For people from other countries wondering about the veracity of these claims, let's take an example: The typical shitty job everyone on here complains about is working at an amazon warehouse. This is a job people with no skills take on. They pay 15 USD an hour. In other currencies that is 42k a year AUD or 2390 Euros a month. (the cost of living is roughly the same in these places).
I'll leave you to decide whether this is "slavery" and whether they "can't afford anything" or whether Americans are just so rich they are out of touch with reality.
Yes, people in US earn more and get taxed less. But they also spend a lot, lot more on necessities via shadowy cost structures like student loans and insurance and >$1,000 ambulance rides.
Let's take Finland, the UK, and the US as examples, as they are the countries I'm most familiar with. At $30k/year (individual income), the US is much more expensive than the other two, mostly due to things like healthcare, childcare, education, unemployment, sick/parental leaves, and pensions. The UK might be a bit more expensive than Finland.
At $100k/year, the cost of living is more or less similar in all three countries. The weight of benefits and subsidized services is lower, because they take a smaller fraction of your income. The US may still be more expensive if you have kids, but it can also be cheaper if you don't have them and are never going to get then. The UK may also be a bit cheaper than Finland due to lower taxes.
At $200k/year, the US is the cheapest country and Finland is the most expensive one, primarily due to taxes.
15 USD an hour is not so much when it costs you your health _and_ there is no proper system of universal healthcare.
I lost my hobby but that's a small price to pay long term i think.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-...
[0] A lot of recent discussion centers on how many of the most successful US entrepreneurs come from privileged backgrounds, but you should not lose sight of the fact that literally every other country in the world will fare a lot worse in this regard. Many things are broken in the US, but no other place on Earth has lower barriers to starting your own LLC and hiring your first employee.
US is 27th place on economic mobility index soooo....
It was a lot easier doing business in the UK. We had relatively low accounting overhead, the laws were not hard to follow, and we didn't have to deal with having employees and customers sprinkled over a dozen state jurisdictions.
We're fortunate to work in a growing and lucrative market, but it's not all peaches and cream.
So, yes, doing your own corporate taxes in the US is likely not a good idea, especially if you hire people across several states. But the cost of an accountant is a minuscule cost compared to paying X% more across your entire payroll (not to mention other aspects).
The American Dream is typically "come to the US with nothing and build a comfortable life, no matter who you are". I still think that's possible. Guaranteed? Of course not.
They've done great. We lived in a rural area. It was possible because one of them came highly skilled and solicited to immigrate.
That being said I shudder when I hear "just move to rural blah blah blah". My life was horrible there. I was considered black, egytian, non-english speaking, to come from a family of savages or royalty or witchcraft depending on the speaker.
This whole "move to a rural place" really doesn't seem open to the non-white growing majority. Its certainly nothing like the Californian life I live now where I still cannot afford a home but can enjoy Mexican, Indian, Ethiopian, Korean, and american culture in a form of acceptance that was fully closed to me growing up.
Seeing it as being guaranteed a home and family on an average workers pay is completely detached from that narrative.
We all work on or adjacent to embedded software for robots to replace people in these jobs so that they can go on to be 'free' to have a higher skill job doing....no one ever seems to know what. Except maintaining said robots.
I literally never worked for a company with an onboarding or training process until I got to a FAANG. At that point I had been in industry full time for ~ 13 years, and worked at everything from startups to established 200+ employee companies.
Everyone has been worried about 'automation' nuking the jobs since I was born, and outsourcing killing all industry too. First it was Japan that was going to own the world though. Then Outsourcing to India. Then China. And they had impacts. But somehow, everyone who is useful keeps working, and everyone actually seems better off. Hell, the 'maintain the robots as the only jobs left' was a 90's thing with worries about car manufacturing automation.
Back then, a lot of jobs were things like secretaries, gophers (task runners)/delivery workers, retail shopping workers, postal workers, etc. Now people use email and write their own documents, uber or ubereats what they want, have things shipped to their door. Quality of life is dramatically higher in every objective way I can see.
And if anything, there are waaaaay more jobs now, and people seem to be doing better everywhere. But they seem to hate everything and everyone way more, and FEEL poorer.
Capitalists gonna capitalist.
But they are limited to differing degrees due to policy. Our current state isn't inevitable.
Generally, It’s a means of locking in stasis in a particular field in general, or restricting competition to the ‘have’s’, just like the old Guild setup before that. Still very much a thing for MD’s in the US.
There is a reason why France in particular is notorious for not getting anything done.
German’s do it too of course, but in their own way which is focused more on results, so it tends to be less sclerotic and more productive.
It’s always a trade off - more protectionism, or more churn/chaos/competition. If they can provide good labor protections while maintaining economic growth enough to ‘lift the tide’ overall, hard to fault them. It’s easy to go so far that it strangles the economy and locks everyone into a pointlessly inefficient setup in favor of the protected classes though. (And they won’t necessarily be rich protected classes either).
Europe’s tide hasn’t been rising very rapidly for awhile, and many EU countries are clearly insolvent overall (Greece, Italy, etc), so we’ll see how long they can sustain it.
And housing wise - to be somewhat on topic - very unlikely those Nurses in the UK are doing so in London.
> It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.
> By business I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.
And that had an inflation adjusted earning potential of $4.81/hr (approx, in 2021)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_Sta...
If you think working and living conditions are worse now than they were in 1933, I'd love some concrete examples.
I'm not saying things couldn't be better. I'm saying that most people talking about this seem to be completely devoid of context about life at all, and most proposed solutions just come across as strong arguments that they have no clue about the world at all, or why anything is the way it is.
Which is a solid vote in the column of 'changes proposed won't accomplish the stated goals, and will cause way more problems'. In my experience, anyway.
In my experience one of the biggest issues is that no one reports companies doing shitty things, and the labor orgs in the gov'ts get away with ignoring shitty things, because no one holds any politicians accountable on labor issues because most of the population is super complacent about everything.
Hell, Amazon and a number of other companies are super blatant about their ACTIVELY ILLEGAL ANTI-LABOR ORGANIZING, and not a peep seems to be coming from the appropriate labor departments.
And since everyone is super complacent (barely any protests even), then of course nobody cares. Because nobody is making them care.
If everyone really feels so badly about it, make it known by making them feel badly about it. Instead everyone seems to go back to candy crush after posting complaints online about how terrible things are.
The American dream was effectively denied to my generation and it's only gotten worse for subsequent generations.
The heroic labor of immigrants notwithstanding, I strongly doubt that would be possible for a fresh-off-the-boater today. I told my 20-something kids about it and they just laughed, like hearing about someone who stumbled across a pot of gold or a magic goose in a fairytale. I can't say I blame them.
Yes, they do. Read any thread on a vaguely left-leaning subreddit that even starts approaching discussions of renting, or landlords, or landlord-tenant relations, and you'll get flooded with comments so detached from reality it will stun you.
Like are we really at the point where we’re totally fine with people commuting an hour one way every workday to a shitty minimum wage job instead of just building affordable modest housing reserved for people working in the city.
It actually is. Rents are expensive because zoning laws severely limit density and require lots of car parking.
Maybe you've got some good examples from other countries, but here in the US the only major city with reasonable zoning is Houston which has quite affordable homes.
I'm not sure what happened to them, but there was a startup trying to do this: https://www.curbed.com/2021/03/brownstone-shared-housing.htm...
SROs, residential hotels, boarding houses and the like were all banned in the 1950s (and the surviving ones dismantled through the 1980s), a loss of about 100,000 units of affordable housing.
Consider this lovely e-book for further reading: https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6j49...
Or this lovely Simon and Garfunkel song about the NYC homeless on the streets of SoHo, contemporary to that era. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCVnPIE3juc
If we just respected property owner's rights to do as they see fit we wouldn't have these problems or not nearly to the same extent.
So what do you suggest we do about that except build more homes?
Why are you trying to make this complicated? Just get rid of density caps so that developers build more apartments. Problem solved with zero cost to taxpayers.
Because "better a thousand rental units go un-built than let one slum lord construct a substandard basement apartment" or some other garbage like that.
Basically people keep trying to set a quality floor that society mostly isn't rich enough to afford and most land can't be developed enough to justify then acts surprised when the actual densification that happens is only a slow trickle.
This is what folks are talking about. Expecting things to just fall into place 'just because' without having to do the legwork to actually make/find something workable.
We know where the employers and residential zones are. We could put together a model to minimize average commute time.
The problem is that we need to have a grand "rehoming" moment to deliver it. The day where everyone gets assigned a new residence in accordance with the optimization scheme. A day that would doubtless be deferred to long past the heat-death of the universe in endless court challenges by those who ended up on the losing side of the deal in some way.
In a way, the fact we still have powerful regimes which aren't tied down to "rule of law", and specifically the "property rights as sacred" segment of it gives me hope; I'd expect to see this day occur in Beijing long before it happened in San Francisco.
Don't threaten ME with a good time!
Workers today are so entitled, demanding an entire studio apartment the audacity.
Anyway just penciling out the math, a $15/hr wage ($31K/yr) puts you in the 12% federal tax bracket and the 4% California (for example) state tax bracket. So your take-home would be $15/hr x 2080 hrs/yr x (1 - 0.12 - 0.04) = $26.2K/yr. So at that point rent ($1K/mo = $12K/year) is a good 45% of your take-home pay, and you've got $14.2K left to pay food, utilities, transportation, and (hopefully not) healthcare. It can be done. Each thing tends to trade off with other things. For example, to avoid healthcare expenses you'll want to stay healthy, eating healthy food for example. But healthy food is expensive, and probably not located close by your shitty part of town, so you'll be either driving (expensive and to be avoided) or spending extra time on public transit, or risking a catastrophic healthcare expense by biking there (in America anyway), or just eating the regular ol' cheap food. Also, do not take on any dependents. Like I said, it can be done.
Consider a place like London. It's bloody huge, and much of it is quite expensive. At the end of the day, London is going to need people staffing grocery stores, and cleaners, and that kind of thing. Not the entire population can be software devs or whatnot working from home, and you can't push them all outside of London.
If the cities weren't designed to inflate home values to enrich people who got in early, then yeah pretty much everybody could afford an apartment.
The expansive public transport network allows you to live far from the city without incurring huge commute times. That paired with the density means that car ownership is discouraged, which takes away another expense. Lastly, the city continues building multi-family middle housing in the city outskirts which keeps housing availability high.
High density and walking/public space culture comes with many other advantages. High footraffic means restaurants can run low-margin, high-volume food that poor can afford. The public spaces mean that restaurants can operate low-overhead businesses out of food trucks and holes in the wall.
Speaking if public spaces, they've generally (idk how, it is more localized there) managed to avoid the violent homelessness problem of the other major cities. Violent homelessness disproportionally affects poor people as they are more reliant on public spaces and safety in numbers. This has helped the city avoid an SF/Portland/Seattle-esque deterioration of entire neighborhoods.
Most American cities don't have any of these pros, which leads to skyrocketing costs associated with city living.
The public transit system is insufficient. The Commuter Rail is infrequent, slow and often unreliable. The entire system needs to be electrified for RER service but that’s probably twenty years away if we are lucky.
And the homeless have just been concentrated into one shantytown at Mass and Cass.
My praise for Boston was in comparison to absolutely shambolically run cities in the rest of the US. In comparison to some well-run global cities, (Greater) Boston still has ways to go.
> Mass and Cass
Yep, Methadone Mile is the uncomfortable compromise between liberal: "don't evict the homeless" versus the moderate: "keep our neighborhoods safe" agendas. It keeps the rest of Boston relatively aggressive-homeless free, but the addicts and local residents are worse off.
> entire system needs to be electrified
At times, it is jarring to see the US do worse than 3rd world countries. The mind-boggling cost of any infrastructure in the US is really holding the country back.
In 2016 I was on £16.82, I had to share a house with four other adult housemates and had no prospect of owning a property within a 10 mile radius, it's only gotten worse since. God knows how any unskilled people doing these jobs are supposed to live with any dignity.
I am surely in an outlier market so your point stands, I'm just speaking from where I sit, not trying to muddy the waters with hyperbole.
What would you define as the bottom of the barrel then? There has to be a sensible threshold that delineates between 1) "I encountered a lot of bad luck but I am motivated and want to get myself out of this situation and 2) I simply don't care. Most of the physically able that fall under 1) can get a job at an Amazon warehouse. For those in poor health, I will agree that the US is no match for other countries.
> 42k is a joke when your rent is close to $2500
You are approaching this subject as if living in an area where rents are $2500 is a right and not a privilege (the median rent in the US is $1,104 [0]). You might be shocked to hear that even in the most socialist countries in the world, there are gated neighborhoods and areas that are off limits to the poor (I experienced this first-hand living in a country that's often used as a socialist success story). I understand that not living in high-income areas leads to bad schools and a ton of other factors, but this is not a US-only phenomenon. Taking the necessary steps to remove the variations in rent is a strong step towards full-blown communism, which comes with its own set of downsides.
> and you get no benefits.
Nonsense, Amazon has surprisingly good benefits [1]. I am all for bashing Amazon's various horrible practices (eg: launching white-label brands that steal data from their own customers, total disregard for trademarks in their paid search bidding, etc), but when it comes to benefits, it will be hard to find a warehouse job with better perks.
[0] https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/average-rent-by-yea... [1] https://hiring.amazon.com/why-amazon/benefits#/
And you're approaching this subject as if Amazon warehouses are uniformly distributed throughout the country, such that median rents _matter_. They aren't, and they don't. Amazon warehouses are typically just outside of (or even within) population centers, where rents exceed median, often substantially.
How far should a person commute for a $15/hr warehouse job? How far _can_ they commute?
[0]: https://abc7.com/rent-prices-apartments-cost-of-realtorcom/1...
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-27...
You can get a 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom apartment where I live in a decent low crime location for $700-$1000. There’s an Amazon wear house up the street. It’s a city >250k people.
People around here make $40k on average and still go to sports games, bars, dancing, etc.
It depends where you live.
That's not normal, but it is simply what it costs to live in NYC or SF or London. I know tons of people who pay north of $2,500/month for decent (not fancy) apartments in central neighborhoods of those cities. And $3-$4k/month is very common for a single person.
And no, it is not simply what it costs to live in NYC, unless you think you absolutely must live in Manhattan below 96th st. This is like saying the cost of a car is $65,000, because the only car I accept is a BMW X5. Ok, if that is your standard, then yes a car will cost you $65k. But there are cars available for much cheaper, that will fulfill all the important roles that one looks for in a car.
In Australia (where that $43k is from), the median rent for a 2 bedroom unit is $436 a week - $1700 a month. Very affordable with housemates or a partner also on minimum wage. In cheaper suburbs or 1 bedroom units, this is cheaper again.
So incredible that I'd find an authority on that right here in the HN comment section! Please tell me more about my opinion!
It's pretty close but I don't have a six figure salary and don't have a degree (but am getting one part time while I work.) 80% of my friends are grown adults working in the service industry, retail, and driving jobs with a few working in upper-level clerical jobs. My wife works in retail. Folks at work— mostly developers— are the exception rather than the rule in my life.
Not one single person I've spoken to about it considers working in a wage or independent contractor job at Amazon desirable. I know a few people that did work there and they quit because if you want to run yourself ragged under authoritarian management, at least UPS/a paving crew/a bar will compensate you well for it and probably give you decent career prospects.
Where I live, the $15/hr Amazon starts at is less than any McDonalds franchise pays entry-level openers and closers, less than you make as a prep cook, less than what you make working at CVS or Walgreens, less than what you make as a rideshare driver/delivery person. A impossibly cheap studio apartment— we're talking 200 square feet, probably not legal, in a crappy neighborhood— would take a minimum 70% of your take-home pay without considering health insurance or anything else besides taxes that might get deducted from your paycheck.
The estimated take-home is about 1/3 of the area's calculated AMI— the federal poverty level. You're so far into what constitutes low-income for public housing that the numbers on the city chart don't even go below 30%.
You're making the same exact mistake you're accusing people of here of making. There's a whole world happening outside of your own sphere of experience. No surer way to be consistently meaningfully wrong than assume nobody else knows what they're talking about.
Florida min wage was 8.25 before 2021. So nearly half the Amazon wage.
What does make something good, then? The top level comment implies that having to work at all is indentured servitude. Does that mean any sort of work to sustain oneself is not "good"?
I wonder how many people here saying Amazon warehouse is a good job just because it pays 15/hr have actually worked there along with other jobs paying similar or better?
I have never even made $15 an hour. Also, in my area (also pretty cheap CoL), they pay $20/hr while fast food is ~10-12.
Given that the social security system in the US (and to be fair, even in Europe) is pretty lacking and Amazon (as well as Walmart) is setting up shop exclusively in areas with high unemployment, it can very well be said that people have the free choice to work at Amazon instead of another employer that treats their workers better, so yes it is perfectly valid to call it "de facto indentured servitude".
How is that a negative? Would you prefer for those people to stay unemployed?
This is a thing??
Why compare ourselves to China and not to a place like Argentina or wherever they take mid-day naps during weekdays? Because you don't want to fall behind in the global economic race. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, there are going to be fewer and fewer protections for the local industries. For example, back in the 20th century it was possible to ban imports of various foreign goods, because those same products could be manufactured anywhere. But we're increasingly getting to the point where there are only 2 or 3 options for most of the tech products (mobile phones, computer operating systems, anything AI-related). In 20-50 years from now, things are only going to get worse. As a first-world country, you might still have a chance to be a relevant exporter in the mid and late 21st century, which will hopefully pay for the cost of importing everything else you can't manufacture locally. But you won't get there with siestas.
We’re living in the very best time to be human so far. It wasn’t long ago that the world was living under the constant threat of global nuclear annihilation, before that two world wars, before that constant illness, famines, and other wars, etc. Long before that, just struggling to get enough food and shelter to survive.
The same goes for current working conditions/life. Some things are worse than 20 years ago but some are better.
For one thing, micro-plastics weren't in the brains and bloodstream of past populations. That said, doubtful anyone hesitant to have kids is under the delusion everything was always better in the past. I certainly wasn't when the time came to make those decisions.
Who is saying this?!
Regardless, there are 8 billion humans from a population pool that may have at times dropped to as few as a few hundred. So risk of human extinction is far less than the (very real) risk of making lives of future generations much shittier.
It’s this one. As a Canadian, I can’t take anything they say seriously about their housing “crisis” or cost of living. Almost everything is more expensive in Canada and most jobs pay a lot less, but things are still not really that bad, so I know that the Americans just like to complain.
The only way it’s possible for an American to struggle financially is if they do it on purpose.
The Greatest Generation was exceptionally patriotic, and I always assumed it had to do with living in a country that suffered much less industrial damage in WWII than other countries (which enabled a great standard of living while everyone else was still rebuilding). But I am starting to wonder how much of this has to do with just simply having spent a couple of years abroad and getting to witness first-hand how dysfunctional most other places are (during and in-between wars).
* high monthly premiums for healthcare with high deductibles (I pay 14k a year with a 5k deductible for each person in my family)
* high medication prices (people often buy drugs from canada)
* 0 maternity leave (15 weeks max in Canada)
* 0 vacation (2-3 weeks in Canada)
* less accessible child care (Canada is working on building out ~$10/day child care, it can easily cost ~$20k a year in the US)
* less affordable college tuition
* higher crime rates, higher incarceration rates
* lower minimum wage (canada’s is nearly double)
* at-will employment, termination without cause or severance (in canada you can be fired easily, but reasonable severance is required)
* reduced access to abortion (significantly in some states as of late)
Everything except the most expensive things. Paying 20% more for cheese is fine when you're saving 95% on healthcare.
But I really need to reject what you’re saying about the “bottom wage.” $15/hr is not the lowest, it’s actually on the very high end of the lowest income salaries:
> Of those individuals with income who were older than 15 years of age, approximately 50% had incomes below $30,000
This isn’t 50% of low income jobs. 50% of all workers make less than what you say is a “normal” low skill wage.
Minimum wage in the US is $7.25/hr. Anecdotally, when I was starting out a few years ago, I was paid minimum wage at a college IT job. Most restaurants (outside of HCOL cities) are going to start around minimum wage or slightly higher.
Let’s also look at one of the biggest employers in country, Walmart. It’s not going to start you anywhere close to $15/hr. Say you get lucky and get a whopping $12/hr. That’s $24k/yr, or $21k net. Monthly rent in the cheapest CoL places in the US is going to be like $500. That’s $6k/yr. So your total income after paying rent, at an extremely common low skill job, is $15k/yr, or $1200/mo.
You can cover these types of essential expenses with $1200/mo?
- Food
- Car and gas (there is not public transit to take you to Walmart in Ohio.)
- Utilities, such as electric, water, trash, and internet.
- A basic phone plan.
- Health care. (think about what percent of $1200 a premium could be.)
- Any kind of savings, including retirement?
It is certainly possible to live extremely frugally, assuming no children, no existing debt (such as college), no vacations or travel, no big expenses, etc. It is certainly not possible to cover emergencies (like a medical one or your cheap car breaking down). I also question if you’ll ever save anything towards changing your future, like a retirement plan or better education.
The bigger question is why the fuck, in one of the richest and most successful economies in the world, do a huge number of the participants in that economy — again, 50% make under $15/hr — have to make a wage which doesn’t enable them to be at least a little bit comfortable?
And they don’t get any kind of meaningful protection against bad situations, like medical problems. Walmart isn’t going to pay you to be on an extended leave. It’s not going to be common to have any kind of retirement plan other than social security. It’s rare to have good health care plans at this salary.
It is going to be challenging, in this forum, to gain empathy, because most of us are likely in the top 10% of earners. But I don’t see a way to look at this situation and think it’s good for our society.
I don't think GP is out of touch with reality as much as sensationalizing what is going on. Given the trend of the housing market and wages across the entire west, it could be closer to reality quite soon.
Rather, Average Joe is struggling with things that realistically, he shouldn't be struggling with given our global wealth. Comfort level of money has risen far above median wage. If you're not sitting on wealth yet, anything below that isn't going to feel comfortable for a myriad of reasons. Individuals can work around that and build up the wealth, but that won't make the road itself any more comfortable.
Not to mention the majority of actions individuals can perform involve less spending, and every time that happens, politicians, economists and the news will quickly throw out a panic article how the economy is doomed if people don't start spending more quickly.
Young people look around and think things are harder now than they've ever been and it's simply not true. My mom didn't have it easy, hell, my grandpa who was born in the great depression and got to be an adult through the 50's didn't have it easy.
Houses and food may have been cheaper relative to other things, but people put in way more hours of way shittier work, at least my family certainly did.
Nor is it very fruitful to have this measuring contest when it is evident several things have gotten worse for no other reason than greed.
> You'd actually have to accumulate everything before being able to make an absolute statement such as "Young people look around and think things are harder now than they've ever been and it's simply not true"
That's not an absolute. I did not say "All young people". I said "Young people". There are definitely young people who believe the US, and some the western world in general, is on some wild decline from a golden age where everyone with an entry level job owned a house at 25. Just look at Reddit (assuming it isn't trolls astroturfing that is).
> I don't know how people can make this statement in such absolute terms, while at best their arguments are "well Y is worse, but X is better!"
I'm actually not sure what you're saying here.
> Let's not forget "young people" still have to live to see their retirement years.
Here too. Are you pointing out young people need to save for retirement? That isn't new. My grandfather was employed his entire adult life and only one of his (out of 6 or 7) jobs came with a pension (which he didn't get). Likewise with my mother.
No one in my extended family, old or middle aged, has a pension, and very few have significant savings.
> At least for someone outside the US, I don't expect to see most of my taxes funding the elderly's retirement returned by future generations (nor do I want that, for that matter).
It's not really feasible even if we wanted it. And it shouldn't be necessary. That is a very long, very separate conversation though, as my the point of my comment lies elsewhere.
> Nor is it very fruitful to have this measuring contest when it is evident several things have gotten worse for no other reason than greed.
This was the intent of statement actually. Calling work indentured servitude is drawing a comparison with the human rights dark ages which isn't apt.
And of course, this is Amazon, so at least you get some form of insurance. Many are less fortunate.
It is preferable to live as middle class in a third-world country (GDP per capita ~4000$/year) than as someone with a shitty job in the USA, having lived the former.
> [E]xperience demonstrates that there may be a slavery of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other
From Wikipedia[1]:
> Douglass went on to speak about these conditions as arising from the unequal bargaining power between the ownership/capitalist class and the non-ownership/laborer class within a compulsory monetary market: "No more crafty and effective devise for defrauding the southern laborers could be adopted than the one that substitutes orders upon shopkeepers for currency in payment of wages. It has the merit of a show of honesty, while it puts the laborer completely at the mercy of the land-owner and the shopkeeper"
This is underappreciated by the well-off: the very possibility of a counterparty being able to afford a lawyer raises the floor of illegality.
If you and the people around you couldn't ever afford a lawyer... that floor lowers drastically.
I have a few lawyer friends who volunteer at various legal aid organizations. Their most numerous cases? Landlords doing obviously-illegal things.
But without legal representation, who's to stop them? Or, to be fair to law-abiding small-scale landlords, the opposite situation with bad tenants?
Access to the law isn't just a "nice to have". It's a pillar of not-ripping-each-others-throats-out society.
Anyway, I went off topic - don't want to detract from the parent point - you can work 10 hrs a day and not be able to afford anything and barely have a chance to progress because you are ground down by "real life^tm". Tech and MDs are definitely a special little island.
When the government's "needs" are determined by the rich, what happens to the money that gets printed? That's how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Simplify the tax code, eliminate loopholes, raise tax rates on extreme wealth & income, and fund the IRS to investigate major tax fraud (instead of the nickle&dime shit they go after today). This isn't about funding the government; it's about retooling the government to work for everybody and not just its richest citizens.
Simplifying the tax code is a valid idea. Targeting the 'rich' and ramping up tax fraud witch hunts, not so much.
Historically if you want to collect more taxes you lower tax rates and get an increase in compliance. A flat rate is the fairest approach, setting an income threshold or a negative income tax to offset taxes for the poorest citizens provides the progressive aspect.
Your understanding of the elections in the US is hopelessly naive, especially after Citizens United opened the floodgates for unlimited, anonymous donations to political campaigns. Politicians do the bidding of the people who give them the most money. Elections are typically between two candidates who wear colors of different gangs, but have been paid off by the same companies. Voting forces a choice between candidates; donating and lobbying allows the rich to get their policies in place regardless of who wins.
We need to figure out how to build high trust societies with a shared culture. There’s a reason large corporations are pushing diversity so hard - it keeps abuses like those described above possible.
True competition allows people to choose the actors they want, good or bad.
Patent trolls, on the other hand, who simply patent ideas with no viable or initial product, or even schematic are another thing.
The proper path is to reduce rhe size and scope of governwmnt so that it needs toboukl less of the existing money supply out of the economy though taxes.
That a a horrible idea. Simply printing money with nothing to remove it again is a horrible fiscal policy you end up with run away inflation as each dollar you print lowers the value of each dollar. The value of money ends up decreasing faster than pay rates and you hurt the poor more as the rich will just pull their financial assets out into more stable economies the middle and lower class will loose.
You see national level taxes aren't there to fund the federal government in a modern economy. they are mean to remove excess cash from the economy. The government funds it self by borrowing and the printing money to pay it back with interest. This what bonds and like assets are. Why barrow rather than just print and pay, it about having good credit and showing the rest of the world dollar is stable by pay off our debt.
From my privileged position as a remotely working software engineer for a western company who resides in a middle-sized town, I am able to observe the daily hurdles and fears of my friends and relatives earning 10x less for a lot more stress and sweating. The typical clerical office job pays you something in the range of 350 to 450 euros. Renting a small, badly furnished and badly isolated communist-era flat costs you around 150 euros. Food isn’t cheap compared to the West and you would need at least 200 euros a month. Many working adults prefer to live under one roof with their parents in order to make ends meet. Starting a family is a risky affair. Dysfunctional families with 1 member working abroad in a wealthier EU country are quite common. That member often comes for a visit to attend a relative’s funeral or for Christmas. Most people drive a 20 year-old banger just to be able to go to work and it eats their full income. Just know this when complaining about your Walmart or Amazon US job.
Change is the only thing that is a guarantee. Maybe it will collapse when some other nation comes along and outruns some future instance of the US that is completely tired and broken. Or maybe they will turn the ship around.
AFAIK you cannot be sent to prison for not paying property taxes in the USA.
If someone is charged with tax evasion they are charged with something other than merely owning property and not paying taxes. They are charged with some specific criminal act.
Taxation OTOH is a civil, not a criminal, matter. If someone doesn't pay their property tax then, in the worst case, control/ownership of the property is taken by the relevant authorities, the property sold and the taxes paid to the extent possible.
I mean, being poor sucks, and it does make you more likely to commit crime, but talking about it like it's an inevitability is inaccurate and not in good faith.
However, you can lose your property if you don't pay property taxes. (If you're late, the interest can be significant AND it gets treated like property tax for the purpose of "lose your property".)
Moreover, the "lose your property" process pretty much guarantees that you'll lose much of the equity that you had in said property.
And no one goes to jail for failure to pay property tax, unless there is some kind of egregious fraud involved. The tax authorities just put a lien on the property, and then seize it to sell at auction.
Our political course is set by our media, because it's hard (and getting harder) to find information otherwise. Right now the media is concerned with hating Russia (for the seventh year in a row), a nonexistent crime wave, and that unapproved information remains too available. If you think the US has any other problems other than made up ones, you're out of luck.
It’s slavery as a service