With $4m in the bank, one can easily live, for 66.6 years, spending around $5k per month. Or, if you earned say $7k and set $5k each month, it'd take you ~67 years to put that money in the bank....
With $4m in the bank, one can easily live, for 66.6 years, spending around $5k per month. Or, if you earned say $7k and set $5k each month, it'd take you ~67 years to put that money in the bank. That people bury that money into a 420m^2 home is... inexplicable to me, if I want to avoid uttering an insult.
I feel the biggest problem here is that we allow such a huge amount of purchasing power to be owned by such a small amount of people. It is bad for even capitalism: think how much more would all companies sell if everyone had a purchasing power on par with 3-5 grand a month. But that'd require companies to be employee-owned operations, and stockpiling of purchasing power be made illegal. After all, in a big enterprise, what does the big guys do? What is the use of bosses? They, or their great grandfather started the business decades ago. Now all they do is leech off of the capital the company generates. There surely is a better way to share goods w/o giving up your freedoms. If we could do that, there wouldn't be homelessness or hunger, or even most of the crime would vanish.
Perhaps if the upper-class would stop living in walled, guarded gardens they'd do more to fix the problems our society faces. I can understand the desire to live away from those problems, but the...
Perhaps if the upper-class would stop living in walled, guarded gardens they'd do more to fix the problems our society faces. I can understand the desire to live away from those problems, but the only reason they found themselves confronted with those problems is because McGrath himself grew up in a poor family and managed to keep his head out of the clouds while becoming wealthy. Instead of following his (amazing, might I say) example, they chose to call the police. Repeatedly. Or the neighborhood association.
There are probably better ways to fix societies' issues with the homeless, but giving them a stable home is a step in the right direction. Next would be turning them into (or back into) productive members of society.
Trouble is, in a society where everything worthwhile is purportedly measured by money, what incentive do the upper class really have to look beyond their walls? Hell, most of us who aren't rich...
Trouble is, in a society where everything worthwhile is purportedly measured by money, what incentive do the upper class really have to look beyond their walls? Hell, most of us who aren't rich are just as guilty of unseeing homeless people on the street, ignoring them for the sake of our own convenience.
Much like a similar situation in Washington DC, existing homeowners' hostility makes integrating people of a different class or race into a fairly homogeneous community fraught with difficulty.
Much like a similar situation in Washington DC, existing homeowners' hostility makes integrating people of a different class or race into a fairly homogeneous community fraught with difficulty.
With $4m in the bank, one can easily live, for 66.6 years, spending around $5k per month. Or, if you earned say $7k and set $5k each month, it'd take you ~67 years to put that money in the bank. That people bury that money into a 420m^2 home is... inexplicable to me, if I want to avoid uttering an insult.
I feel the biggest problem here is that we allow such a huge amount of purchasing power to be owned by such a small amount of people. It is bad for even capitalism: think how much more would all companies sell if everyone had a purchasing power on par with 3-5 grand a month. But that'd require companies to be employee-owned operations, and stockpiling of purchasing power be made illegal. After all, in a big enterprise, what does the big guys do? What is the use of bosses? They, or their great grandfather started the business decades ago. Now all they do is leech off of the capital the company generates. There surely is a better way to share goods w/o giving up your freedoms. If we could do that, there wouldn't be homelessness or hunger, or even most of the crime would vanish.
Perhaps if the upper-class would stop living in walled, guarded gardens they'd do more to fix the problems our society faces. I can understand the desire to live away from those problems, but the only reason they found themselves confronted with those problems is because McGrath himself grew up in a poor family and managed to keep his head out of the clouds while becoming wealthy. Instead of following his (amazing, might I say) example, they chose to call the police. Repeatedly. Or the neighborhood association.
There are probably better ways to fix societies' issues with the homeless, but giving them a stable home is a step in the right direction. Next would be turning them into (or back into) productive members of society.
Trouble is, in a society where everything worthwhile is purportedly measured by money, what incentive do the upper class really have to look beyond their walls? Hell, most of us who aren't rich are just as guilty of unseeing homeless people on the street, ignoring them for the sake of our own convenience.
Much like a similar situation in Washington DC, existing homeowners' hostility makes integrating people of a different class or race into a fairly homogeneous community fraught with difficulty.