Soldato
@JBod. Out of curiousity... Silicon Valley employee, and living in LA or San Francisco, upper middle income bracket? How many did I get right?
Last edited:
Too white, Too Straight.
- Thread starter LabR@t
- Start date
Soldato
Oh there are plenty of infrastructure issues don't get me wrong. Pot holes all over the place right now due to the crazy quantity of rain we have had and a woeful metro rail network (that they are constantly expanding). But you get a lot of disproportionate news nationally and internationally that represents California and New York and ignores the rest of the country. Depending on where you go in LA and SF depends on your experience, just like anywhere. There is a disproportionate number of homeless/vets/junkies in LA and SF than much of the country due to the other states giving away free one way bus tickets and the generally better climate and higher wage earners. There is a reasonable amount of corruption at the state level by all accounts, but (anecodtally) no more than in the British parliament on any given day, less than Italy
and Trump is busy taking notes from North Korea.I work at a VFX movie studio in LA and live at the edge of LA county. Probably upper middle income, although that is non-specific.
Soldato
Do you not want to include on your list that California has probably the most generous welfare policies in the USA and has some of the largest Sanctuary Cities (Los Angeles and San Francisco) but, iirc, has pursued state-wide Sanctuary status. Sanctuary in this context meaning wilful obstruction of federal immigration law and enforcement. So if you are illegally in the USA and facing deportation, California is the number one place to be. I don't know why you would talk about California's climate and omit to mention its sprawling welfare programs and anti-federal immigration officer policies.
So I'm three for three. How's that for an educated guess.
Soldato
Silicon Valley has nothing to do with the entertainment industry and is about 7-8hours drive north. But, go you! I am glad your armchair in Yorkshire is nice and comfy for all your judgements. It sure was difficult to guess my background and location, they made a subreddit just for you /r/iamverysmart.
As with most things, the Sanctuary City policies are not so cut and dried as a nice snappy sound bite or headline. I am not personally sure I agree with them (as someone who legally moved here) but I equally see the reasons they exist and I am happy to discuss.
Welfare programs are, in general, a positive sign of a modern civilisation. I am not sure why you seem to be imbuing it with a negative connotation? Yes they can be a burden on society and yes they can be abused, but don't mix that up with suggesting ALL SOCIALISM IS BAD as that is just plain ignorance.
What your armchair opinion won't be giving you is an appreciation for the complexities of the State vs Federal law and how to democratically govern an area that is as large, diverse and populated as the United States. This is one of the main divisive ideologies of the Democrats and the Republicans.
Soldato
We'll go back to disagreeing on tech shortly, but right here and right now I love you.
Soldato
No, I'm pretty happy. You work in the California tech industry in LA or San Francisco as I guessed. I don't much care if you're in the literal valley or not. The point is that you are in the upper middle income class tech industry demographic that California's tax rates, renewables surcharges, et al. are fine for. But they're terrible for the vast swathes of the state's population that don't belong to your rather select group. I may not live there, but I stay informed and have a very good friend from LA. The comfortableness of my armchair doesn't really change anything about your state's sanctuary policies or welfare rates. It remains the case that you conspicuously overlooked two very major factors in favour of "homeless people come here because the weather is nice".
Then its my contention that actively obstructing immigration officer's ability to investigate people present illegally in the country is a negative to the native population.
Soldato
The Media & Entertainment industry is very different from the Tech Industry. My tax rate is not "fine", but it is high for the US but still lower than living in the UK (but not by much). While staying informed I would suggest checking all sources of information, including those that disagree with your preformed prejudices. Having a friend in LA is no different than claiming to be an expert on racism because you had a black friend once.
With regards to ICE, the reasons for sanctuary cities are complicated and very emotive for many people. ICE regularly abuse federal law and those individuals, families and children get caught up in it, being an undocumented citizen is not actually a federal offense and the constitution was built around the idea that it is a country made up of immigrants. You have many situations where children were brought to the US at a very young age. They have known no other country or culture, but technically should be deported. There is no easy solve, there is no easy decision and the law itself is not clear. You have states where a large proportion of the population are not white and therefore you will never get elected by siding with mass deportation. This results in democracy actually working and ensuring that the wants, needs and rights of the majority of your base are being tackled.
This is where we go full circle to your friend, who (since we are making baseless guesses about each other) is probably a republican sitting in orange county watching Fox News on repeat, is probably considering moving to a red state where his personal views are endorsed and represented.
Soldato
She grew up in Westmont. Or at least I know that's where she went to school. And she was living in the area where the Rodney King riots took place because I remember her telling me some stories about some korean shopkeepers who were sitting on top of their store with guns to chase off looters. So I think that's South Central. Definitely not the OC. She moved away a few years back due to marriage and no longer lives in California. Still, it's not "no different than claiming to be an expert on racism because you had a Black friend once". It's a counter to your suggestion that because I live in England I can't have an idea about California.
It's fine for America to be a nation of immigrants if it wishes. But immigration should be done legally. There are a host of problems that come from having a large non-citizen population. In fact, you're contradicting yourself when you talk about democracy supporting it. If you want functioning democracy you need the people who live there to be able to vote. Which puts you in the situation of either you allow non-citizens to vote (obvious problems) or you don't allow non-citizens to vote (which runs counter to your stated goals of democracy if they are resident). In any case, I raised California's active obstruction of immigration law enforcement agents because it was conspicuously absent from your list of reasons why so many illegal immigrants moved there. You instead listed "better weather". You can be for or against the Sanctuary Policies of California but if I state them as a major reason for your high number of immigrants, I'm right.
You said you work in VFX. That sounds like a tech job to me. And if you're saying it isn't, for some reason, well we're still at the essential points that you are one of the upper middle income types living in one of the big cities and tax rates and all the extra little charges like renewable surchages, etc. that are acceptable for you are disastrous for many people outside your specific area and demographic. I'd also be leery of directly comparing UK tax rates with your own. My US colleagues technically pay lower tax rates than I do but they never seem to have much money because it gets eaten up by a lot of little things that don't seem to be included - property taxes, community fees, health care, et al.
It was also a country built on the idea of small resticted government rule and the right of citizens to bear arms but like any good American on the left you like to take your countries founding principles a la carte....
(for clarity I think widespread gun ownership, especially in urban areas, isn't a good idea but then I don't think mass migration into a modern state is a good idea also)
You may live long enough to witness the logical conclusions of having a situation where millions of migrants, who increasingly fail to integrate into the wider society, enter predominately one are of a country when that area was once an area their forebears had territorial claims to.
Welfare programs aren't inherently socialist.
I understand as someone living in the US this may be confusing but please go look at the actual defintion of socialism. .
In practice 'community as a whole' means state ownership.
You can have a Socialist state where there is very little or no social provision and a very capitalist state where there is lots of welfare
(for example the goverment could levy high taxes and then re distribute thoose funds to the populace to spend on goods and services provided by private owned and operated industries hence the country would not be one where the means of production and distribution were collectively/ state owned)
The confusion starts because socialists often like to start with high taxes on the route to socialism as a means of expanding the role and size of the state in society. So welfare states are a tactic used by socialist to expand the states size and power . ... not a necessary feature of socialism.
I favour relatively high welfare provision for things like collectively funded healthcare, schooling etc (but not necessarily centrally provided and run) but I recognise the high degree of incompatibility between such welfare provisions and mass 'undocumented' migration (as you put it)
Last edited:
I’m just going to use a single example, but, the nhs is a state monopoly on the distribution of healthcare. Is that socialism or welfare?
To be fair if we lived in a country where nothing was owned by the government, including the police and the army, then I’d agree with you.
Oh and fiat currency is also a state monopoly, just because you can use it on private companies, doesn’t detract from its actual purpose and frankly is almost a largely inefficient subsidy system if you want to look at it in the most basic of manners.
The NHS is both an example of a largely socialist organisation and an example of a component of a welfare sate.
With it being both, to a reasonablly high degree, owned and operated by the state and also providing universal healthcare largely free at the point of service.
But like I previously stated a goverment could take that the same money it spent on the NHS and still provide a level of universal health care by providing the funds to citizens to purchase health care services themselves from privately owned and operated healthcare providers.
The NHS is also, with regards to a lot of healthcare services in the UK, not a monopoly as you can still buy private healthcare services
Soldato
No it isn't. You can go to Bupa or a number of other private health providers. The state does not have a monopoly on health care in the UK.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,292
Can you choose not to pay the NHS portion of NI then as a PAYE employee?
Who wants, or can afford to pay twice? NI and private Bupa, for example.
You are technically right of course, but the point is paying for the NHS is not a choice if you want private insurance, so it is kind of a monopoly.
A monopoly in the rigid sense, sure, it is not, in the reality driven sense that words have fluidic meaning with the environment and public discourse, it pretty much is.
It’s perhaps not as stark as network rail, but still.
Last edited:
Soldato
No, but that's not what Strider said. They said it was a monopoly.
Rich people. Not seeing the point. Or rather, I'm seeing something that I think is about what you think I said, rather than what I said.
I reserve 'technically right' for things like "Actually it's not a mezzanine because the ceiling is split level". For things like "The NHS is a monopoly" that's just straight up wrong.
I'm not aware that IS the point, not does it make it "kind of" a monopoly.
Soldato
Translation: I don't know what I'm talking about so assume words mean things that would make me right.
Honestly, just what is the point?
What does ‘literally’ mean?
Words evolve, if something has squared off the majority of a market, it’s essentially the standard.
Soldato
Well in the traditional sense it means exactly as read. In a more recent vernacular it is simply a form of emphasis to a point. Perhaps we can avoid issues resulting from the ambiguity by using it in ways where both meanings are valid. For example:
StriderX is literally incapable of accepting they are wrong.
I’m just using alt facts like a great swath of this sub forum, don’t see why it should be different for me?
But I’m wrong, I’ll concede, you can get your endorphin fix.
Soldato
If you find I've made a factual error anywhere, please do let me know so that I can correct it.