I thought Jesus was a gay commie though?

if you want to just take a shit on your keyboard leave me out of it. try saying something next time.

wealth, represented by money and or valuable goods, largely held by "rich people" (which is to say, "those who have wealth", which is represented by money and/or goods) must be shifted to those who are "poor" (which is to say without wealth, see previous overexplanations) to improve the lives of poor people.

this can be partially accomplished by raising the minimum lifestyle, such as cheaper electronics that are more affordable for all. so you have about 10% of a point there.

we still haven't made enough technological advancement to solve housing, healthcare, mental healthcare, transportation, substance abuse, etc.

but hey, even poor people can get a smart phone, so problem solved, right?

and when poor people trade the law comes in and worsens the situation

if it's sex the law is there

if it's loose cigarettes (allegedly) you'll get judge jury'd and executed on the spot

The criminal injustice system doing their part to keep the poor poor

The government is the biggest obstacle to advancements in healthcare and cheap housing.

Healthcare

1. In order to legally practice medicine as a doctor, you have to go to one of the few accredited medical schools which accept a increasingly limited number of applicants of year. Why does an Orthopedic surgeon make $530k a year? Government artificially constricts supply.

2. Genetic engineering through technologies like CRISPR CAS9 promises to solve to mental health issues and chronic problems like cancer, diabetes, etc. But it would put big pharma out of business, and we can't have that; so government prevents testing. Now the Swiss are leading the way in CRISPR testing, despite having way less scientists, labs, etc than the US.

Housing

Much of the problems with housing are zoning, building codes, permitting, and local governments blocking houses that they perceive as visual eyesores. It drives up the cost.

We were trying to build metal building apartments which would be 1/2 of the price in Austin, and we could have profitably rented them at $700/month (prices in the area are $1400+) with granite countertops and laminate wood flooring, but we were blocked (essentially) because they aren't pretty enough.

This post was edited by FGdumpster on Dec 10 2018 11:08am

hey Mr Bojangles, when you're done dancing care to address the simple point that to solve "poor people" problems "rich people" need to have a bit less wealth?

jest because empathy gets rich people to give up that wealth easier doesn't change the flow direction.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Dec 10 2018 11:13am

I just explained how government keeps costs high in healthcare and in housing. Are those not the two pressure points that plague most impoverished people in this country?


Edit to address that point:

Many of the wealthy people in this country are doctors as medicine is the largest contributor to GDP in all 50 states (it used to be manufacturing and agriculture).

Let more qualified people into medical school, and you'll find doctors make a whole lot less, surgery is much more affordable, and there's a hell of lot less rich people in all 50 states. Isn't that what you want?

This post was edited by FGdumpster on Dec 10 2018 11:20am

you said this.

wealth must be transferred to the poor to improve their lives. it's plain and simple.

if an iphone in 2008 was so expensive that only the rich could afford it, and then it got cheaper, that means in a real sense wealth was transferred to the poor through technological advancement. it's either "i need more money" or "those luxury items need to be cheaper so i can buy them". but in both cases wealth is transferred. in the same example car phones used to cost many thousands of dollars, and when they were rendered useless by the cellular phone, wealth was transferred.

anyone trying to fix the lives of the poor NOT looking at rich people (either to make their goods affordable or take some of their money) isn't trying to help the poor. your statement was useless, and you've been avoiding it ever since imo.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Dec 10 2018 11:22am

Doctors, big pharma, construction companies, multifamily owners, and banks consist of some of the richest people in this country.

Fix government housing restrictions (zoning, permitting, etc) and healthcare restrictions (medical school admittance, number of accredited schools, drug testing, genetic engineering) and you'll find income inequality will drop precipitously.

This post was edited by FGdumpster on Dec 10 2018 11:26am

so take money from those rich groups by making poor groups able to afford more? got it.

if you think the changes you're calling for result in anything but less wealth distributed to the rich and more wealth to the poor feel free to say so, tho.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Dec 10 2018 11:31am

It will definitely result in more wealth staying in the hands of middle class and poorer individuals. I'm all for market efficiency.

If people get insanely rich, basic economics states that's proof positive of either a market inefficiency or an innovation. I'm for innovation but not these government restrictions which cause lopsided wealth aggregation.


How many poor people do you know that have to hire a lawyer to navigate zoning and permitting laws so they can build a multifamily complex? All those costs get passed to consumer because you simply don't build if you can't profit.