News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Maybe if you didn't fucking rob the other 90%, the numbers would be different.
$250K isn’t that outrageous of a household income (or at least it shouldn’t be); literally two good white collar jobs would reach that point in the coastal cities.
The bigger thing at issue is to not frame it as 90% vs 10%, it’s literally 99% vs 1% — if not 99.9% vs. 0.1% if we are really talking about the ‘disconnected from reality wealthy’.
That’s the line that the wealthiest amongst us are trying to draw, in order to build class disunity. A white-collar household pulling in $250K has a lot more in common with a blue-collar household pulling in $65K, than they do the oligarchy above them.
Yeah, $250k in an average to high cost of living area is middle class comfortable. Not rich.
Calling that income rich is a tactic to get the middle class to identify with the billionaires and support regressive policies.
As someone who has lived both experiences, you are absolutely correct.
Exactly. They seem to be concluding that only the wealthy can bear the burden of spending money for the rest of us?
It's not really robbing when the useful idiots are proud to give up their wealth and power.
Look at all the dumb shit people subscribe to that they could be getting for free. Look at all the dumb shit they waste their money on (like doordash) while complaining they need more.
It's a cultural problem, and the average worker is proud to be a part of it.
Whenever you suggest they could be doing something differently, like using free streaming sites instead of netflix, they will look at you like you're worse than a pedophile because you dared to suggest they're wasting money.
Wrong. We can all choose to live and appreciate more modest lives.
I haven't eaten at a restaurant or bought a video game in years, for example. If more people appreciated what they have instead of always wanting more, these problems would be solved overnight.
The housing market is complete bullshit, but workers also have themselves to blame for accepting renting as normal. We need to discourage renting and encourage ownership. Unfortunately, in order to do that people need to be willing to live more modest lifestyles outside of major cities. Supply and demand doesn't go away just because we want it to.
No, workers absolutely bear some of the blame. They choose to go along with consumerism and attack anyone who goes against it.
A house where? In a suburb for $250,000+? You know you can buy houses for <$100k, right? Some people's cars cost more than my house, but I don't need more.
Yeah, you're part of the problem. You need to be willing a more modest lifestyle. Ask yourself this, if you need more, how do others survive with significantly less? They probably don't live in major cities, for one. If you think you're entitled to live in a major city, then you're part of the problem.
Is there any room for ya'll to spread out and build more?
That's not how jobs work, mi amigo. The more people that live in a given area, the more jobs will be available. You might not get paid as much, but to make the argument that there's no work or that your job can't be done remotely is false.
Right. Anything to avoid admitting you have some control over your situation.
I'm definitely not a libertarian.
We have a lot of room though and should spread out. Supply and demand. It won't be glamorous at first, but we should be investing in making more places livable.
Think about it like this. There are already people who live in those areas that "aren't good enough" for you. Why should you get more before they do? Doesn't it make more sense to improve those areas which will increase the supply of livable places?
The fact we never discuss these things shows how far removed we are from wanting actual solutions to our actual problems. It's why things are the way they are, to be honest.
That's fine. Instead of arguing against building and improving housing outside of major cities to increase the supply, you could be arguing in favor of it?
That way, there's more supply to meet the demand. This should (in theory) reduce prices because there's more to go around for the people who want to buy it.
Slow and steady. Major cities don't pop up overnight anywhere.
You need to be willing to appreciate a more modest lifestyle and perhaps make less money overall in the process, though. I don't expect you to give up your entitlement to luxuries and you'll look for any argument to justify why you deserve more while others have less.
Wealthiest nation in the world (by a large margin if I may add), regular people are struggling to get by and your solution is "just be more frugal"? I'd imagine if you're the wealthiest nation in the world you can afford some luxuries but I guess not according to you. Also, if you're so wealthy where does all that wealth go?
Not quite. We need to get off the consumer bandwagon and learn to appreciate what we have.
People are miserable because they're constantly trying to "keep up with the jones'" which means wasting money on bullshit they don't need and have been conditioned to want.
Until the working class learns to appreciate different things, we shouldn't expect anything to change or improve.
I ended up reading your other comments. You're out of touch with reality and there's nothing I could say that others haven't already brought up, and since you're not listening to them I doubt you'll listen to me. So the only thing I can add is that you should start practicing what you're preaching and get off the internet because the internet is a luxury. Then again I imagine you won't have a problem justifying your own "wasting money on bullshit" because you can afford it.
Yeah, no.
It's not an "all-or-nothing" thing. That's what consumers have been convinced to believe so that they don't feel guilty about contributing to the problem. You're doing it right now.
It's not an all or nothing thing, getting rid of consumerism would definitely be a net positive for society. But your suggestion goes squarely in the same hole as "to solve climate change people need to watch their carbon footprint" while completely ignoring the fact that the biggest polluters are corporations. Or the "to solve microplastics people need to sort their trash" which again completely ignores the fact that a very small part of plastics are recyclable because most corporations won't spend extra money to make more recyclable plastics (or ideally not use plastics at all).
What you're suggesting is a net positive in the context of the problem but its not going to solve the problem. Just like with climate change and microplastics your "solution" is just kicking the can down the road instead of actually solving the problem.
No it doesn't and your analogy only servers to distract and derail because you have no real argument. Try to stay on topic.
You would directly benefit from appreciating a more-modest lifestyle, and so would your finances. Instead, you're looking for any argument to justify your entitlement and overconsumption because you like nice things too.
It's okay to be honest about it. Lying and derailing only shows me you're insecure, which is to be expected.
Look at how much effort you're putting into arguing against spreading out. This is the cultural problem.
And you're proving my point about this being a waste of time. But that's fine. It's fine if you get so riled up that you need to call me a liar and insecure and claiming I want to derail whatever soapbox you're on. I don't care because at the end of the day I'm not the one telling minimum wage workers, who can't afford to save money, that all they need to do is just save more money. Unlike you I know what being poor means, which is why I know what you're saying is compete garbage. But hey, don't let me stop you from letting everyone know what you are.
You're not a minimum wage worker, bub. This is what I mean by why should you get more before others who have less?
Why should we improve your lifestyle in the big city because you're "too good" to accept a more modest and affordable lifestyle outside of one? You're not willing to invest in making more places livable and improving the lives of others, you're just looking for ways to justify your entitlement to have as much as you can get.
It's not a big surprise. I don't expect more from people like you at this point. I would be foolish if I did.
It's amazing how confidently wrong you can be.
I am not a minimum wage worker and I never said I was. I'm relatively well off and I think everyone should be able to have a life similar to mine, in terms of fulfillment. I don't demand more for myself, I demand more for everyone else because I don't think anyone deserves to be poor and needing to deal with the stress of having no money.
I don't live in a big city. I live in a small town because I have the luxury of working remotely.
I live a pretty modest life, some might even call it frugal. I don't own a car because it's a huge money sink. I cook my own meals because eating out is expensive. I don't buy cheap clothes but I do buy clothes that last a long time because if they last longer I end up spending less money on clothes. I don't really spend much money outside of necessities and the occasional entertainment.
I have a budget and I stick to it. I have no problem having an affordable lifestyle.
I contribute to my local community. I would be more specific but I honestly have no fucking idea what you're even trying to imply here.
Wrong once again.
I absolutely agree because I'm not at all surprised how you can be so confidently wrong.
Man, if only you put this much effort into advocating for a modest lifestyle.
It just goes to show: you don't want to solve these problems because you benefit from them.
You're also just straight up lying at this point. It's crazy how much effort you are putting into this, but it's to be expected because of your cognitive dissonance.
I'm not going to sift through or quote your bullshit, but we both know that it's there. Keep trying to justify your entitlement, bud. I will always see it for what it is.
I guess it's time for your meds because you're starting to speak complete nonsense.
Lol. I guess that's the end of your argument.
I accept your concession.
Duh, kinda hard to argue anything when all you get is word vomit. but hey, I'll give my best effort then.
Erm, what? Have you read nothing I've said? I said getting rid of consumerism would be a net benefit to society, but I'm not going to advocate the stupidity that you're peddling.
Clearly you didn't bother to actually explain how I benefit so I actually have no fucking clue what you're trying to say here. Considering I was pretty explicit in wanting others to be paid a fair wage so they'd have a better life I will happily be selfish in wanting a better life for others. I'll that selfishness over whatever you are.
And that was were your post ended but because you're foaming from the mouth you can't gather your before you post so you added an edit. And just for the sake of clarity, I posted my previous comment before the edit you added. Not that it matters because it's not like your edits are making any more sense.
So your counter-argument here is that I'm just straight up lying and then you proceed to insult. However once again you don't bother explaining anything so there's nothing to argue.
And then of course you couldn't stop there, you had to edit once again because thinking before speaking is not a skill you have.
Oh please do (I know you won't because that would take actual effort), because I think you haven't bothered to check who you're arguing with and you think I'm someone else. That's how little attention you paying to this discussion.
Now kindly accept my concession with something I said previously:
Wow. You're really digging your heels in deep to avoid admitting you're part of the problem and there's something you can do about it.
Entitlement and cognitive dissonance and strong forces these days. I'm sorry you can't see past them.
The irony...