@Wrong
Welfare in BC Canada is 610, and let me tell you, the average rent is higher than 610.
“The graphic puts Vancouver as the third most expensive city to rent a one-bedroom ($1,159), behind the Northwest Territories capital and Burlington, Ont., roughly an hour’s drive from Toronto.
The average rental rate for a one-bedroom was $912 in Victoria, $1,083 in Richmond, $1,019 in Burnaby and $855 in Surrey. Renters paid an average of $889 in Langley, $744 in Abbotsford, $864 in Kelowna and $911 in Saanich. Up north, the average one-bedroom rate was $809 in Fort St. John.”
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/468-to-1-401-what-canadians-pay-to-rent-one-bedroom-apartments-1.3207227
It’s like that almost everywhere in Canada and probably the US tho, welfare just doesn’t cut it.
I’m not for or against individual responsibility, depends on context.
Sometimes it’s more the fault of the person, sometimes it’s more the fault of their environment.
You make it like I alone am in the position to uplift.
I’m giving people my opinion, and my reasons for it, if they agree with me, they can vote socialist, if they don’t, they can vote capitalist or they don’t have to vote.
It’s not that I’m against women working, it’s that I’m against both parents having to work full time.
If some parents want to do the traditional thing, where the man works full time and the woman stays home, that’s fine by me, if they want to do the modern thing, where they share responsibilities or the man stays home while the woman works full time, that’s also fine by me.
That being said, there are some things I’m ‘conservative’ on, I’m generally anti-immigration and pro-gun, for example.
It occurs because machines have replaced workers for the production and provision of necessary goods and services, such as food production, capitalists lay off excess workers, and rehire them to produce and provide increasingly unnecessary goods and services, gradually destroying the environment in the process.
This shouldn’t’ve occurred nearly as much as it did, if at all.
Now measures must be taken to correct this totally unsustainable, self-destructive system, anarchism, communism, socialism and syndicalism are some alternatives.
That’s your opinion.
My opinion is it’s, our business, as a democracy, and I’m going to encourage people to vote socialist.
So it’s not that you’re against regulation of the economy, it’s that you’re against excess regulation?
Firstly, I’m not a socialist nor a capitalist, I’m advocating for moderation here, as I see it, not extremes, however I’d certainly rather see an extreme left economy than an extreme right.
Secondly, socialists have hardly won anything, there’s too much corporatism, cartels, corporate welfare, tax breaks/loopholes.
Most of the economy is ran by/for big business, not by the state or the workers themselves directly.
And from my research, there was more socialism before the 1980s than there is now, which’s why things were better for working people and the unemployed then.
Capitalists could start making apartments the size of jail cells, like they do in China.
Then they can cram several people into each of them like sardines.
There’s always a to save a buck, ye of little faith in capitalist ingenuity!
In practice this doesn’t work, or wages would be increasing and prices stagnating.
I am a common person with a common income, maybe you’re not.
Many people aren’t fine with it tho, and I’m telling them they don’t have to settle for it, they can vote socialist.
That’s rich, the capitalist is telling me happiness doesn’t revolve around money.
Tell that to big business who’ve fired millions of workers and shipped jobs overseas to China and Mexico, where they pay men, women and children pennies, working 12-16 hour days to manufacture shoes and things.
Where there’s locks on the doors so they can’t leave, suicide nets and union busters, because workers over there don’t have state protections against such practices like we do over here.
Money itself can’t buy happiness, but being above the poverty line helps.
I would like to see conditions improve a little for the middle, working and unemployed classes, but economically stagnate or decline as a whole.
This seems perfectly feasible to me, if we were able to grow the economy while shrinking the middle and lower classes, we should be able to shrink the economy while growing the middle and lower classes, because a growing economy isn’t good for climate change, deforestation and pollution.
Again we’re in the middle of an ecological crisis, a mass extinction event, growth is no longer an option.
It would help the poor and the middle class.
Once inflation kicks in, we’ll just have to raise it to 60 dollars.
Or perhaps better yet, government can take over large swathes of the essential industries, like food and housing.
They could bypass banks and taxation, print the money to do it debt free, and run things the opposite way capitalists run them, for the benefit of workers and consumers: maximize employment, wages and minimize prices.
Actually it would increase class mobility, increasing wages, and welfare for those who can’t work or find a job is mobility itself, it’s the majority moving upward, and once they have surplus income, they can use it to start their own business, or educate themselves, or invest, if they like, or they can be happy with what they have.
Really all that matters is you have enough money to live fairly comfortably, so you’re secure, being a multimillionaire or billionaire doesn’t make you happier or healthier statistically, so really there’s no point in having high class mobility so long as your needs are met.