1994: If you don't straighten up and take your education seriously you're gonna end up living in a van down by the river!
2024: If you don't straighten up and take your education seriously you'll never be able to afford to live in a van down by the river!
2044: if you don't straighten up and take your mining operation seriously, you'll never be able to afford middle school.
2064: If you don't fight in the water wars, you aren't entitled to your daily rations of water.
2164: If you don't endure the bottomless despair of unfathomable suffering, you will never be permitted to endure the bottomless despair of somewhat fathomable suffering.
2054: if you don't straighten up and take your education seriously, you'll never be able to afford to live
You're behind on your oxygen bill again. If you don't pay by next week your nose and mouth will be sown shut.
Kentucky is currently making "unlawful camping" punishable by death now at the hands of the land owners so double check where the bog is
Depends on what you mean exactly. In many countries including the USA there is land that's not owned by any private person, but the state. Not claimed by any entity is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius
Same thing, effectively. Funny enough that land was grabbed back in the 1600's based on very flimsy rhetoric about how just claiming land for yourself was a god given right for all human beings and that it would solve all problems by free market principles (which were not yet formalized but would soon be, specifically based on said rhetoric).
We were fucked by hobby philosophers hundreds of years ago. Don't come tell me a philosophy degree is worthless.
Those are called sophists. Today we'd call them lawyers. Or Republicans.
The Sophists were more concerned with being able to convince others that a particular opinion was to be believed, even when they knew it was actually false. Whereas Socrates was concerned only with the truth, even when it wasn't something he wanted to be true.
Yeah, I didn't do a great job phrasing it. "Currently" is doing a lot of lifting there.
...presuming you've asked them to leave and they've responded by threatening force or using force against you, and assuming that bill actually passes, yes.
Sounds cool in some utopian parallel universe, but as long as there are people willing to take advantage of others it's not going to work in the real world. Imagine putting a lot of work in your garden and some random crazy person puts up a camping tent in it because they don't believe in private property? Just get out in 5 minutes or I'll call the cops.
I'm asking from a place of ignorance about your POV, but why is trespassing on "private property" bullshit?
Not quite. Based on what that bill actually says, it's not legal to shoot you for "unlawful camping" unless they ask you to leave and you respond by threatening violence against them or actually engaging in violence against them.
It's kinda difficult to defend your case after you've been shot dead without any witnesses nearby.
My nephew wants me to move to Tennessee. I'm a gay man that lives in New England. Just for laughs I looked at rents in his area. They are exactly the same as what I am paying now for a 1 bedroom. Not going to happen.
Move to Nicaragua, that's what I'm doing. Tropical beaches, 1/10th the cost of living. Not actually the warzone American news paints out everywhere else to be...
Well you're in luck because I am here to help! You can in fact afford to live in Tennessee, if you can afford to live anywhere, because rents are as low as $200 a month for a crappy trailer in TN!
Just look at this long-ass link from Zillow that shows all the real estate available for rent in TN sorted by lowest price. Rent starts at $200 and a decent apartment is probably at least $450/mo.
I think the $200 a month listing is an empty trailer lot. The listing below it for $360 is definitely a 2br trailer.
The flip side of the coin are people who tell me to "just move" away from my ass-backwards little shithole to a more progressive area. Like sure, I'd love to live in the city, let me just quit my job and reach into my suitcase full of gold bars...
"When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England!"
No, not the curtains, lad, all that you can see stretched out over the valleys and the hills! That'll be your kingdom, lad.
City vs. Country
Red vs. Blue
Type A vs. Work to Live
Homed vs. Homeless
White collar vs. Blue collar
Etc
It's a shame the divide and conquer routine works so well.
Keep the peasants hating and rooting against one another so hard, they never look up at their common enemy. Credit where it's due, insatiably greedy owner class, you have us dead to rights. You keep us so busy working and hating one another, we'll never organize against your tiny population of manipulators betraying your own species and turning it into your personal livestock.
Type As are the people that kill themselves at work and show frustration at those that don't. The annoying true believers of the workplace. They live for "that grind culture," and in many to most cases, brag about the toll it's taken on their personal lives if they still have one. Their sense of self is tied to their job.
People who work to live are just that. They don't derive their sense of self of life's purpose from their job. They do what they have to for their pay check and leave.
For this, Type As often mock them as lazy, while work to liver's mock type A's intensity and values.
Hah, here I was about to say there is some grey area in there, but the reality is that if I didn't have to work to maintain my standard of living, I fucking wouldn't
People have become so brainwashed by this ancient fucking industrial age myth of working that they think this shit is still valid hundreds of years later.
The annoying true believers of the workplace.
The obedient house slaves. "Stop fighting for your rights, you'll get us all killed! If you would just be more obedient they might let you live in the big house too!"
As a "work-to-live" person Type As are my natural enemy. If I've got a meeting before noon some Type A person is the culprit.
Ah see, as another work-to-liver I try to schedule my meetings before lunch so I can fuck around after lunch.
Ah, I see what you mean. Work to survive makes more sense to me as a term for that than work to live, but to each their own.
But it's "work to live" not just survive. You spend the rest of the time on living. Whether that's fishing, hunting, crocheting, watching football, playing games, or something else. Enough money to do what you want to.
Yeah, that's what we all do, we just work all day then we come home and go hunting, fishing, kayaking, trekking through the desert, that's how things work, and thank god they do right.
I interpret work to live as the reason I work is to live. That implies working is necessary to live. Which is simply not true in our modern day society. Some people don't have to work.
I could see how someone could easily misinterpret "work to live" as deriving their sense of self of life’s purpose from their job. That is the opposite of what is meant by it. It is so close semantically to the exact opposite philosophy of "living to work".
Working to survive, on the other hand, implies that your only there because you are forced to be to survive.
Seriously... I'd kill for a WFB job, even a WFF job but no one seems to want to build businesses out in the forest either...
Joking aside, it's literally why I can't move out of my HCOL area... The affordable places are affordable because they're summer homes/winter getaways... There's no work near them whatsoever. :/
I've had WFB jobs for the last decade or so. It's super nice. You know those meetings where they have way too many people in a conference room and it's after lunch so you smell everyone's hot breath while some VP's jerk each other off? Those are much nicer from the seat of a riding lawn mower with a beer in hand.
That does sound amazing, but unfortunately I'm a worthless factory schmuck so I won't ever know the joys of a WFH position. I guess a small benefit is that I don't have to deal with hot breath meetings though lol
Yep. It's always either take the lower paying job that comes with the lower cost of living, or commit to a horrible commute that will suck the will to live from your body within about 3 weeks just as much as being flat broke does.
Brought to you by the ones who also made the statement "Hey, is that MY air you were breathing there?" :-|
I’m not totally convinced that huge super-cities is the best way for society to move forward. Maybe we need more small towns and people living in the countryside.
What about dense, moderately sized cities with excellent city-planning? Well-developed intra-city and inter-city public transport? Cities are more efficient space-wise, but don't have to be depressing or expensive.
I think that the key word here is moderately sized. If I would guess, the optimum could be somewhere around 5’000 to 75’000 inhabitants. With those numbers you would probably not need any public transport within the city since you could bike or walk everywhere. At the same time you will be able to support some local shops for the most essential goods.
Nobody said huge super-cities, any moderately sized metropolitan area would benefit from being a population hub.
I mean, with centralization going the way that it’s going we will end up there. If the cost of living in densely populated places is so high, I think it hints at an inefficiency with the arrangement. Maybe people should live in fields and bogs a bit more?
If the cost of living in densely populated places is so high, I think it hints at an inefficiency with the arrangement
No, that hints at a supply and inequality problem. Cities tend to be more efficient because of economies of scale. Outside of large metropolitan areas, having access to a personal vehicle is downright a necessity for survival, which is the least efficient mode of transportation and forces extra costs on residents and the municipality.
As opposed to, say, a bus line that hits all the hotspots that everyone can use cheaply, requires less infrastructure, and reduces the per-capita environmental footprint.
Nobody is stopping you from being a bog body, but to pretend it is more efficient and preferential for the masses only serves to display your biases.
The municipality where I live made a study on green house gas emissions by where people lived. Curiously, the people living in the city center where those with the largest environmental footprint and those living more than 20 km away from the city caused the least emissions. They claimed that the difference was mainly due to lifestyle. People in the city tended to travel more by plane, ate food that had been prepared in restaurants rather than making it themselves, shopped more clothes and so on.
When there was a bus strike in the same city, air quality improved markedly. I suspect that those who take the bus in this particular city are those who would’ve otherwise biked (university students in Europe).
Living in a city comes with certain limitations to what you can do in your weekends. You can easily go out to consume and thus cause emissions. When living in the countryside, you can walk to the closest lake and fish your dinner without any emissions. Pretending that cities is the most environmentally friendly place to live is to ignore what people do except working, sleeping and traveling between the two.
They claimed that the difference was mainly due to lifestyle. People in the city tended to travel more by plane
So, again, this seems like an inequality issue, if only wealthier people can live in cities, cities will reflect the habits of the wealthy.
I suspect that those who take the bus in this particular city are those who would’ve otherwise biked
Biking is something you can largely only do in metropolitan areas, lord knows it's suicide to try and commute daily on the side of a road with no infrastructure for it.
You can easily go out to consume and thus cause emissions. When living in the countryside, you can walk to the closest lake and fish your dinner without any emissions
Weird strawman, you know cities have parks, right? And cultural centers like museums that are often free for residents, local theaters, etc, none of which you would need to drive to.
Pretending that cities is the most environmentally friendly place to live is to ignore what people do except working, sleeping and traveling between the two.
Except the more people you have, the less infrastructure and emissions are required per person; there is a built-in efficiency. If you could click a link and read, instead of just assuming your preconceived feelings are true, you could have learned that "When the size of a city doubles, its material infrastructure—anything from the number of gas stations to the total length of its pipes, roads or electrical wires—does not. Instead these quantities rise more slowly than population size: a city of eight million typically needs 15 percent less of the same infrastructure than do two cities of four million each."
Cities are where people are, and its cheaper and more efficient to do things where people are, simple as.
Most servers are there temporarily as they look for a high paying salary job, either directly or by getting an education.
And in most cases, you need to be in the city to apply for those jobs, to make the social connections that can help you find jobs, or to be where the good schools are.
Once you leave the city to go get a medium-paying job in a low cost of living area it makes it that much harder to eventually find the career a person wants.
Sure it's a decent life, small town livin', if that's what you're into, but people shouldn't be forced into that lifestyle because it's impossible to live in a city on an entry level wage.
Most servers are there temporarily ...
If this is the route one takes, it important to remember that not everyone succeeds in finding their dream job. Hanging around the city for a decade trying to find your career is a waist of resources.
And in most cases, you need to be in the city to apply for those jobs
"Modeling" maybe, but normal jobs can receive your CV via email.
social connections that can help you find jobs
I can understand this, however, these days you can make very real and career "advancing" connections anywhere(even online 😱)
or to be where the good schools are.
This here is the real problem. All schools should be good. But that's a discussion for another time.
Once you leave the city to go get a medium-paying job in a low cost of living area it makes it that much harder to eventually find the career a person wants.
If you don't have a career plan in mind, what are you doing in the city? If you know what you want to do, find a job in that field which can "fatten up" your CV.
it's impossible to live in a city on an entry level wage.
It shouldn't be possible to live in the city on an entry level wage. Only "get by". City's are expensive AF, everything there is.
Maybe I'm just talking out my ass. I never liked big cities and always preferred my hometown.
Thanks for the well thought out reply, I'm gonna touch on a couple of your points:
I can understand this, however, these days you can make very real and career "advancing" connections anywhere(even online 😱)
That's often not true. Most jobs in my industry specify the maximum distance you can live from the office, and there isn't an official rule hiring managers would still usually hire the guy with an address in the same location instead of having to wait for them to relocate and all that. It might be unique to public jobs, but in my world hiring candidates from a different location requires you to foot the bill to relocate them, something that usually isn't possible unless they're some specialist.
Also anecdotally, when I lived with my parents in a small town ~7 years ago I didn't get any bites applying for jobs in cities.
If you don't have a career plan in mind, what are you doing in the city? If you know what you want to do, find a job in that field which can "fatten up" your CV.
My only career plan was "intellectually simulating office work", I got there eventually, but it involved scraping by in the city working odd jobs for about 3 years, plus an 8 month graduate certificate program.
I lived with roommates, and got really good at cooking with dry beans and grains, and has a modest amount of support from my family, but I eventually found a job I love.
And I got the interview through a connection I made at a in-person meetup group.
I know how hard it was for me ~5 years ago and I had some help from my family.
Rents are higher now, not sure I could do it with today's prices, definitely not without a bit of help from the bank of mom and dad. People who don't have that are screwed unless they get very lucky and find a good job right out of school.
Quick trip down the consequences of "servers should not expect to be able to live in a city", as is your implied thesis.
How many jobs exist in a city that are in this category? That is to say lower paying. Servers, sanitation people of assorted kind, transport, teachers, etc. How do you expect a city to function without them? People with low wages are also the people that may struggle to afford a commute.
This idea is very "having your cake and eating it too". A city needs to accommodate lower wage individuals or it will crumble. This neglects the expected basic living conditions for any given person.
Im sorry, by "servers" I was talking about waiters or odd temp jobs. This does not includ pubilc service workers of any kind. Even more so, I woild say that public service workers should be paid more and/or get city-tax breaks.
Talking about cakes and eating, as city life will be more affordabl more people will come live there bringing up competition and price. If you want to limit rent, then youre reducing incentive for investments and developments in the city.
Oh no. I mean waiters too. You want that nice restaurant? It's gotta have staff. Gas stations and corner stores? Need staff. Every shop you go in needs staff and they aren't going to be paid decent wages generally. Why are temp workers being excluded from being allowed in a city? Plenty of places need people on a temporary basis and plenty of people need such work.
Your second point ignores the problem I'm pointing out. Rent must be limited in some way so that all the people the city runs on can live and work there. Given the gratuitous mass of people in a city, the incentive for investment and development will always be there. I'll need a citation for the idea that an affordable city doesn't get money from such things. That argument reeks of "greed justifying why it's OK to have impractical and inhumane conditions". There are more metrics than money.
Whoever wants to and if no one does, maybe resteraunt/bar owners will raise the hourly rate.
Curious how you feel about custodians, and if one of the lowest paid essential jobs should ask the worker to drive two+ hours a day.
