The Life in the Simpsons Is No Longer Attainable(theatlantic.com) |
The Life in the Simpsons Is No Longer Attainable(theatlantic.com) |
I remember even as a kid being confused about the Simpsons. It didn't look like my family's situation. It didn't even look like the life of any of the people I knew. They/we lived in houses without switchplates over the outlets. Houses they rent but didn't own, or rent-to-own houses with gotchas in the fine print they didn't understand.
The Simpsons also never went hungry. They had family meals. At my friends' houses we ate microwave potatoes with soda. My family went hungry 3 days at the end of each month.
What's the significance of this? I think this is a nuance of American wiring that is lost on me, i'm afraid.
I don't know why but it stood out to me how many houses (of friends) I saw where all the switchplates were gone. At some point maybe they're removed for painting/wallpaper, or they just break, and either through a lack of money or lack of motivation never get replaced.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/05/28/countries-wit...
Taxes! Tax financial gains better and more consistently, tax income more progressively, eliminate tax loopholes, and structure taxation in a way that encourages corporations to raise pay for employees instead of paying out huge dividends etc. to investors.
Productivity has outpaced income year after year since the 1970s. That difference is going to the people who already have wealth.
Zoning! Ignore the hue and cry of existing property owners who don't want their property values to fall and rezone to encourage new housing development in desirable areas.
We have corrupt officials who are well entrenched in their positions who profit off of it by selling out their constituents to their donors.
More government isn't the answer. Less government better run and regulated is the key.
Also, companies should be taxed on revenue rather than profit like individuals. I think this would solve most cases of corporate tax evasion as it is much harder to hide revenue.
And specifically, how about a tax on the unimproved value of land? Addresses housing costs pretty readily, and no room for loopholes (you can't exactly move land overseas).
Replace all taxes with LVT, replace all welfare with UBI, cut all other expenditures to a bare minimum, and bing bang boom you've got a system that works to everyone's interests.
And despite the increased cost in a lot of things, I think a trade war with China is largely inevitable. As to the increased costs, maybe it would actually get people to think about what they're doing, and other points of concern like Right To Repair legislation. The fact that we buy so many things in our day to day lives that don't even make it 5 years is fucking ridiculous.
Allow me to represent the predictable tech-bro YIMBY perspective: we don’t build enough housing. Supply has lagged behind demand for decades. And still basically everybody opposes new housing near them.
If “we don’t know the solutions” means “we don’t know what is causing this,” then I think that’s wrong. We definitely know. But if it means “we don’t know how to change course,” then that’s clearly right. It’s a disaster.
It is well and good for a country to accumulate debt for meaningful ends so long as the interest on that debt can be serviced. Hold the debt long enough and inflation will "pay off" the capital for you.
The belief that "Less Government" is anything other than a point at which thought stops and rationalisation begins is one I cannot grasp. There is mountains of data and counter-examples but people just stop up their ears, screw shut their eyes and thrust their heads downward hoping to find sand. Lack of regulation, particularly around poltics itself, leads to corruption and misrule. Lack of investment can lead to wastefulness.
More and stronger government is the answer to much of the UK's and US's issues in particular.
However even with all this government oversight, lots of regulation, and very large budget, they haven't been able to make a dent in the major problems like homelessness. Are they doing something wrong?
All major economies have some problems. There are no binary switches to fix or unfix a problem, especially one as complex as homelessness.
There is one obvious, and effective, fix for homelessness. Provide homes. This would run into a plethora of issues, many political, some social, but it does solve a shit-ton of issues. When the homeless are provided with homes, they tend to have fewer emergency health interventions, fewer police interactions and cost society much less than leaving them homeless. But I cannot see a nation or a state which is still arguing over whether or not healthcare should bankrupt people will go the extra steps to provide the homeless with free accommodation, especially in SF.