Why does the Right stand any chance - at all?

Post Reply New Topic

What cyberdad just said for US, plus the entrancement that comes with thinking you can be a king just because you worship one.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/05/ ... ink-we-are

As long as people keep looking at it as 'the left' and 'the right' then it will never get solved

Because the right wing speakers often have better stratetic sense, and the way they argue appeal to a lot of people. As a left wing person myself, many of the left wing politicians and public speakers seriously need stop with moral outrage, and just deal with the arguements no matter how offensive they are.

It would be, in practical terms, extremely difficult for people to be able to LIVE while making Minimum Wage ($7.25 an hour Federally), for a 40-hour week.

This is especially true in the Northeast, West, and eastern Midwest.

Yep. That's right.

Ok...given a monthly income of $800, you could possibly find a single bedroom to rent for under $600. Personally, I could stretch $50 for food. The only challenge would be budgeting $150 for electricity and still have running water. A married couple doubling that could live comfortably on min wage with a single vehicle and an $120/month fuel allowance. Bear in mind that a min wage, entry level job is never supposed to be a permanent solution. The expectation is that with experience someone can move up.

Cost of living even on bare essentials is ridiculous, and tax policies/wage policies make it more difficult. An owner can’t possibly expect to make any money if rent exceeds the means of renters. If nobody can afford rent, he can’t stay in business. So if the area is predominantly min wage jobs, guess what rent is going to be?

Without being regulated or legislated to death and with common sense, it’s a self-regulating, competitive cycle. Property owners price renters out, creating a demand for affordable housing with little supply. Smaller owners increase available space, slash rent prices to a fraction of what the big guys want. The big guys start losing renters and either undercut the little guys, buy out the little guys, or are forced sell property once they go broke. Another property owner, big or little, buys out the property, expands, offers more rooms at similar prices, makes more money. And if wages increase, the ability to pay rent increases, the demand is still high with diminishing capacity for housing, owners can raise rent confident that renters can still pay. That in turn creates a housing market that fluctuates depending on the economy. The one constant is that there are options for workers in entry-level positions. Because there’s a government edict that says owners MUST rent to low-income renters and make up for loss with subsidies? No. Because owners can’t make money off low-earners if prices are unreasonable. The more people you can serve in any given market, the greater your profits.

All it takes is one property owner to make a difference. Gentrification has radically changed urban landscapes for the better. No reason why this can’t happen across all income levels. All you have to do is leave it alone and allow it to work.

You're focusing on only one small part of the political divide. Money, "poverty" and inequality isn't that high up on people's radar at the moment, despite what you may hear from the reinvigorated "Sanders/Corbyn" left. The great blurry divide is social, moral and cultural, with the nationalist vs globalist argument framing it all. You'd be surprised how many people watch Downton Abbey and envy the servants and farmers et al. as much if not more than the aristocracy.

I think what you fail to understand are the people who are both poor and conservative.

There are many reasons for people to be this way.

1. They are socially conservative, and vote for candidates based on social issues as opposed to economic issues, even if said candidates also have conservative economic views.
2. Some believe that, even if they will not become rich, they will have a better opportunity to be wage-earners or self employed under a less financially regulated and centrally managed system.
3. Some are principled, and reject the ideas of wealth redistribution as theft on principle, even if they would personally benefit from some form of wealth redistribution.