Message from @Dr.Wol
Discord ID: 447020682522656780
i dont think most of those people know any better, I don't even think they can tell the difference between State and Federal government
To them its just "the government" so "the government" should control guns etc
and who's at the top of "the government?" Congress and the president
states should not get federal funds tbh. The states should have to pay for their own shit, and the feds take what is needed to for their role. That being common defense and keeping states cooperating
maybe disaster aid but even then, i think private charities might be better off as the government will give out the smallest amount possible.
In a way, thats right
But i think with that you get the point where people are gonna flee poor performing states and move to big states, which then causes big states to have to provide more services etc, whilst the poorer states become dry husks, like the rust-belt
like FEMA? they literally have a budget given to them before the storm damage is even calculated. Which means you are not gonna get nearly what you need to help you. You might as well start a gofundme
well you see it with cities all the time: Place gets rich, poor people follow the rich because they are the ones doing all the jobs that needs to be done that no one wants to do. then all these poor people show up so the rich people leave. eventually the rich people come back because hey! cheap land only filled with poor people! lets buy them out and send them over to where ever we just came from! so the poor people leave, then they come back because the rich people don't pay well, and the cycle continues
look at cali and how many people they are exporting and where it is going
yeah
its a slow cycle
LA is where hollywood and industry is
lots of slackers move to LA, LA becomes more expensive, due to higher job demand, wages go down
due to higher costs, taxes go up
Rich-people bail, and all tahts left is poorness
there is no good way to stop this cycle without either creating leeches that don't work but take money from the government, or banning movement between areas
a good way (albeit expensive and very revolutionary) would be to digitalise work environments, where you can work from home across country
that doesn't really change it
well, more accurately, it just changes where people move to, but not why.
i think you misunderstand,
I mean like, you sit the heart of rural Kentucky or something, and you log into a computer over in Silicon valley
you buy a plot of land for cheap, you build a nice house on it. Other people follow the same idea, so the cost of buying a house in that area starts to go up. Eventually it gets to a point where even rich people think it costs to much, so they move.
like i said, it changes WHERE they can buy that cheap land. but doesn't fix the problem of buying cheap, then making it expensive, so you need to go somewhere else to buy cheap again.
how so? with that, you have no demand to be somewhere specific to work/live
You can just go to any state where its "cheapest" and settle
yes, but unless you build your house and keep your house at the level of cheapness as the surrounding area, you making your house any nicer raises the value of that area.
copy and paste enough times and you are no longer a "cheap" area. so people look elsewhere.
your point? You're there already, and other people can look elsewhere, cuz they too can just work from any spot
you don't have to settle in any expensive areas anymore because you can work from anywhere
my point is these movements, as you said, are slow. they don't happen over night.
i never said that it would, in fact i said it would be very expensive and you'd have to overthrow the current way of working
i said it in reference to you saying that there simply is no good way
you miss my point. Digitizing only changes WHERE people move to, not WHY.
my point is there is no good way to stop the why
but why would they move?
most people move these days for work reasons, or if wealthy enough, to enjoy life
people, not individuals.
people, as a whole, the masses, trends
yes but why do they?
idk, maybe because kids don't like to live with their parents?
people don't move to LA for the steel-industry
People move to other cities mainly for work reasons
and to start a living in the area you just built up and made nice is too expensive? So they move away from home. Then you get old, can't afford where you live, so you move. or you downgrade
oh, wait, i see the disconnect.
i was using cities as an example of a small scale version of the poor state problem you mentioned before
aaah
and i was talking about population movements
then yes, it wouldn't affect much if we go by your background