Um...

These gotchas make no sense. If anything the fact that people with any options at all are completely unwilling to go anywhere near these places supports the argument that they need government investment.

You and Kelhus spend so much energy calling people hypocrites. It's all well and good as a personal insult but it isn't an argument against policies.

About 10 or so years ago (maybe more) there was a trickle of younger (mostly artist types) into the shittiest area where I grew up. That trickle led to a bigger trickle and eventually a flood. The area went from shittiest to downright attractive. In fact, there is a loud voice there now bemoaning the gentrification of the area and the fact that it is no longer affordable to most.

This happened in an extremely fast growing city, though. Not sure it could be applicable everywhere.

That picture (if google is to be trusted) is from West New York, a town with a median household income of $54k according to city-data. Maybe, that's not quite lower middle class but considering the cost of living in these areas it's pretty close.

I've been there, that's basically what it looks like. It's possible the picture is from Jersey City though, IDK

I'm not focused on the gotcha, although it's a pretty strong one. I don't really think we are targeting you, specifically, but the mindset of not wanting to live in poor areas.

Conservatives are about community involvement, i.e. charity, volunteering, giving back etc, rather than government intervention. It should not surprise you that we would take objection to the aforementioned mindset, especially in a lefty dominated forum that claims they are for the people.

Meh, the phone number on the restaurant tells a different story. I don't know either...just thought it was funny.

https://www.yelp.com/biz/el-farolito-west-new-york

201 covers all of Hudson and Bergen county. Not all of that area is rich.

BTW Jersey City itself has quite poor areas in it as well.

Well boomer logic is to buy a house in your home town. But apparently millenials have to move to a shitty area of milwaukee to buy houses. Yeah I could move to Kentucky to buy a house but then I have to live away from friends and family.

Lol, man, it's the very definition of an ad-hominem attack. I understand why you guys like making it as a response to the personal insults you receive yourselves but it isn't actually an argument against a policy.

Meh, look, giving to charity is great and people should do it if they care about helping people. The problem, for people on the receiving end, is that charity is uncoordinated, not guaranteed, subject to the whims of those who give it. A mandated, stable program is going to be superior.

I like how anyone who is not a millennial, is a boomer.

You know, life is full of compromises, and it seems millennials don't ever want to compromise.

I think you are mixed up. While hypocrite can be used as a perjorative, it's not out of line to call out a mindset that wants heavy government intervention in poor areas coupled with a lack of desire to get directly involved in those areas.


This is the standard retort, but it's essentially a straw man. It's not a dichotomy. Most conservatives support some level of a safety net. For instance, I'm rather liberal in that regard, despite having objections to how it's executed. When a conservative mentions the left should get more involved in these communities, the response is always "charities can't solve every thing". Doing nothing yourself to help the situation, and expecting the government to fix it, is not the answer either.

USA speak weird though. They pronounce '****off and die' like 'have a nice day'

Again, I agree these may very well be personal failings but as a response to policy preferences it's a complete non-sequitur. I could literally kick the homeless when I pass them on the street and it would have absolutely no bearing on the correct government policy concerning the poor.

FYP as it relates to what I'm talking about here.

We're not talking about moving 3 towns over. We're talking about 20 blocks difference between $600,000 3BR 2BA condo and $90,000 4/2 homes with built-in charms that you just don't find in new construction.

Pick any major US city with and you'll probably have a similar situation. Outliers exist, I'm sure.

Millennials ***** about unaffordable housing because they've completely written off the concept of starter homes, apparently. Sorry, you don't get to move directly from your parents basement to downtown Seattle or San Francisco.

It's like buying a house you would never want to live in. Or, buying a product or service to which you have no idea who or what the target audience is. These policies are largely theory/ideologically based, and lack direct experience, or practical knowledge of the issues and people it's trying to address.

???

Advocating for government assistance to poor people while not giving to charity is like... buying a house I would never want to live in?

You've completely lost me.

Which policies are "these policies"? AFAICT, your argument here is that government cannot help poor people because it is not itself poor. I know it can't be that dumb so please explain.

------

If your point is just that someone with experience being poor could probably better craft the specific programs to help the poor then, yeah, sure, no ****.

When the government spends money on a program, it's buying a product, or service for people. If you don't understand the people, there is a problem.


... because it does not understand, or have any practical knowledge of poor people.


No. My point is, the smart, educated and wealthy people of the world would be better served by getting directly involved in poor areas so they better understand, and write better policies that are not based entirely on ideology, or theory, and they would be directly helping that community at the same time.

However, most people think like you... don't want to live or operate in the poor areas, but pretend they know about the plight of the poor people...

Subbing cuz Titlted is here. Sorry in advance for the damage that does to your reputation.

Never been but apparently Seattle is a shithole. Homelessness has gotten out of control. SF is nice but if you;re not an engineer it is unaffordable. Nice place to visit.

Nobody said that ^ , you inferred it because you take criticism of your generation very personally.

I’m sure “not all boomers” or something, but this kind of attitude prioritizes your ego over actually addressing legitimate problems.

Maybe you should pay more attention to who you’re talking to.

This is the guy who screamed that women didn’t have it that bad in the 50’s compared to children with cancer, that you can’t criticize the habits of the mega wealthy if you yourself own an iPhone, and that nobody can comment on the lifestyles of the poor unless you “go be homeless for a month” and see it for yourself.

I assure you it can be that dumb.

Oh. Just give them cash. I don't know much about the poors but I assume more money would make them less poor.

This is still a non-sequitur. I am not the government. I can say "the government should spend more money on helping poor people" without knowing exactly what the best policies are. The government should obviously research what the best policies are before implementing them. They can spend some of the money on that. I don't need to do the research myself.

I don't "pretend to know about the plight of poor people" beyond "it sucks to be poor." Are you claiming that's wrong and that if I just go try it I'll realize it's awesome?

I personally like “**** off and die,” but “OK Boomer” has a fun sarcastic edge to it.

This is why living with poor people is important. You would not say something like this.



and this is exactly why ideological politicians love people like you.

Again, it's the prevailing mindset. It's why politics in the US is so focused on ideological policy, rather than practical policy, i.e. "free health care". When you start talking about how you are going to do it, that's when you start losing votes

The hypocrisy is relevant because that type of thinking leads to unpredictable, and in some cases, really bad results. There are a bunch of people who think like you, and they vote.


I'm not big on value judgments that ascribe something wrong or right, unless is clear. I will say it's not optimal, mostly unproductive, and arbitrary. I'm not attacking your character, I'm attacking your thinking.

Poor people don't like money? I guess there's no problem then so we don't need to do anything at all.

Traffic engineers love me too because I trust them to figure out where to build the roads with my tax dollars instead of doing it myself.

You seem to have switched topics.

Free health care is implemented in various places throughout the world AFAICT so you have some work to do to demonstrate it is "impactical".

Hypocrisy is the human condition and it doesn't lead to results at all really.

I'll tell you a secret: my real policy preference is that the government take the discretionary budget and uses the discretion to transfer it directly into my bank account. I'm not greedy, I only want one year's budget and then they can go back to wasting it on making poor people poorer or whatever they do with it.

The "it" here has no antecedent; I have no idea what this paragraph means.