Economic Disparity and Associated Social Issues

[GardoneVT]

Wow. That’s a massive leap.

I can’t jump that far so I’ll defer to you.

What I said is nowhere near what you arrived at but if you want to gcome backnand reply in good faith we can continue.

Let’s walk through this again;

You posted that 100% of the time,humans see government as an avenue to improve their socioeconomic status. Setting aside that your post is categorically false , not every government in the US is like Chicago’s. Many are, but a lot of states and cities aren’t. I’d wager most areas of the US don’t have massive levels of institutional corruption , and that many principled members of government both state and federal do their jobs to the best of their mandates and ethical obligations. You don’t hear about these people in the news, because “Government Employee Reported and Halted Fraud” isn’t a profitable media headline.

Ergo, the idea that government is too generally corrupt to administer economic opportunity properly is rubbish.

[Sensei]

Seattle is getting exactly the city that they have voted for. As someone who lives here, not in Seattle but I have to go there several times a month, the homeless problem is much worse than a few years ago. The left wing loons that make up a large portion of the population of Seattle like people to think that the homeless have just moved into areas that are more visible to the public but that's false. There are very few open spots under bridges, overpasses, wooded areas of parks, etc that you can find where there isn't a homeless camp.

Are the homeless in Seattle the same people as five years ago?
Are the new ones long time residents?
Or like a tolerant, big, booming city it is attracting "new" homeless every year?

I would guess that once you get to be a homeless person, so many thing are wrong in your life that recovery is very difficult (if at all possible), and the change of minimum wage does not affect them because most don't work anyway.

It is hard for me to draw parallels between the $15 minimum wage and Seattle’s homeless problem since a lot of other socioeconomic factors are at play (drug epidemic, policing, etc.). I only mentioned homelessness since much of the reasoning for the wage increase was to help the low income earners better afford housing in Seattle’s uber expensive market. Unsurprisingly, housing / cost of living costs continue to rise effectively negating the increased earnings (go figure). As for the effect on job growth, the story has been a mixed bag. Two studies have drawn different conclusions. Moreover, the wage increase comes at a period of massive, across the board job growth in America which is hard to account for in the analysis. So, we will just have to see how this plays out for a while longer.

[Casual Friday]

Are the homeless in Seattle the same people as five years ago?
Are the new ones long time residents?
Or like a tolerant, big, booming city it is attracting "new" homeless every year?

I would guess that once you get to be a homeless person, so many thing are wrong in your life that recovery is very difficult (if at all possible), and the change of minimum wage does not affect them because most don't work anyway.

I didn't equate the minimum wage with homelessness. I responded to Sensei about the problem being worse now than 2013 when he last visited.

I really don't know where they are coming from, I'm sure some are longtime residents who've spiraled down for years, and I bet some have migrated here. I spent some time in Long Beach, Huntington Beach, and Venice Beach this past spring. One of the homeless/street vendors selling things he found in the trash noticed my company shirt with Washington on it and he started telling me of the years he spent in Seattle but he moved to Venice Beach because the cold drizzly winters were too tough. I don't know how he migrated that far but he did, so I can only assume that it's possible for them to be moving here.

[Jeep]

Let’s walk through this again;

You posted that 100% of the time,humans see government as an avenue to improve their socioeconomic status. Setting aside that your post is categorically false , not every government in the US is like Chicago’s. Many are, but a lot of states and cities aren’t. I’d wager most areas of the US don’t have massive levels of institutional corruption , and that many principled members of government both state and federal do their jobs to the best of their mandates and ethical obligations. You don’t hear about these people in the news, because “Government Employee Reported and Halted Fraud” isn’t a profitable media headline.

Ergo, the idea that government is too generally corrupt to administer economic opportunity properly is rubbish.

During my lifetime (I'm now in my mid 60's) institutional corruption has been growing in the US, and from my observation the single largest reason for that growth is the growth of government. I live outside a small, east coast city fairly near to some large cities. All of them have been corrupt for my entire lifetime, but my own area has been growing more corrupt. That corruption appears to linked to both the growth in government employee unions (which has led to most state and local government workforces becoming less responsive to the public and more uncaring) as well as to the huge flow of federal dollars for vaguely defined projects.

I am also familiar with other places facing similar results. There are indeed school districts in the US that I think help some kids get a leg up, but I believe that there overall numbers are declining. And, of course, the increasing tax burdens everywhere (particularly property taxes, which I understand are not a major problem in California) are a real drag on economic opportunity.

I admit that I dislike big government as a general matter and perhaps my observations are tainted by that prejudice, but despite that caution I think they are nonetheless correct on this point. And that is that I think when government get too large (and our governments are generally too large) they in fact degrade--rather than promote--equal opportunity. Here I'm talking about equal opportunity, not equal results (which I think we agree are a pipe dream that can never be realized).

Anyway, I think a smaller, far less intrusive government would on average, substantially enhance--not degrade--equal opportunity. It certainly had that effect in the 19th century (albeit not everyone share in the benefits) and I think you will find that to be the case in the United States now. In other words, the states with the largest and most expensive state government--New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, etc.--are all places in which equal opportunity appear to be declining.

I would support modest government programs that created equal opportunity if I thought they worked. Perhaps a few do, but in my experience most don't, and many of the people who run them have long since given up trying (if they ever tried in the first place).

In the end, perhaps the best equal opportunity is a strong economy with a lot of entry level jobs in which people can get on-the-job training to slowly move forward.

[Joe in PNG]

"Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy": In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.

Which is the big problem with both big government and big business*- empire building, control, influence, power tend to become the goal. I'm sure our veterans can tell plenty of stories of various service bureaucracies, to give the more famous example.


*Note that big government loves big business, and big business loves big government.

[Drang]

Seattle is getting exactly the city that they have voted for.

That's fine. They should get the city they voted for. I resent the fact that them getting the city they voted for effects me, as a resident of the same county and state as them.

[Casual Friday]

That's fine. They should get the city they voted for. I resent the fact that them getting the city they voted for effects me, as a resident of the same county and state as them.

I don't normally say this to King county occupants, but we'd love to have ya about an hour up North.

[Drang]

I don't normally say this to King county occupants, but we'd love to have ya about an hour up North.

Well, thanks,but, oh! The commute!

[Jeep]

Well, thanks,but, oh! The commute!

And that is the point. Every liberal city that is rapidly on its way to becoming a liberal hell hold has a lot of citizens who never voted for the craziness, or who never understood that the candidates promising rainbows and unicorns were actually going to do just the opposite.

Perhaps the latter group deserve, in some sense, what happens to them, but the truth is most people pay little attention to politics, and many vote for apparently nice people who say they want nice things because they are nice themselves. Only later do they notice a huge increase in small crimes, watch the vacancy signs appear and suddenly realize they need iron bars on their first floor windows.

They don't understand why it is happening, why crime is burgeoning, why that nice middle-aged woman in accounts was raped, why the kids are coming home from school knowing all about transgenderism but little about algebra, and why everyday life has taken on a more harsh, menacing, tone. Then, if they speak up to say that we need to be tougher on crime, they get shouted down as "white supremacists" even if they are Asian and most of the criminals are, in fact, white.

I feel sorry for those folks. The fact that they thought unicorns and rainbows are possible shows that they might not understand reality well, but it also shows that they indeed have good hearts. My generation saw the disintegration of the 1960's and 70's and most of us unlearned the liberalism that had been taught to us. But people who did not live through that don't remember it, the media (which has an attention span of a nanosecond neither understands not transmits it, and so a new generation has to relearn an ancient lesson.

The radical lefties who want a revolution and want to take down America don't enjoy any sympathy from me. They traffic in hatred and envy and want to destroy what is--in fact--the best society for most people ever. But the soft liberals who give them votes because they want to help others don't--at least in moral terms--deserve the havoc the left always brings (and by "left" I include National Socialists and other ugly types who also want to build Utopias based on hate and envy).


Nevertheless, the sad truth is that Seattle will get worse before it gets better.

[Joe in PNG]

And that is the point. Every liberal city that is rapidly on its way to becoming a liberal hell hold has a lot of citizens who never voted for the craziness, or who never understood that the candidates promising rainbows and unicorns were actually going to do just the opposite.

Perhaps the latter group deserve, in some sense, what happens to them, but the truth is most people pay little attention to politics, and many vote for apparently nice people who say they want nice things because they are nice themselves. Only later do they notice a huge increase in small crimes, watch the vacancy signs appear and suddenly realize they need iron bars on their first floor windows.

Sadly, too many of these people are wealthy enough to leave well before the consequences catch up to them. That there is a correlation between "lots and lots and lots of government" and "high cost of living/ way more crime" doesn't register. Then, they move away to some nice place with low levels of government... and vote for the exact same stuff that ruined their original home. Also know as "Californication".

Meanwhile, the answer for the loss of tax revenue from the above fleeing is usually more taxes, more regulation with results in more people leaving and more taxes & business lost.