Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Another new trend to marginalize anyone not in the top 10%

by Rob_Boyter / September 5, 2014 10:12 AM PDT
http://lifestyle.ca.msn.com/living/news/new-mixed-income-toronto-condo-to-have-poor-door

I'm sure everyone has noticed the trend which has cored out the centre of US cities, leaving downtown to the poorest. Additionally Tax Policies over the last 35 years have downloaded the majority of taxation from the top 1% onto the shoulders of the next 54%. This is proven by any measure of taxation percentages paid, or an assessment of the tax burden. Literally any source from the CBO to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities to some of the less doctrinaire Business News websites will confirm this. This practice goes back to Ronnie Ray-Gun's quite deliberate and loudly proclaimed desire to reverse Roosevelt's New Deal.

Toronto, despite escaping the coring out of the city centre which remains a desirable place to live, if rather expensive.

http://lifestyle.ca.msn.com/living/news/new-mixed-income-toronto-condo-to-have-poor-door

However, apparently property developers are trying to enforce second class status on some people living in Condominiums in desirable downtown locations.

Development in the downtown has to, by City ordinance, have a percentage of "affordable" condo space in each development. Unfortunately those living in "affordable" condos are now to be forced to use a different entrance, and in all probability a separate elevator as well. And if prior practice is any indication, I'd bet there are fewer elevators per number of residents for the affordable condo folks than for those paying full whack.

God forbid there should be equal treatment.

If any further indication of the deliberate fragmentation of society for the benefit of the wealthy, in order that they do not have to associate, or even walk over the same floor, or occupy the same elevator with those of "inferior status" is needed, I can't conceive of what it could be, short of banning people earning less than $150,000 per annum (which is the point at which the 3% begins).

And Canada is conspicuously more progressive, and liberal than the US, and far more concerned with Equitable Treatment. Equitable treatment is the feeling among the working populace that some people work less hard for their money than others engendering resentment. In all surveys, the US passed beyond that point during the Clinton Administration, and I feel there was a substantial time lag from the point at which treatment in fact became less Equitable. I'd be willing to bet that many other people would agree with that sense as well. Elsewhere, if not here.

Interesting thing: Equity versus Equality can be demonstrated in Primate studies. Primates who are given Green pepper pieces, which they like, begin to throw them away when they observe other similar primates receiving grapes, which they like even more. And even more interestingly, among primates, the privileged will pass the grapes to the less fortunate spontaneously. Unfortunately that appears not to be the case among People whose greed seems boundless.

Rob
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Another new trend to marginalize anyone not in the top 10%
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Another new trend to marginalize anyone not in the top 10%
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
beggars can't be choosers
by James Denison / September 5, 2014 10:46 AM PDT

instead of attacking the forced good fortune, just be grateful.

Collapse -
RE: just be grateful.
by JP Bill / September 5, 2014 12:33 PM PDT
N.J. woman with three jobs eulogized as face of low-wage worker

NEWARK N.J. (Reuters) - Maria Fernandes, a New Jersey woman with three part-time jobs who died while sleeping in her car between shifts, was remembered on Friday as much for her generosity as for becoming the face of millions of struggling U.S. low-wage workers.
Collapse -
he's in Canada.
by James Denison / September 6, 2014 4:28 AM PDT
In reply to: RE: just be grateful.

another JP Bill non-sequitur

Collapse -
(NT) Another response you don't seem capable of understanding.
by Rob_Boyter / September 6, 2014 7:10 AM PDT
In reply to: he's in Canada.
Collapse -
This isn't new. It's happening in the US as well
by Steven Haninger / September 5, 2014 8:41 PM PDT

Developers are being forced to by law/ordinance to provide dwellings for lower income persons in exchange for permits to build for profit (that ugly word). Anytime city owned property or tax abatement is involved, this becomes part of the bargaining. City government want to keep their downtown areas looking like jewels even if they're no more than diamonds in the rough. The city can't do it's own building or become a landlord so the burden is shoved off on those who are experienced in doing so. Developing the property becomes an almost immediate benefit to the city but not to the developer. It will be a long time before he operates in the black. This will mean he needs to fill the space with paying clients as quickly as possible. The "affordable" spaces will go very fast but not so the most expensive. It will be the high rent units that will subsidize the rest.

These affordable housing and urban redevelopment plans are meant to be a win for both city and developer but cooperation means compromise. We want that in congress, don't we?

BTW, at least in my town there's been another similar push to get developers to foot the bill for lower income housing but perhaps some will see this as more acceptable. The plan includes that builders seeking permits to build "upscale" housing cannot get them unless they agree to build new units or renovate old ones in poorer neighborhoods. So who do we bash here? How did the city come by the property in the first place? What should we expect of our developers before they can build? How much risk should they take? And mostly, are those of lower income who benefit from these plans complaining about them? These questions need to asked before we cry "foul", IMO.

Collapse -
A lot of time housing for lower income people
by Diana Forum moderator / September 6, 2014 12:15 AM PDT

is mainly for people that work downtown and can't afford the upscale rents.

I know our main bus terminal is downtown. My company is downtown for that reason because a lot of the workers can't afford cars and ride the bus.

Diana

Collapse -
That's a good reason but my point is to ask
by Steven Haninger / September 6, 2014 1:39 AM PDT

just who is doing the complaining. Is it the renters whose unit is controlled to meet city requirements? I'd say those are the only ones who matter. Those of us on the outside who just want to think poorly of those with wealth need to stand back and stay out of it. If lower income tenants are complaining about how they are being treated, let's hear from them first and not those who just want to gripe about what's fair and what is not.

Collapse -
Rob is complaining
by James Denison / September 6, 2014 4:30 AM PDT

about better housing being provided for the poor than they could otherwise afford, but rather than be grateful, all he can do is look at those nearby with better housing and envy it.

Collapse -
I thought it was the separate entrance
by Steven Haninger / September 6, 2014 5:22 AM PDT
In reply to: Rob is complaining

which has been called the "poor door" in the media. It's not the door but what certain folks might say it symbolizes. If that's the case, let those required to enter the building that way register their own complaints rather than those who don't live there do the complaining for them. If the door insults them, they can leave. Perhaps it's the poor that don't care to hobnob with the hateful wealthy while in the atrium.

Collapse -
I was complaining about the segregation of two groups of
by Rob_Boyter / September 6, 2014 7:08 AM PDT

people occuppying the same building. Both purchasers of their residences, but some of luxury condos and others of merely regular ones. I was complaining about the extra care and money involved in a separate entrance being lavished on the wealthier owners, so they don't have to associate with the hoi-polloi, the great unwashed, the regular folks. The wealthy are doing all theyt can to dissociate themselves from the rest of society, which among other things means that they will lose touch with what other people think and feel as so much of the Republican Party has lost touch with the mass of the American People. it is a return to the 1890's where the wealthy didn't have to be troubled by the rest of society, and could pretend that they didn't exist. It is a deeply anti-democratic impulse.

And just so we're profoundly clear on the subject, James' interpretation of my views, originating as it does in his own tortured logic and prejudice and antipathy to my ideas and person, bears no resemblance to what I think or feel. Please do not think his responses are in anyway representative of mine. He loves to play the Envy card. I grew up in very privileged circumstances, I have always taken responsibility for myself, my life, and my views. I envy no one. I am part of the moderately privileged white middle class, the difference is that I know it, that I recognize it, and while I make no apology for it, it doesn't stop me from seeing that other people don't have it nearly as easy as I have had it.

I tell you frankly that if there is Envy here, it is in the eyes of the beholder, not mine.

Rob

Collapse -
(NT) James. You have no right to speak for me. Shut up!
by Rob_Boyter / September 6, 2014 6:53 AM PDT
In reply to: Rob is complaining
Collapse -
(NT) You're totally wrong, James. No surprise there. Rob
by Rob_Boyter / September 6, 2014 6:54 AM PDT
In reply to: Rob is complaining
Collapse -
(NT) They're condos Stephen, both groups are buying.
by Rob_Boyter / September 6, 2014 6:52 AM PDT
Collapse -
What is new, at least here, is this perverse separation of
by Rob_Boyter / September 6, 2014 6:50 AM PDT

one set of residents from the other.

I think that development built on City property should be multiple usage and multiple rental streams. There's nothing wrong with one set of people getting deluxe accommodation with high end appliances and shiny granite counter tops and incredibly sybaritic bathrooms and large spaces, while another gets Kenmore appliances and formica counters and a regularly appointed bathroom and reasonably sized accommodation. That's not the point. The point is making one group go in through a different entrance. It's stupid and wasteful and is a deliberate attempt to coddle the wealthy while segregating those who are still buying their condo just like the wealthy are, but are being treated as second class, as unworthy to enter through the main entrance.

Separate but "equal" was debunked in the late 1940's and formed the crux of the case in Brown v Kansas Board of Education in 1954.

This is cheap political posturing by whatever genius thought this "design feature" up, a species of pandering to the "self-annointedly superior". It is an act of gross stupidity and arrogance.

The compromise would come in not wasting money on separate entrances and separate foyers (with different levels of decoration I'm sure) and separate elevators of differing quality, It would come from a single dual function building which didn't pretend to be two separate residences.

Rob

Collapse -
You have the liberals to blame
by TONI H / September 6, 2014 7:06 AM PDT

for what you are complaining about, Rob......they're the ones who decided that new developments should also include an area, separate and apart, that is delegated for low income housing so people would have a nice neighborhood to live in that they normally couldn't afford and stay where they CAN afford to live. It was all part of the 'war on poverty' that has had trillions dumped into it since Johnson and it's failed miserably and continues to do so because no one has the incentive to get OUT of poverty when social services make staying in that 'class' so attractive (free everything).

Collapse -
You're certainly inventive, though endlessly one sided in
by Rob_Boyter / September 7, 2014 9:53 AM PDT
your attribution of everything to Liberals. Apparently Conservatives never do anything, even when their legislation results in disaster. It's always blamed on the Liberals, like the Wall Street Crash for example.

How nice not to have to think.. Anything pops up: "It's all the Liberals fault!"

Rob
Collapse -
Links
by TONI H / September 7, 2014 9:52 PM PDT
http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2014/03/19/the-war-on-poverty-wasnt-a-failure-it-was-a-catastrophe/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367829/fifty-year-war-editors

It's so nice not to have to ACTUALLY think, when it doesn't agree with your agenda, Rob....I didn't invent the program, liberals did.......and they've been adding to it year after year after year without any proof that they have helped anybody get out of poverty. Instead of the poor having a 'safety net' as liberals love to call it, it's become a way of life for most of them....and they have no incentive to change that lifestyle because liberals keep making it more attractive. Find me proof that shows anything else.
Collapse -
I still say to let those affected complain if they wish
by Steven Haninger / September 6, 2014 10:45 AM PDT

You and I must not feel justified to sit back and determine how others should think or feel about their own situations. I can imagine some think "First Class" seating from the airlines is an opportunity for cheap seat occupants to feel demeaned. After all, they are required to parade past those who can pay more. Maybe they should hang their heads in shame or be offered the option to enter through a rear door so as to not be humiliated.

Collapse -
Forced Good Fortune?? Tell me how to get in line.
by Rob_Boyter / September 6, 2014 2:43 AM PDT

That's the kind of force I'd be willing to undergo.

Regarding the primates, there is no resentment among the less privileged and powerful of the leaders and dominant members getting better food or first dibs. However when the imbalance is enforced by human intervention, eventually both groups begin to rebel and to act in a way to equalize the excess.

The difference is that Inheritance and Connections is now the key to your "good fortune", cleverness and hard work has become much less effective as a tool in order to enter the privileged class owing to a very perverse tax system where all the benefits flow to the top. Were you to examine the results of Reagan's tax Cuts and Bush's tax cuts, you'd find that they consitute a transfer of money upward, rather than the former From Each According to his Means, but not Excessively as was true up to the mid 1970's. The poorer 90% have been losing ground, while the top 3% and above. Even many of the Wealthy, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and possibly Paul ? (co-founder of MicroSoft) and others, have announced that their heirs will not inherit the bulk of their estates. Unlike the Kochs or the Waltons or the Romneys or the Norquists or the endless supply of billiionaire supporters of the Republican Party.

Republicanism, and the Republican Party has become less about supporting business and entrepreneurship and has become about the protection of moneyed interests whether established businesses or the already excessively wealthy. The Tea Party has for no apparent reason not merely embraced this, but has doubled-down on it, despite being composed of people who aren't in the 3%. Why people act in this way, I really cannpt fathom, but it has always been true. An entire class of "House Ni**ers" quite happy to opress other people equally dipossessed and disenfranchised in the hope that they can continue looking down on people worse off than themselves. Schadenfreude raised to a political principle, and all orchestrated by Americans for Progress and all the other Billionaire organized Self Protection Organizations.

Talk about a class of "Useful Fools" and a complete inversion of Lenin's original usage of that term.

Rob

Collapse -
Interesting statement
by TONI H / September 6, 2014 3:02 AM PDT

>>>cleverness and hard work has become much less effective as a tool in order to enter the privileged class owing to a very perverse tax system where all the benefits flow to the top.>>>

Take away the incentive by increasing regulations, energy costs, 'forcing' a minimum wage that is unreasonable, add expenses such as a ridiculous healthcare plan that leaves no real choices, out of control union demands, etc. and you find fewer and fewer businesses staying in business or even starting up anymore. Even to the point of shutting down a kid's lemonade stand because they haven't purchased a completely unreasonable, expensive permit that was never required before.

It doesn't matter what a tax would be for the upper 10%, it will never be enough for a liberal when the tax problem of not having enough revenue for all their goodies and agendas could be solved by actually allowing businesses to thrive rather than be punished on a daily basis and getting the unemployed or underemployed people back to work, paying THEIR fair share again and adding to that pool of cash.

However, no matter how many times this common sense that there is strength in numbers, no liberal will ever be willing to understand it or they will find 'reasons' to never accept that concept. A healthy economy in this country has always been having huge numbers of our population working, and working full time jobs and contributing to society rather than feeding off of it. But then that gives those people back their control of their own lives, and liberals, completely believing in the cradle to grave approach regarding government dictating the direction those people go, will fear-monger until their dying breath to keep that control instead.

Collapse -
(NT) Your preconceptions blind you to what is really happening.
by Rob_Boyter / September 6, 2014 7:13 AM PDT
In reply to: Interesting statement
Collapse -
(NT) I haven't heard of any businesses going out of business.
by Diana Forum moderator / September 6, 2014 8:16 AM PDT
In reply to: Interesting statement
Collapse -
You're kidding, right?
by TONI H / September 6, 2014 8:36 AM PDT
Collapse -
Okay but none of those things you were complaining
by Diana Forum moderator / September 6, 2014 8:48 AM PDT
In reply to: You're kidding, right?

about were happening in 2008-2010. Most small businesses fail.

Five Reasons 8 Out Of 10 Businesses Fail

I had heard that most small businesses fail in the first two years. Wonder what the percentage of failures the 200,000 were and how many were new business and old businesses.

Diana

Collapse -
what in the hell.....
by James Denison / September 6, 2014 4:32 AM PDT

....do monkeys have to do with it?! And who are you to think you should have some "right" to push yourself on others who may prefer to not associate with you? They don't have rights too?!

Collapse -
(NT) Incapable of recognizing a clear parallel in behaviour? Sad.
by Rob_Boyter / September 6, 2014 7:14 AM PDT
In reply to: what in the hell.....
Collapse -
(NT) Even monkeys know when something isn't fair.
by Diana Forum moderator / September 6, 2014 8:49 AM PDT
In reply to: what in the hell.....
Collapse -
Can you feel the envy?
by James Denison / September 5, 2014 10:48 AM PDT

Ah yes, the power of the dark side, let it fill you, let it flow through you, feel the envy, embrace the envy, let it consume you.....

Collapse -
RE: the power of the dark side,
by JP Bill / September 5, 2014 12:24 PM PDT
In reply to: Can you feel the envy?

Your cup runneth over.

Collapse -
You keep pushing this Envy thing. ENVY HAS NOTHING TO DO
by Rob_Boyter / September 6, 2014 3:15 AM PDT
In reply to: Can you feel the envy?

WITH IT !!! Do you think that the American Revolution was carried out by Envious Scum?? Or is it who is consumed with Envy, and is denying it to yourself so hard that you see it in the words and actions of everyone else, particularly those to whom you feel Superior.

The Revolution was carried out by people outraged by unfair treatment by a distant authority. Just like those who resent the Tax system which favours business and the Rich.

If you can't understand that, I despair for your intelligence and your simple common sense. Note that term, COMMON sense. A sensibility common to the majority of people, not one common to a particular elite of True-Believers comprising a Conservative Minority or T Party. If there's a Dark Side, it is the one with the fewest adherents. Even Grover Norquist acknowledges that the majority of voters, all things being equal, tend to be Democrats, and incline toward Graduated Income Tax based purely on Income from all sources. That's why he advocates Voter Suppression, and is also why it is a major plank in the Republican Party's unspoken Platform.

Rob

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

CNET FORUMS TOP DISCUSSION

Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?