It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Seattle pretty much destroyed.. Is this the future of America?

page: 7
37
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2020 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: nOraKat



Rent and real estate prices are ridiculous and people are not making any more money than they used to. Even food prices going up and the value of the dollar going down. On top of that almost the totality of manufacturing anything has gone offshore. Now even office jobs, customer service jobs, everything is offshore.

You can get a #ty job somewhere but its not possible to live on. You can get 2 jobs and work 20 hours a day to make a living but who can do that? Fu*% it.. go homeless and do drugs.

This is true, and something I keep in mind when people talk about how great the unemployment rate is/was under Trump..what kind of jobs are those..not really the ones to be proud of..I imagine.



posted on Dec, 21 2020 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

Oh, but Seattle has the $15/hour living wage for all jobs.

Are you admitting that just hiking the minimum wasn't enough? But I thought the goal was to create a livable minimum.

edit on 21-12-2020 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2020 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: vonclod

Oh, but Seattle has the $15/hour living wage for all jobs.

Are you admitting that just hiking the minimum wasn't enough? But I thought the goal was to create a livable minimum.

It was a general statement, it applies to most places.

Now, a living wage is a nice idea, but everyone elses has to go up I suppose. Pushing up wages too much too fast is a problem, often the result of wages being stagnant for too long..didn't move here for many years, far less than cost of living.

I'n my world, the wage/increase would be tied to cost of living.
edit on 21-12-2020 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2020 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

So basically, you believe in the idea of the $100/hour minimum because that's what would eventually happen. Hello, Zimbabwe!



posted on Dec, 21 2020 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: vonclod

So basically, you believe in the idea of the $100/hour minimum because that's what would eventually happen. Hello, Zimbabwe!

I don't believe I said that at all. I just figure wage increases should follow cost of living, not that a base wage has to be a certain #.



posted on Dec, 21 2020 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Meshakhad
The problem with Seattle is not drugs. It is not homelessness. It is not lack of responsibility.

The problem with Seattle is capitalism.


Don't worry. That will be gone from Seattle soon enough and things will continue to get worse there. What will you blame then?

I'd say capitalism and wealth inequality are the cause of most societal problems today.



posted on Dec, 21 2020 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Meshakhad

OOOOOOhhhhh, what an EASY answer, pal!!!

Unreal......you are awesome!



posted on Dec, 21 2020 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Meshakhad

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Meshakhad
The problem with Seattle is not drugs. It is not homelessness. It is not lack of responsibility.

The problem with Seattle is capitalism.


Don't worry. That will be gone from Seattle soon enough and things will continue to get worse there. What will you blame then?

I'd say capitalism and wealth inequality are the cause of most societal problems today.


If you replace capitalism with overreaching government and wealth inequality with media I would say that you're 100% dead on



posted on Dec, 21 2020 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

The media is also a major problem, because the media is driven by capitalism - and, more recently, has become intertwined with the political establishment.

The problem with the government, IMO, isn't that it's overreaching, it's that it's set up to protect the wealthy and powerful. I do believe in decentralized government, with more local autonomy. I'm not quite an anarchist, although I think "Mother Anarchy Loves Her Sons" is a really badass song.



posted on Dec, 21 2020 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: vonclod

So basically, you believe in the idea of the $100/hour minimum because that's what would eventually happen. Hello, Zimbabwe!

I don't believe I said that at all. I just figure wage increases should follow cost of living, not that a base wage has to be a certain #.


It's a never-ending cycle though. You raise the wage, all the prices raise to compensate for paying for it, thus cost of living increases. Therefore, wages must also go up. It will never end, so we will end up with that $100/hr living wage.



posted on Dec, 21 2020 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: vonclod

So basically, you believe in the idea of the $100/hour minimum because that's what would eventually happen. Hello, Zimbabwe!

I don't believe I said that at all. I just figure wage increases should follow cost of living, not that a base wage has to be a certain #.


It's a never-ending cycle though. You raise the wage, all the prices raise to compensate for paying for it, thus cost of living increases. Therefore, wages must also go up. It will never end, so we will end up with that $100/hr living wage.

Wait till they find out that their $7 latte’s will soon cost them 10-12 bucks. People are stupid.



posted on Dec, 21 2020 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Nickn3

Thank you for not perpetuating the faux concern for drug addition and homelessness. I think you're very correct that arnarchy is not effective in large, dense populations. What would you suggest to deal with the issues?


Um first bring our sick medieval justice system into the 21st century. That means clean up the police....as a lifetime supporter of the cops I, a total ally, thrice crossed paths with them and I mean as victim and because of the attack waged on me just like the criminal, I began to pursue documenting police crime and have caught twice where at a courthouse, they police planned one min before entering the court room and right in front of people, the lie they would tell to get a conviction "before lunch" even though both times one cop was nervous and flat out said no but he didn't do that or but it didn't happen like that just to be needed and booed by the others. Contacting the judge leaving several messages proud and so overjoyed I would help now two innocent incarcerated people get out, no number of calls and explaining what I had was ever enough to convince anyone from the courts to call me back and it has now been about 15 months those two innocent people have been in cages. I can safely say I have never once seen a cop in action who deserves to draw one more breath. Twice have they tried to stage a crime I thank God I got on tape with the thousands of other videos and affidavits I have collected, after cops came twice to threaten me and once convince me I was in enough danger to hand over everything and start all over, losing 6 years of work. I called and reported the armed robbery at gunpoint of stolen evide ce to internal affairs and that night, the internal affairs officer simply joined the others for the third 8 guns on me threat that my life was over if anyone ever saw my files. Only one option could be A sure fix...cop commits a misdemeanor, life in prison. Cop commits a felony, death by firing squad comprised of his fellow officers including his partner.

Then you treat drugs S a medical misfortune which by leaps and bounds, if you ignor the recreational users and look at the addicts, gives u 99.1% of addicts in prison or in a rehab program have a maternal grandparent who is an addict and by far those who become addicts as the sad people they are, almost always coping with neglect, abuse, molestation, or rape in childhood. I ain't saying dui is ok...but unless you arrest skin cancer patients who went in the sun when young or blind people who skied 25+ years without snow goggles, then how on Earth can you incarcerated people because someone took advantage of the fact they were too young and some exploitative adult making their choices for then and simply not having a pill or an eye laser to fix them all up yet? And my God look at places where the use of dangerous drugs is left alone and clinics where you go and get clean needles, a doctor to help u inject every day, and sterile room to use and how the Hiv rate plummets or even cities where needles are mandatorily over the counter or a needle exchange allowed. The addicts don't get the kinda sick they spin allnover and leave uncapped needles out for kids to step on. That alone leaves enough dignity and humanity people don't abandon common courtesy. Then places like Arizona where needles are illegal and the attitude of politicians is if they get aids good riddance....so awesome daddy didn't come home violent and beat them if they didn't move their panties aside. Cuz they sure have the people who did. The war on drugs is one of many of the nwos war on some phantom. Look at where heroin is legalized! Poof! Back to work simply on a prescription drug yes for life, but who cares. Preloaded non lethal doses thru the day with fancy syringes which spring inside the tube once used it's safe for them and us and it doesn't rely on that 2% of heroinnaddicts who quit and don't go back....a sick cruel hopeless one and only statistical impossibility to achieve to be able to continue in life at all. But sad people only. Stronger opiates go for back pain and cancer all over so they can live their lives, given the reasons for addiction, medicating one symptom and shaming and destroying the other symptom of trauma in the past is insane and barbaric.

And believe u me, those back pain people would show the same rate of criminality if cut from their meds tomorrow...
edit on 12/21/2020 by AlexandrosTheGreat because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 12:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Meshakhad


originally posted by: Meshakhad

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Meshakhad
The problem with Seattle is not drugs. It is not homelessness. It is not lack of responsibility.

The problem with Seattle is capitalism.


Don't worry. That will be gone from Seattle soon enough and things will continue to get worse there. What will you blame then?

I'd say capitalism and wealth inequality are the cause of most societal problems today.


Well what would you replace Capitalism with?



posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 01:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: vonclod

So basically, you believe in the idea of the $100/hour minimum because that's what would eventually happen. Hello, Zimbabwe!

I don't believe I said that at all. I just figure wage increases should follow cost of living, not that a base wage has to be a certain #.


It's a never-ending cycle though. You raise the wage, all the prices raise to compensate for paying for it, thus cost of living increases. Therefore, wages must also go up. It will never end, so we will end up with that $100/hr living wage.


How do you explain the fact that most people had a living wage in the 1950s-1980 or so? In fact a single income earner could feed clothe and house a family of four and still save for retirement. There was an enormous middle class and it wasn't Zimbabwe.



posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ntech

Uhh, you never know man it can happen to anyone. Wouldn't be cool if you go to jail or psych ward for misfortune.



posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: nOraKat

The problem with the ethos in Seattle is that there is no accountability. No, it's not cool for people to go to Jail or Psych Ward due to "misfortune" but neither is it cool for random people to be beaten down and mugged in the street, small businesses and homes to be robbed, and every surface to be covered with grafitti as a bunch of zombies on bath salts or bad brain chemicals stagger around the streets twitching and moaning.



posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 05:42 AM
link   
You need a tough leader. Liberal Democrats are lead by compassion and we are seeing the results.

Giving someone needles to shoot up is not helping.

Problem with the Democrats is they condone this type of behavior which leads to more of it.

If it was frowned upon less people would be attracted to it.

Every bit of common sense in these liberal cities is gone.

Very radical and very expensive ideas



posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Bloodworth

The really sad part to me, is not only the fact that the democrats seem to condone this behavior, but more importantly the reason "why" they condone it!

They condone it to get votes, plain and simple. They can't get enough normal people to stand behind their ideology to get voted into office so they pander to the dregs of society to pick up their votes too. This is so beyond sad, it's disturbing!

Now, some people might argue that it's about being 'inclusive' and making sure all of the people are 'represented' in their government. I have no issue with this notion in concept, but fundamentally the "people" who need to be represented in our government need to be productive members of society. The people being discussed in this thread are, for the most part, not those members of society. So what's to represent, and what is being represented?? Lawlessness, drug abuse? How is this something which should be represented when it's everything we stand against? I mean, surely no responsible parent would ever aspire for their child to grow up a lawless dope user and street person. So why would anyone advocate for a representative to encourage such behavior, right? No sane person would.



posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Never Despise

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: vonclod

So basically, you believe in the idea of the $100/hour minimum because that's what would eventually happen. Hello, Zimbabwe!

I don't believe I said that at all. I just figure wage increases should follow cost of living, not that a base wage has to be a certain #.


It's a never-ending cycle though. You raise the wage, all the prices raise to compensate for paying for it, thus cost of living increases. Therefore, wages must also go up. It will never end, so we will end up with that $100/hr living wage.


How do you explain the fact that most people had a living wage in the 1950s-1980 or so? In fact a single income earner could feed clothe and house a family of four and still save for retirement. There was an enormous middle class and it wasn't Zimbabwe.


For one thing, especially after WWII, we had the only real manufacturing base in the world that wasn't bombed back to the stone age. So if you wanted to make things, it had to happen here.

It was something of a monopoly and unions and others started to get fat and happy off those conditions.

Once other countries started to compete on that level, it started to get more and more cost effective to make things in other countries. As soon as the costs of shipping and outsourcing became less than the costs of US labor and regulation, companies started making things in other countries and shipping them here.

Instead of getting more competitive, labor kept demanding more money in contracts making it even more expensive. And regulatory conditions kept getting more expensive too. That made overseas EVEN more attractive. Then politicians started helping with trade agreements making it even easier.

You want to make America competitive? Go start labor movements in those other countries so their workers start demanding to be paid like ours. Go start environmental movements and safe working conditions movements to demand the same sorts of regulatory regimes in those countries. Go "help" their workers like ours have been.



posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

There is a lot of truth here.

But some form of what we once had should not be impossible. For example consider all the farmers and factory workers who have lost their once-decent lifestyles over the decades and drifted into poverty.

There was a time when those people had a certain amount of money and there was not runaway inflation. Why would returning the same level of money to them necessarily cause runaway inflation?

In the "too big to fail" debacle of 2008 the Government gave the banks 9 trillion dollars and the sky did not fall. That is 30 k for every American. Would the sky fall if every American had access to at least 30 k? Maybe it would be an inflationary move, but maybe not as bad as we have been trained to think.




top topics



 
37
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join