Internet + Natural Gas + Light + Water + Home Insurance + Auto Insurance + Property Tax + Phone + Home Security + Car Gas + Credit Cards
A $350k mortgage with bills, is expensive. Will eat up a whole check if you don't make more than $140k/year.
A $350k mortgage with bills, is expensive. Will eat up a whole check if you don't make more than $140k/year.
That kind of income with that kind of house price should be pretty comfortable, given you don't mention supporting a family. If your non-housing bills are costing $109k a year, there's a good chance you could reign in your lifestyle choices.
Do you know how many of those are in the US?
So then it’s not what happens to them is it?
The US has made the correct choice for the last 250 years, I hope people like you aren't able to derail it.
This strategy works so long as you're in the group of people who do indeed have "more resources," but breaks down if you're marginalized in any way, or if you don't want to support the exploitative system.
Also I'm open to critiques of capitalism, but the post I replied to didn't contain one.
They were quite serious about destroying society as-is. Nobody took them serious
Even the author of the piece said it was not a description of her vision of the future, but intended to start a discussion about technology.
But it's been picked up by wackaloons around the world as part of some overarching conspiracy theory.
it's because it's so easy to simply blame the ills of society on some illusory few pulling the strings behind the scenes. It used to be the migrants, or blacks, or the chinese (still is apparently) or the japanese...and now, it's the rich/shadowy figures etc.
The actual truth is that the collective actions of everybody leads to certain outcomes - today's outcomes. It can't really have happened any other way.
Please don't dilute the argument by comparing racial groups with the ultra-rich.
The (ultra-)rich form a class in the classical Marxist sense - a group whose interests naturally align, and they work together to further their interests.
There is deliberate government policy behind what's going on with housing - free money for the rich, which they can in turn invest into speculative assets to make yet even more free money.
Then they ensure that their money has weight by putting said money into housing, pricing out common folk, and building new units to serve as price control to preserve the value of their assets.
It’s not a lobbying firm, it’s the same people that make our laws and decide our future.
By the way, the full title of that essay is “Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better”
The strategy is everywhere now. You buy but buy doesnt mean you own. How did that happen?
‘As Hitler declared in 1934, “The German revolution will be concluded only when the entire German Volk has been totally created anew, reorganized and reconstructed” (cited in Koonz, 2003, p. 87). The “Great Reset,” announced by World Economic Forum (WEF) director Klaus Schwab, son of Nazi industrialist Eugen Schwab, attempts the same thing on a global scale, promising to “revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country [ . . . ] must participate, and every industry [ . . . ] must be transformed” (Schwab, 2020).’
The book is: Wall Street, the Nazis, and the Crimes of the Deep State
By David A. Hughes
One recent case https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/1981i3j/ubisoft_get...
But you see that everywhere. You buy the hardware but the company may block your property totally or partially.
You buy a car but pays to use heated seat? Who eats this thing that you haven't paid extra for the seats. The costs are just sunk in other parts.
You buy a movie but it can be revoked. You buy an smart tv that can have features revoked. You barely can pay your rent because now everyone needs to rent because no one has money to buy except equity firms.
There is no need for "they" to be a centralised being. It is just happening. Doesn't matter who or if there are a "they".
We live in a world where people think that the homeless man is the enemy because people are to simple minded to not understand why there are incentives to keep make it worse and worse.
Most of what the WEF discusses is how to gain more technocratic control over democracy. You know, for the benefit of everyone...
It is nothing like that. We can see how equity firms risen again buying certain types of businesses and change the structure of prices. The incentives to do it wrong are all out.
People still think that Microsoft layouts were an unfortunate unpredictable movement given market circumstances when every regulatory organisation pointed that it would be exactly what they would do.
People also think that putting their money in such companies because they have money back is an endless loop of free money and that money is an infinite resource.
Not one or two only have discussed how they should start licensing their products as a new business model. What people thought that would mean? How selling the product does not give the buyer the ownership? How is that not taxed differently?