Are you saying it’s impossible to live outside of major cities? Or are you trying to argue that life outside of one isn’t good enough for you?
Do you think you deserve more before others who have less? Ex: You can’t afford living in a major city, but you think someone else should help you out before everyone living outside of major cities?
2 - life without a job (by synecdoche I actually mean “money”, by which I actually mean with all the caveats of "in the system in which we live and its attendant axioms) is no good for anyone, not just me
3 - no
4 - your assumption is incorrect (that i think that) and your example is not relevant here (not analogous to what i said) so no I don’t think that.
4 - I think my example is very relevant. Either we put measures in place to limit the cost of property, or we spread out and reduce demand.
Our governments are built on making rich people richer as quickly as possible. There’s no way we are going to implement safeguards to prevent that unless there is a massive cultural shift.
2 - That’s not my point. My point is that you can find a job and even own property from its salary outside of major cities easier than inside of them.
4 - Cool, so the government should step in to funnel money to you before those who have less than you? Why should you get more before people living in places you deem unworthy of you?
I’ll just answer #4 for you: Entitlement. You think you’re entitled to more while others have less. Other people should step in for you to subvert supply and demand. Where demand is low and supply is high is not good enough for you, even though millions of people live there.
2 - source on “it’s easier to find a job outside of cities?” A quick Google suggests the top places for jobseekers are Atlantic City, Charleston NC, DFW, Nashville, Atlanta and Portland, and rural West Virginia and Kentucky as the worst. Edit: and you are the one backing the argument I should move. I don’t need to find a new job or move if the area is livable, and the only thing making it unlivable is someone else’s greed.
4 - no. and they shouldn’t. Again, nonsequiturs. Also I disconcur on your “answer for me” as you freely admit you are strawmanning me with stuff I didn’t say.
4 - re properties: rent control. prevent companies from owning residential property. tax empty properties. regulate cost assessments. more programs for first time buyers.
re: cost of living: programs to eliminate food deserts, invest in public transport, fines for monopoly/price fixing on groceries, regulate gas prices
other ideas: fund childcare, universal Healthcare, more education/school funding.
edit: not to mention tracking wages to inflation including minimum wage, UBI, better implementation of disability services, fund carers for disabilities, tax cuts for community programs, end right to work, strengthen unions, prevent banks from sub prime lending on property and vehicles.
You can’t afford living in a major city, but you think someone else should help you out before everyone living outside of major cities?
Not this person but, the government should encourage urban residency. You might ask why and the answers are many, many fold. City residents have significantly less of a carbon footprint is for one reason (and it’s a major one).
Right now we’re subsidizing our suburbs in the US, and it’s an environmentally destructive, regressive thing to do.
Are you saying it’s impossible to live outside of major cities? Or are you trying to argue that life outside of one isn’t good enough for you?
Do you think you deserve more before others who have less? Ex: You can’t afford living in a major city, but you think someone else should help you out before everyone living outside of major cities?
1 - no
2 - life without a job (by synecdoche I actually mean “money”, by which I actually mean with all the caveats of "in the system in which we live and its attendant axioms) is no good for anyone, not just me
3 - no
4 - your assumption is incorrect (that i think that) and your example is not relevant here (not analogous to what i said) so no I don’t think that.
1 - thanks for being honest
2 - Can’t you get a job outside of a major city?
3 - thanks for being honest
4 - I think my example is very relevant. Either we put measures in place to limit the cost of property, or we spread out and reduce demand.
Our governments are built on making rich people richer as quickly as possible. There’s no way we are going to implement safeguards to prevent that unless there is a massive cultural shift.
2 - I challenge you to find 2 fine arts dept curriculum head or better vacancy posts at universities not based in major cities
4 - good idea. I pick the first one.
edit: re the other two honesty doesn’t enter into it. your questions were non sequiturs.
2 - That’s not my point. My point is that you can find a job and even own property from its salary outside of major cities easier than inside of them.
4 - Cool, so the government should step in to funnel money to you before those who have less than you? Why should you get more before people living in places you deem unworthy of you?
I’ll just answer #4 for you: Entitlement. You think you’re entitled to more while others have less. Other people should step in for you to subvert supply and demand. Where demand is low and supply is high is not good enough for you, even though millions of people live there.
2 - source on “it’s easier to find a job outside of cities?” A quick Google suggests the top places for jobseekers are Atlantic City, Charleston NC, DFW, Nashville, Atlanta and Portland, and rural West Virginia and Kentucky as the worst. Edit: and you are the one backing the argument I should move. I don’t need to find a new job or move if the area is livable, and the only thing making it unlivable is someone else’s greed.
4 - no. and they shouldn’t. Again, nonsequiturs. Also I disconcur on your “answer for me” as you freely admit you are strawmanning me with stuff I didn’t say.
2- My point is that you can “even own property from its salary.” This is much easier outside of major cities than inside of them.
4- What do you think should change then to make living in major cities more affordable?
4 - re properties: rent control. prevent companies from owning residential property. tax empty properties. regulate cost assessments. more programs for first time buyers.
re: cost of living: programs to eliminate food deserts, invest in public transport, fines for monopoly/price fixing on groceries, regulate gas prices
other ideas: fund childcare, universal Healthcare, more education/school funding.
edit: not to mention tracking wages to inflation including minimum wage, UBI, better implementation of disability services, fund carers for disabilities, tax cuts for community programs, end right to work, strengthen unions, prevent banks from sub prime lending on property and vehicles.
All that sounds good, but how does it solve the issue of scarcity in major cities? Where there is not enough supply to meet demand?
It seems to me that it would just become a first-come, first-serve basis.
Not this person but, the government should encourage urban residency. You might ask why and the answers are many, many fold. City residents have significantly less of a carbon footprint is for one reason (and it’s a major one).
Right now we’re subsidizing our suburbs in the US, and it’s an environmentally destructive, regressive thing to do.