This will more likely result in collusion between the two. Your boss will subsidise your rent, but only if you live in one of his buddy’s houses. It’s company towns with extra steps.
I’d love to see small companies try and pry those ownership rights, out of the cold dead hands of large real estate corporations.
Now battle of the big fish? Amazon vs Blackrock. Walmart vs Zillow? Idk, but that would be dope to see capitalists cannibalize themselves.
It’s a requirement for people to suffer for others to get ahead. It’s the entire basis of our economy and given the unsustainable population, it’s only going to get worse. Like much much worse. The redistribution of wealth would probably take a war tbh. There’s a ton of people who just don’t care, or have been indoctrinated to believe they deserve to suffer. No one wants to fight a war. We maintain status quo until the earth kicks us off. And we’re left with sustainable population.
Lol what. We have machines and automation now. We can just make manufacturing equipment “suffer” while the humans “get ahead”.
The zero-sum worldview has been dead since the industrial revolution. Any widespread suffering at this point is the fault of humans.
Edit: unless you’re trying to say something else?
So what are people supposed to do for money? Or do we get rid of that too
Instead of money? I would imagine it would be money.
It’s not that people stop working. We still need food, shelter, communication, entertainment, etc. Money is how you convert goods, and I don’t understand how you think that need would vanish.
But worker efficiency is through the roof. One farmer can grow enough to feed thousands of people. A factory with 10 people can make millions of a given product a year. We can communicate from across the globe without anyone having to carry the message by hand. What makes you think we can’t at the very least give everyone food and shelter in those circumstances? No one intrinsically has to suffer. It only happens because of human greed.
Right, even the Roman empire, where 90% of people were farmers, worked out how to give food to everyone. In countries where less than 1% of people are farmers they can’t work out how to get enough food to people while ships dump excess grain in the ocean to stabilize prices?
I’m making that point exactly. Why aren’t we?
You seem to be making an idealistic argument (ie, lmao what are you saying, of people don’t have to suffer, we have the technology to stop that) whereas the person you’re responding to is making a descriptive claim about how the world currently is.
I agree completely, people don’t have to suffer. But that’s what the current world is built on. The suffering of the poor, the minorities, the illegal immigrants, visa slaves, sweatshop workers etc. Just because things doesn’t have to be this way doesn’t change the fact that things are this way and it doesn’t look like anything is going to change anytime soon.
I’m mostly trying to address the first part
It’s a requirement for people to suffer for others to get ahead.
It is absolutely not a requirement. It’s a very common opinion that people hold, and from what I’ve seen it tends to lead to people to end up with extreme right-wing opinions and an us-vs.-them mentality for literally every aspect of their lives, leading to racism, sexism, transphobia, etc.
Dude, it’s literally how capitalism is built. Where do you think we get our cheap oil, chocolates, clothes, iphones, rare earth minerals etc from? The wealth of the west is built upon the suffering of the third world. And as I said in my previous comment, it doesn’t look like things will change anytime soon.
You’re doing the same thing again, conflating the way things are, with the way things have to be. I don’t think it should be this way, I’m just acknowledging how the world currently looks.
People who fall into right wing views are the ones who believe the world should be unfair and you should push other people down. I think the world can and should be better but closing your eyes and pretending the horrors of capitalism doesn’t exist is just stupid and wont help you build a better world.
The question is who is ready to tie wage to local rent?
Why do people always compare minimum wage to average rent it makes no sense
Because average rent is pretty close to minimum rent anyway. Landlords charge “what the market will bear”, which means there’s not really much difference in price across the city. Sure some people will pay a premium for fancy housing, but they aren’t getting minimum wage anyway.
Because average rent is pretty close to minimum rent anyway.
That’s not correct. In a town with three houses for rent ($500, $1000, $1500), the average rent will be $1000.
I agree with the user above: if we’re comparing wages and rent, then at least compare the deciles appropriately. For example, the lower fifth decile with minimum wage. It could be proportional to the number of people in the area on minimum wage.
I think he meant it should be median, not average.
Just make as many jobs (and social interactions) WFH as possible. Everyone moves to nowhere ruralville, pays almost nothing in rent, and turns that vast swathes of flyover blue in the process. All the old people will move to the cities for Healthcare, and the rural-urban divide will invert.
