Well but that's just HK. Even a 50mil villa on the peak looks like shit by Western standards. Agree that people who live in such cage life conditions oftentimes share some of the responsibility why they ended up there. But also consider that the waiting list for public (subsedized) housing is long. Also that Chinese are very family oriented people and that abandonment by children can leave a retiree completely stranded without support. We can lay the blame on the individual not to prepare for retirement themselves. But HK is just a huge group culture and individualism is frowned upon (among locals). But still even those people in cramped places are very well take care of by local NGOs and various support groups. The resources are there and the opportunities, too. Very different in the US imho where someone at the bottom is treated like shit and people believe he/she deserves to be there.
Have you lived in HK or currently live here? You seem to know an awful lot about avg non local salaries and taxation all of a sudden.
I always mind progressive taxes. Absolute tax rates are already progressive in itself. You seem to suggest that some people reap the benefits in low tax domicils during their working years but enjoy undeserved benefits in high tax domicils. I assure you that this most often not the case. There are conditions that have to be met in order to qualify. All else have to pay out of pocket for, for example, health care services.
No, I don't know whether you agree with me or mostly disagree as I do not follow you around. But I can tell you with certainty that everyone in the city I live in cares about mortgages. Literally 95% of the people, rich or poor, the haves and the have nothings. And most people do care about their finances and most people in the US and multiple other nations live with one sort of debt or another that they do care to roll over or pay off. Not sure you just want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing or whether you truly believe people don't care about money.
Awww Zzzz1, and I thought we were close! You promised to invite me over Christmas this year! My point is most people only care about money to a certain extent. I'd venture that extent is to the point where they have their basic needs taken care of and a comfortable cushion on top of that. Not everyone cares about making 1M/yearly, especially after they see what is needed to do it. And your city? Symptomatic of a certain lifestyle and society.
Well, I just see that in the US alone your assumptions are not reflected in society. Neither are they in HK. People jump jobs for the extra buck in their pocket, people lease cars they might otherwise be unable to afford, people buy houses and exhibit buyers remorse the second they sign the mortgage agreement. People do all sorts of things for money. It would be awesome if the world was as you describe it but unfortunately I do not see that reflected in society. The US, more so than most other places, seems to put an incredible amount of pressure on people to show off a lifestyle that suggests they are part of the success story even if that is not the case. A rational person would never open a trading account with 10k or complain about margin requirements by brokers. Yet tons of people on this website alone disregard rational thinking and behavior because they are lured by the false promises to make a quick buck.
I may have missed it, what are your ideas of equal opportunity? How do you define opportunity and "equal" opportunity? Does making a given opportunity cheaper not count as increasing opportunity?
I have specifically and in detail gone into the very points you are asking me now to elaborate on. Please check the previous posts I wrote in this thread. I also gave specific examples that, yes, making given opportunity cheaper counts as increasing opportunity (I specifically elaborated on the example of education). Yet, making it cheaper does not automatically mean increased opportunities. You can make a Harlem public school as cheap as being completely free of charge, books and lunches included. That does not increase the opportunities when those students compete with a private school in Manhattan, at least not on average.
I mean, I read this bit, and of course I agree, but it begs the question of what are the means towards this? Restructure, how? What government policy do you imagine could influence the "worshipping" of private education and make all education equal if you don't want to subsidize? To combat prejudice in the workplace beyond mere laws about discrimination? I feel like the only thing we actually disagree on is to what extent money itself is conflated with opportunity. Or, even better, if we are in the business of measuring opportunity, by what metric one measures opportunity; what is the most discrete, unit or definition of opportunity?
People with "poor" mindset will always get poorer. If you have a goal you can always make it, especially in the U.S.