here is imaginative an response "4. Student accommodations In Amsterdam, The Wenckehof—which consists of 1,000 shipping containers converted into housing for students—is the largest development of its kind, The Guardian reported in October 2015. Although shipping container homes have its critics, advocates tout its versatility and affordability. One Wenckehof resident told The Guardian that he pays is €450 a month ($505) in rent to live at Wenckehof and also qualifies for a €140 ($170) monthly housing subsidy, much cheaper than the €600 ($675) a month that students often pay to share an apartment in central Amsterdam. The Wenckehof is not the only shipper container building designed for young academics. Design Boom recently featured an innovative floating, carbon neutral property called The Urban Rigger. The structure is meant to provide affordable and sustainable homes for students in Copenhagen. Amenities include a courtyard, kayak landing, a bathing platform, a barbecue area and a communal roof terrace. Nine container units are stacked in a circle to create 15 studio residences that frame a centralized communal courtyard. "The housing is also buoyant, like a boat, so that can be replicated in other harbor cities where affordable housing is needed, but space is limited," the designers told Design Boom. The Urban Rigger features a slew of green building components, including hydro source heating, solar panels and low energy pumps. "Each year, thousands of newly enrolled students wind up on the student housing office's official list of people in urgent need of a place to live, and it is well-known fact that the real problem far exceeds the official registration. A situation that, by all standards, is completely unacceptable!" the company states on its website. The first full scale Urban Rigger was launched in the summer 2016 in Copenhagen—or as the company says, "the first in a potential fleet of mobile, sustainable dwellings, for students, refugees and others, in urgent need of a home."
If you wanna read some interesting stuff about these types of effects, you can google the work of Geoffrey West at Santa Fe Institute on urban scaling laws. For instance, you can read about what the really interesting conclusions they have reached on London here: http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/07/04/2168245/the-london-scaling-effect/
No. Bridgeport simply hasn't adapted to the changing needs of the world. They started in manufacturing and have been unable to adapt themselves to anything else over time. On the other hand, Greenwich has, which is why people are making money that live there. If they weren't providing a valuable service in today's time, nobody would pay them. But they clearly are. In regards to Bridgeport having the second highest tax burden, if the citizens don't like it, then they should get off their asses and move somewhere else. It's really that simple. It boggles my mind why people continue to live in an area that they consider to be overly burdensome, run down, or unfair. I used to live in North Carolina and realized one day that I didn't have to pay any personal state income tax at all if I just moved to Florida. So that's what I did. Instead of viewing myself as a victim of the system, I got up and did something about it and I encourage everybody else to do the same.
Friedman was spectacularly right about many things, as we have learned, and just as spectacularly wrong about other things, as we have also learned. I, and others, regard him as the father of trickle down, supply-side economics, though I don't think it's fair to attribute the phrase "trickle down" to Friedman. Krugman said of him: "he slipped all too easily into claiming both that markets always work and that only markets work. It's extremely hard to find cases in which Friedman acknowledged the possibility that markets could go wrong, or that government intervention could serve a useful purpose." I agree with this remark, and would add that another of his failings was failure to recognize how deleterious a flat tax, which he proposed, on earned income would eventually become unless unearned income was taxed at the same rate. As it was, tax rate compression on earned income, without elimination of lower rates on unearned income!, was so great under Reagan, whom Friedman advised, that the lower rates on unearned income, after years of compounding, did prove deleterious. Friedman failed to recognize the fairness of a progressive rate structure, where everyone pays exactly the same rate on the same dollar earned, and he appeared blind to the virtues of a progressive structure over the flat tax.
Not only that, but building codes, in principle, a very good and sometimes necessary thing, have become near perfect examples of regulatory capture.
The question isn't WHAT is ruining XYZ but HOW to make XYZ Robust =D All Cruelty springs from weakness - Seneca
Probably moral coding in genetic code lol. Some are given alot others dont have at all. Or could be where life directs or some other factors. Also anonymity effect in big city probably can amplify bad side. Can lie and con until death, who will know. While in some small village where con once and everyone will soon know to stay away.