• interceder270@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    What are you talking about? I support spreading out so there are more developed areas that people want to live.

    Passing a bunch of money around in major cities is what exacerbates the disparity in wealth. Why should city people who already have more wealth get even more before those who have less?

    • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      I really don’t think that’s how any of this works, dude

      You need to invest in areas if you want them to be “developed” so people want to live in them. If you force poor people to leave places where there are more opportunities (e.g. economic, educational, occupational, etc.) for them, you’re basically dooming them and their following generations to poverty. This is why I said you support low social mobility and high income inequality.

      Now just think of who the poorest people are in cities - it’s a lot of minorities, single parents, people in debt, etc. That should immediately tell you “city people” don’t have more wealth than most people elsewhere. As far as I can tell, the working class anywhere serve mainly to enrich the wealthy class.

      I’ve always looked at it this way: should the people that scrub toilets in NY or SF or LA be paid enough to live in the same city? Everything I’ve seen tells me the average American answers this question with a resounding “No!” People in those areas have to make hour-long commutes to put food on the table for their family. I don’t see why we should accept essential workers being paid less than they deserve.