reach that pinnacle of human existence, we should all work towards preventing the majority of the world's population living in poverty. A good start would be redistributing the ill-gotten wealth of that lucky minority who lord it over everyone else in a perpetual state of power-hungry me-too selfishness.
The ideal situation would be for everyone to live in functionally identical dwellings that provide their every need. Somewhat like the world described by E. M. Forster in The Machine Stops, except without the dystopian aspect of fully enclosed spaces and unmaintained infrastructure.
Until we reach that pinnacle of human existence, we should all work towards preventing the majority of the world's population living in poverty. A good start would be redistributing the ill-gotten wealth of that lucky minority who lord it over everyone else in a perpetual state of power-hungry me-too selfishness.
> Until we reach that pinnacle of human existence, we should all work towards preventing the majority of the world's population living in poverty.
Are talking about absolute or relative poverty? I absolutely agree that no human should go without food, clean water, shelter, and sanitation. But I absolutely disagree that a 50" flatscreen TV should be considered a human right just because Bill Gates has a 200" flatscreen TV.
> A good start would be redistributing the ill-gotten wealth of that lucky minority who lord it over everyone else in a perpetual state of power-hungry me-too selfishness.
So if you work hard, and are resourceful and inventive, at what point does your wealth become ill-gotten and subject to redistribution?
Are talking about absolute or relative poverty? I absolutely agree that no human should go without food, clean water, shelter, and sanitation. But I absolutely disagree that a 50" flatscreen TV should be considered a human right just because Bill Gates has a 200" flatscreen TV.
> A good start would be redistributing the ill-gotten wealth of that lucky minority who lord it over everyone else in a perpetual state of power-hungry me-too selfishness.
So if you work hard, and are resourceful and inventive, at what point does your wealth become ill-gotten and subject to redistribution?
Well one good point would be with your death.
Inheriting large fortunes has obviously nothing to do with resourcefulness and inventiveness.
Inheriting large fortunes has obviously nothing to do with resourcefulness and inventiveness.
My wealth is mine to do what I want with, including to give it to someone else (unless you're proposing that wealth be somehow nontransferable?)
Inheritance isn't about the receiver getting something for nothing, it's about the right of the deceased to have their possessions disposed of as they see fit.
Inheritance isn't about the receiver getting something for nothing, it's about the right of the deceased to have their possessions disposed of as they see fit.
Why would it only be about one side? Why is it NOT about the reveiver getting something for free? Why do I have to pay income tax on money I earned by working all year?
I agree it is morally more complicated on the giver side, but on the taker side it is fairly clear cut.
On the other hand the giver is dead and why should he have any more rights?
I agree it is morally more complicated on the giver side, but on the taker side it is fairly clear cut.
On the other hand the giver is dead and why should he have any more rights?
Well, the issue is of course that all wealth is relative. There is no absolute level of poverty except in death. The issue is, for both yourself and the previous post, where you draw the line.
Hunger, health, contentment, education, or self actualisation?
There is another level to this argument that is central to the reason why this inequality thing gets so much airtime (even though people, with views similar to what you have stated, don't see the problem). That is the secondary effects. At a certain level, the wealthy start to get a significant benefit just from being wealthy. They get to direct legislation to benefit further, they start to see themselves as deserving of their wealth, and their vice and their role. They start to see themselves as kings and the poor as a lesser kind of human (and historically as inhuman).
This is the biggest reason for equality. If you can solve the proclivity of wealthy people toward self interest and dehumanisation of their fellow human, then by all means get as rich as you please.
Hunger, health, contentment, education, or self actualisation?
There is another level to this argument that is central to the reason why this inequality thing gets so much airtime (even though people, with views similar to what you have stated, don't see the problem). That is the secondary effects. At a certain level, the wealthy start to get a significant benefit just from being wealthy. They get to direct legislation to benefit further, they start to see themselves as deserving of their wealth, and their vice and their role. They start to see themselves as kings and the poor as a lesser kind of human (and historically as inhuman).
This is the biggest reason for equality. If you can solve the proclivity of wealthy people toward self interest and dehumanisation of their fellow human, then by all means get as rich as you please.
The problem is that human society does not seem to work very well like that. Either humans seem to think they have to do it themselves, or they think the state is fully responsible for them. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground, and yet, either extreme is totally unlivable.
> This is the biggest reason for equality.
I would argue that by far the biggest reason people aren't equal is that people ... aren't born equal, and yes, it does "run in families" (that's the whole point of evolution of course). Perhaps this is not so much a reason for the day to day differences in their lives, but it is the root cause behind those differences.
People are inherently different, both from a physical point of view (good health runs in families, in both the poor and the rich), and from a cultural point of view (there's a reason people are rich, and of course they raise their children to have that same property, to think the same way). Same with poor. For many there's a reason they are poor and they teach their children to, say, hate entrepreneurship, investment and risk (man, there's a LOT of that in Western Europe).
The issue is twofold. You cannot fix ineqality by rewarding the poor. That works for a few of them, but not for many. That works for rich people that are in danger of falling out of the rich category, helps them get back in, but it doesn't lift many poor out of poverty.
That leaves the other tactic. You can fix inequality by punishing, obstructing and outright attacking the rich/smart/powerful/... But of course that is done by actual people. Those people, whether in the Soviet Union, China, or indeed France (during the revolution), invariably judge themselves to be better than the plebs and start using those punishments and that power that they have to guarantee themselves a very high social position. I would argue that currently Erdogan and Putin are (very imperfect) examples of this in action. Furthermore, this destroys societies.
The problem with "justice" is that it doesn't exist. People will always have to be in place to judge (and no, they're not judges) which situations are just and which aren't. And people ... lie, cheat, ...
From an individual's perspective it's never directly for their own advantage. Of course people that work within the state to create equality need to use their power to guarantee their power stays, for of course their mission of eliminating inequality will fail if they fail to protect themselves. So they use that power to attack personal threats, or threats against the political status-quo. In many cases, that's sort of defensible, because they would indeed fail if they hadn't. If the communists get voted out in China, their mission, their dream for China will fail. Of course, in that case that's exactly what the population wants to achieve by voting them out, but it will still fail.
TLDR. equality sucks. You cannot lift everyone up to wealth and high society. You can only push everyone down, destroying everything in the process.
> This is the biggest reason for equality.
I would argue that by far the biggest reason people aren't equal is that people ... aren't born equal, and yes, it does "run in families" (that's the whole point of evolution of course). Perhaps this is not so much a reason for the day to day differences in their lives, but it is the root cause behind those differences.
People are inherently different, both from a physical point of view (good health runs in families, in both the poor and the rich), and from a cultural point of view (there's a reason people are rich, and of course they raise their children to have that same property, to think the same way). Same with poor. For many there's a reason they are poor and they teach their children to, say, hate entrepreneurship, investment and risk (man, there's a LOT of that in Western Europe).
The issue is twofold. You cannot fix ineqality by rewarding the poor. That works for a few of them, but not for many. That works for rich people that are in danger of falling out of the rich category, helps them get back in, but it doesn't lift many poor out of poverty.
That leaves the other tactic. You can fix inequality by punishing, obstructing and outright attacking the rich/smart/powerful/... But of course that is done by actual people. Those people, whether in the Soviet Union, China, or indeed France (during the revolution), invariably judge themselves to be better than the plebs and start using those punishments and that power that they have to guarantee themselves a very high social position. I would argue that currently Erdogan and Putin are (very imperfect) examples of this in action. Furthermore, this destroys societies.
The problem with "justice" is that it doesn't exist. People will always have to be in place to judge (and no, they're not judges) which situations are just and which aren't. And people ... lie, cheat, ...
From an individual's perspective it's never directly for their own advantage. Of course people that work within the state to create equality need to use their power to guarantee their power stays, for of course their mission of eliminating inequality will fail if they fail to protect themselves. So they use that power to attack personal threats, or threats against the political status-quo. In many cases, that's sort of defensible, because they would indeed fail if they hadn't. If the communists get voted out in China, their mission, their dream for China will fail. Of course, in that case that's exactly what the population wants to achieve by voting them out, but it will still fail.
TLDR. equality sucks. You cannot lift everyone up to wealth and high society. You can only push everyone down, destroying everything in the process.
> This is the biggest reason for equality.
Sorry, that was very poorly worded in retrospect. What I meant was this is the biggest reason for trying to keep inequality in check. Because to abandon keeping it in check is to accept (at some point in the future) being a slave to the god overlords.
Just because.. human nature.. does not mean you cannot individually, and as a society, try for something a little more stable and productive. As I said, it depends where you draw the line, everything is a grey area. There are real dangers to inequality, just as there are dangers, as you point out, to forced equality. And yes, you can fix inequality by re-distributing wealth back to the poor. That is the fucking point. But it brings up other problems of its own doing. Imagine though if this fix is not absolute, just about degree. And perhaps a small one just to keep the power balanced between the rich and the masses, and the corporate and the political. Perhaps it needs to swing back and forth occasionally to prevent a monoculture. And really, if someone does not agree with you on precisely where that line is, doesn't mean they are automatically some kind of dystopian socialist. Most people largely agree with each other on most things in principle, just not in implementation.
I mean I fully agree with some of your points, even your main point that equality sucks (which is not to dissimilar from mine), but then who wouldn't? Your comment just contains so many wild projections it is hard not to be incensed. Not one sane person ever has ever suggested to lift everyone up to wealth and high society. I think your wording also betrays your prejudices... "there's a reason they are poor", "rewarding the poor." Seriously, where do you think wealth comes from? This is exactly the problem I was describing. People with wealth believe they deserve the wealth they have (and sometimes a little more), so of course it follows that the poor do not, otherwise they would have some more.
Anyway, I give you the benefit of doubt, that line of mine was poorly worded (but still quite clear I think). But I really find it quite annoying that everyone constantly evaluates other peoples arguments by starting from the assumption the other is wrong and then making up all the straw arguments to suit their own point of view.
Sorry, that was very poorly worded in retrospect. What I meant was this is the biggest reason for trying to keep inequality in check. Because to abandon keeping it in check is to accept (at some point in the future) being a slave to the god overlords.
Just because.. human nature.. does not mean you cannot individually, and as a society, try for something a little more stable and productive. As I said, it depends where you draw the line, everything is a grey area. There are real dangers to inequality, just as there are dangers, as you point out, to forced equality. And yes, you can fix inequality by re-distributing wealth back to the poor. That is the fucking point. But it brings up other problems of its own doing. Imagine though if this fix is not absolute, just about degree. And perhaps a small one just to keep the power balanced between the rich and the masses, and the corporate and the political. Perhaps it needs to swing back and forth occasionally to prevent a monoculture. And really, if someone does not agree with you on precisely where that line is, doesn't mean they are automatically some kind of dystopian socialist. Most people largely agree with each other on most things in principle, just not in implementation.
I mean I fully agree with some of your points, even your main point that equality sucks (which is not to dissimilar from mine), but then who wouldn't? Your comment just contains so many wild projections it is hard not to be incensed. Not one sane person ever has ever suggested to lift everyone up to wealth and high society. I think your wording also betrays your prejudices... "there's a reason they are poor", "rewarding the poor." Seriously, where do you think wealth comes from? This is exactly the problem I was describing. People with wealth believe they deserve the wealth they have (and sometimes a little more), so of course it follows that the poor do not, otherwise they would have some more.
Anyway, I give you the benefit of doubt, that line of mine was poorly worded (but still quite clear I think). But I really find it quite annoying that everyone constantly evaluates other peoples arguments by starting from the assumption the other is wrong and then making up all the straw arguments to suit their own point of view.
This doesn’t sound like the “ideal situation”, it sounds like a dystopian nightmare. One that will literally never, ever happen, but that doesn’t stop people from trying, no matter how many hundreds of millions suffer and die in the process.
Edit: I’ll also point out the irony that nothing has impoverished and starved as many people as your vision of utopia, and nothing has pulled as many people OUT of abject poverty like the inequality that you’re railing against. You can’t have markets without some degree of inequality, and billions of people TODAY are not starving to death because of market capitalism. And yet you continue to blindly suggest we kill the proverbial goose. I don’t understand.
Edit: I’ll also point out the irony that nothing has impoverished and starved as many people as your vision of utopia, and nothing has pulled as many people OUT of abject poverty like the inequality that you’re railing against. You can’t have markets without some degree of inequality, and billions of people TODAY are not starving to death because of market capitalism. And yet you continue to blindly suggest we kill the proverbial goose. I don’t understand.
On the contrary, as we gradually grow further toward work being almost entirely automated, capitalism as we know it will wither and die. There is no market if machines do all the work.
It may take centuries but in the end, the only equitable answer is full communism, managed by a benevolent artificial intelligence.
It may take centuries but in the end, the only equitable answer is full communism, managed by a benevolent artificial intelligence.
Yes perhaps but just like letting toddlers drive your car, trying something that could be good in the future might have terrible consequences now.
Might do, might not. Either way, we need to plan for it.
> It may take centuries but in the end, the only equitable answer is full communism, managed by a benevolent artificial intelligence.
Sounds like hell to me.
(I read a scifi story about this long ago. A man dies, and wakes up in a place where his every whim is instantly granted. After a while, he gets frustrated and tells the person in charge that paradise isn't what he expected. The person tells him he's not in paradise, he's in hell.)
Sounds like hell to me.
(I read a scifi story about this long ago. A man dies, and wakes up in a place where his every whim is instantly granted. After a while, he gets frustrated and tells the person in charge that paradise isn't what he expected. The person tells him he's not in paradise, he's in hell.)
> functionally identical dwellings that provide their every need. Somewhat like the world described by E. M. Forster in The Machine Stops, except without the dystopian aspect
The idea that we should all live in functionally identical dwellings is in itself dystopian.
The idea that we should all live in functionally identical dwellings is in itself dystopian.
[deleted]
I assure you, my needs are not the same as yours. With 7 billion people, one-size-fits-all simply doesn't.
I did not claim that the needs of everyone are identical, only that they should be met without favouring one individual over another.
The ideal situation would be for everyone to live in functionally identical dwellings that provide their every need.
Perhaps you can explain to me how my different needs can be met by being forced to live in a unit that is functionally identical to all others. Because I absolutely don't see it.
Perhaps you can explain to me how my different needs can be met by being forced to live in a unit that is functionally identical to all others. Because I absolutely don't see it.
I think they're talking about the end goal where a magical nanotechnological post-Singularity AI palace can supply literally every possible need for any possible person.
The function of the unit is to meet your needs.
This function is identical for all units.
The collective of units provides an equitable living solution for all humans.
This function is identical for all units.
The collective of units provides an equitable living solution for all humans.
I think what you’re describing is called “post-scarcity utopia”. It’s hardly an interesting point of view to say that this would be desirable. Pursuit of it, however, has killed more people than war in the 20th century.
> Pursuit of it, however, has killed more people than war in the 20th century.
How so?
How so?
How about building a poor-man's house as an extension to a rich-man's house? That way, the poor man can work for the rich man without travel expenses.
If this link isn't the kind of boring pure-ideology flamebait that we all hate so dearly, then I don't know what is.
(cf the overly-impassioned, albeit correct, top-voted comment; and its wholly equal-and-opposite counterpart)
(cf the overly-impassioned, albeit correct, top-voted comment; and its wholly equal-and-opposite counterpart)
Further by this measure, it appears that there are many, many more apartment dwellers than shack dwellers. Because shacks are one story tall after all, so the population density per acre is relatively low.
What am I missing?