More evidence that the gig economy is actually making people poorer

[Zzzz1]

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.

Sure, housing in HK is tough, actually even what's considered good housing there is cramped and ugly by most of the western world standard, but housing is also heavily subsidised, not sure how a local end up living in a cage (I actually found some answer to that reading the article, still i suspect if a local ends up in such an accomodation he messed up seriously along the way ).
As of retiring in Germany or France, Nothing wrong with that but this is not a free of tax all benefits proposition, move back there while having sizeable assets and living off capital gains and/or dividends and one will still pay much more taxes than the average population, even moreso in France with the wealth tax, and if one comes back with a comfortable pension from an overseas career in finance he still has to pay income tax.
If the guy is broke upon returning, yeah, it is mostly benefits, better than moving back to the US I suspect, but still poverty.

 

[Zzzz1]

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.

Suppose you are a banker and earn 10MM Euros in HK. You pay 1.5MM in taxes and net 8.5MM Euros. If you go back to France, do you get taxed on the 8.5MM (or 10MM) or just on the income that 8.5MM produces?

 

[Zzzz1]

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.

But my "hypothetical" banker would have access to French health care, etc when he came back and would have only paid the govt like 100k and saved like 2MM. After that he would be taxed on his gains like he would have in the first place.

I'm glad zzzzz1 won't be doing that since he doesn't like progressive taxes when he is in his earning stage of life, but didn't mind it so much when he was in college.

 

[Zzzz1]

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.

You know I don't disagree with most of what you are saying in this thread but on this point you are completely biased by your station in life.

Not everyone and I'd argue less and less people care about a mortgage, car loan, credit cards and etc. It's telling of the worldview of those who think throwing more money at a situation will somehow solve it.

 

[jj90]

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.

 

[Zzzz1]

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.

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.

 

[CyJackX]

We have to stop thinking with the mindset to want to make everything equal. This world is not equal, people are not equal, motivations and efforts are not equal. I believe the only equal thing we should strive for are equal opportunities. As a sort of equalizer for all the inequality. That's my steadfast belief.

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?

 

[Zzzz1]

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 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?

 

[CyJackX]

What hamstrings the poor is lack of access to opportunities. We should never subsidize the poor, it achieves no purpose. What we should work on is to provide them with equal opportunities, and I provided many suggestions in the work place that would achieve that. Furthermore, the educational system in the US has to be completely restructured if the will is there (I know the will is not there) to provide equal opportunities. Just as in Japan or Germany or many European countries, we need to stop to worship private education. All education shall be equal. That means, whether a poor or rich person enters the educational system will have zero bearing on their future prospects and opportunities. That is how it works in Japan, in Scandinavia, in Germany. The poorest of the poorest can enter university virtually free of charge. That is what provides equal opportunities.

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?

 

[Michael J. Fletcher]

To do what? Freelance website developer? Wow. I am sure that pays for the mortgage, car loan, credit cards, education for the kids, health insurance.

I don't think so. As long as people are favored for jobs because of their social background and network rather than purely based on merits you will have a class society and the poor get poorer and rich get richer.

People with "poor" mindset will always get poorer. If you have a goal you can always make it, especially in the U.S.