Limits of green case study: Homeless in California?

[Lyubov]

 

 

 

 

So I am doing a bit of contemplation and it seems like homelessness is a systemic issue that is not overcome when there is a stage green majority. Certain societal issues seem to become less prevalent the higher up on the spiral but it doesn't seem like this issue is really solved at green. Perhaps more citizens need to become green in order to solve this issue in California? California is pretty green but also there is a lot of orange there as well. Each systemic issue is unique so I don't think it solely comes down to the spiral level. Is this a case study of the limits of green or is California not green enough to solve it?

[Leo Gura]

Is this really a Green problem? Or an Orange capitalism problem?

California is progressive is some vague cultural sense, but the economy and real-estate is super Orange. Plus Covid has made life more difficult for everyone on the margins.

[Willie]

Location, location, location. Cost of living in all the places shown in the OP is much higher than most of America. I have little doubt some of those homeless people could live well elsewhere.

[aurum]

@Lyubov

It’s not at all a reflection of the limits of Green. California might be fairly progressive, but it still exists on the whole within toxic stage Orange capitalism thinking. More green is what will solve this, not less.

[Woke456]

@aurum @Leo Gura

Actually, it's a LACK of understanding of capitalism that leads to this.  Hollywood has a lot of attractive, competent people attempting to make it on the Big Screen or on the radio.  Before they make it, they have to crowd out the low-skill wage market in the mean time.  And most of them never even get there.

[aurum]

6 hours ago, Woke456 said:

@aurum @Leo Gura

Actually, it's a LACK of understanding of capitalism that leads to this.  Hollywood has a lot of attractive, competent people attempting to make it on the Big Screen or on the radio.  Before they make it, they have to crowd out the low-skill wage market in the mean time.  And most of them never even get there.

All of that is signs of toxic Orange capitalism.

The very fact you have lots of people trying to make it in Hollywood at all is a reflection of an Orange mindset and the systems it produces.

[Danioover9000]

@Lyubov   Really good post. Keep up with posting the limits of stage green, as a pre mortem before getting to stage green is very useful. I'll post some examples too.

and

 Stage green limits on plagiarism and some on cancel culture.

   Stage green's weakness to individuals stage red/blue, able to manipulate and lead a group of stage green people. Unless stage green has integrated stage orange's ability to check and enforce boundaries, stage green is vulnerable to hijack from stage red.

 

 

[Woke456]

53 minutes ago, aurum said:

All of that is signs of toxic Orange capitalism.

The very fact you have lots of people trying to make it in Hollywood at all is a reflection of an Orange mindset and the systems it produces.

Capitalism is fine when you listen to the market.  These people aren't.

[Apparition of Jack]

1 minute ago, Woke456 said:

Capitalism is fine when you listen to the market.  These people aren't.

No lol, the market itself almost by definition leads to abuses. Not everything can be qualified through monetary exchanges alone. Sometimes you gotta bite the bullet and look beyond market mechanisms to make an actual conscious society.

[aurum]

4 minutes ago, Woke456 said:

Capitalism is fine when you listen to the market.  These people aren't.

When I say "toxic stage Orange capitalism", I am referring to much more than markets.

I am talking about a mindset that says "fame is important", and the economics that reward fame.

I'm talking about a monetary system that puts people in competition with each other.

I'm talking about tax dodging that leads to governments not being able to afford social services without increasing the debt.

I'm talking about a culture that prides itself on individualism.

This is a multi-faceted, complex issue.

Markets are interwoven with all of this. They're just one piece of capitalism, and capitalism is just one piece of stage Orange.

[Lyubov]

14 hours ago, aurum said:

@Lyubov

It’s not at all a reflection of the limits of Green. California might be fairly progressive, but it still exists on the whole within toxic stage Orange capitalism thinking. More green is what will solve this, not less.

Hmm okay, interesting. Yeah I’m starting to see this not necessarily a green issue but still orange at play here. I just wonder if this problem is mostly solved when green has a strong footing or if it still is prevalent. If anything it seems like green handles it better and more compassionately even if it doesn’t solve it. They will hand out food and offer medical care services that drive around. I know in blue society they basically will bulldoze them away and let them freeze in winter.

[Woke456]

 

1 hour ago, aurum said:

When I say "toxic stage Orange capitalism", I am referring to much more than markets.

I am talking about a mindset that says "fame is important", and the economics that reward fame.

I'm talking about a monetary system that puts people in competition with each other.

I'm talking about tax dodging that leads to governments not being able to afford social services without increasing the debt.

I'm talking about a culture that prides itself on individualism.

This is a multi-faceted, complex issue.

Markets are interwoven with all of this. They're just one piece of capitalism, and capitalism is just one piece of stage Orange.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying the individual shouldn't be allowed to buy movies because the Pareto Distribution of the Big Screen makes it so only a small number of Thespians are employed?

[Boethius]

Christopher Rufo's answer to this question is that West Coast cities are applying a very ideologically Green approach to solving the problem of homelessness (throw money at the problem) that does not address the fundamental root causes of homelessness (mental illness and drug addiction). The refusal to address root problems is borne out of a (misguided) desire to avoid "blaming" the homeless for their problems. And the result of all this is an ever increasing homeless population.

I'm not familiar enough with these issues to know how definitive is Rufo's take on the problem, but I do know that a truly compassionate approach to solving homelessness should involve helping people solve their personal problems that led to homelessness in the first place (without blaming/shaming people for these problems, of course).

 

[aurum]

45 minutes ago, Woke456 said:

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying the individual shouldn't be allowed to buy movies because the Pareto Distribution of the Big Screen makes it so only a small number of Thespians are employed?

I don't know if it's exactly a Pareto distribution, but certainly the financial rewards of actors follows some sort of power law.

I wouldn't say individuals shouldn't be allowed to buy movies either. That doesn't solve the problem of why there's such a power law distribution of wealth in the first place. And that sounds like I'm casting some sort of moral judgment against movie purchasers, when I'm not.

What I am saying is that these inequalities are inevitable for a society at a Stage Orange development. They are what push a society towards Green values, which is largely about equality. Green swings the pendulum the other way.

So if you've got a massive inequality problem, like presented in these videos, don't go blaming Greenies. Society actually needs far more Green.

2 hours ago, Lyubov said:

I just wonder if this problem is mostly solved when green has a strong footing or if it still is prevalent. If anything it seems like green handles it better and more compassionately even if it doesn’t solve it. They will hand out food and offer medical care services that drive around.

The problem is that Green people do not exist in a vacuum.

Your consciousness and values may be Green, but they still exist within stage Orange systems and culture. Obviously that is changing, but I still feel our center of gravity is Orange.

So your ability to help people from a Green perspective are limited. They're limited by our systems and the culture.

Which is not to say we should hang it up and not take action. Far from it. But no one is an island separate from the society they exist within.

So in reality, if our society was centered at Green, we'd see much different results.

Look at Finland. They're much more centered at Green and supposedly they just provided universal housing. We'll see if it holds up, but Green is certainly not inherently bad at solving problem. Green has integrated the problem-solving lessons from Orange, but with more heart, compassion and desire for equality.

[Woke456]

3 minutes ago, aurum said:

What I am saying is that these inequalities are inevitable for a society at a Stage Orange development. They are what push a society towards Green values, which is largely about equality.

 

The Pareto distribution means that 80-90% of Thespian income goes to 10-20% of actors.  It's probably more lopsided than that like 99/1.  Same thing with the music industry in that 99.9% of songs uploaded to the Internet aren't even played while Gangnam style has 4 billion views.

I think if we stopped shitting on making money or calling stage orange toxic, a lot of people would go where the market asks them to go instead of demanding equity.  And please allow to point out that you're talking about equity, not equality.  Unforutantely, these two ideas are diametrically opposed.

[JosephKnecht]

On 3/7/2021 at 3:05 AM, Lyubov said:

Each systemic issue is unique so I don't think it solely comes down to the spiral level. Is this a case study of the limits of green or is California not green enough to solve it?

The problem is that the politicians in California are too progressive for their own good. 

Society requires are delicate balance between progressive and conservative values.

When the politicians start living in their own "la-la" progressive land, they get detached from the values that have preserved the state for centuries. 

The side effect of that detachment is homelessness. 

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, JosephKnecht said:

The side effect of that detachment is homelessness. 

I would attribute the CA homelessness problem more toward CA's crazy real estate prices, which are due to CA's popularity as a highly successful and desirable state to live in.

The rent in CA is like 3x that of Nevada, for example. It's not even affordable for me to buy a house there, and I'm rich.

To live well in CA you gotta be more than a millionaire.

Ask yourself this, if CA is such a shitty place, why do so many people move there and want to live there? Despite the recent CA exodus, people have been flocking to CA for the last 50 years because it was such a great and progressive place to live. The progressiveness of CA is part of its appeal. Who the fuck wants to live in Alabama?

Texas is an appealing state because it's way more affordable than CA. But Texas culture is ignorant and backward in many ways. Having lived for a long time in both places, CA culture is way better. Texas feels like a redneck backwater compared to CA. Once I went to a grocery store in Forth Worth and asked them where the capers were. The cashier had no clue what capers were. So she called up her manage to help. The manager had no idea what capers were either. I looked at them like they were Neanderthals and left shaking my head in disbelief.

And it won't take long before Texas real estate prices also skyrocket.

[Lyubov]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I would attribute the CA homelessness problem more toward CA crazy real-estate prices, which are due to CA's popularity as a highly successful and desirable state to live in.

The rent in CA is like 3x that of Nevada, for example. It's not even affordable for me to buy a house there, and I'm rich.

To live well in CA you gotta be a more than a millionaire.

Ask yourself this, if CA is just a shitty place, why do so many people move there and want to live there? Despite the recent CA exodus, people have been flocking to CA for the last 50 years because it was such a great and progressive place to live. The progressiveness of CA is part of its appeal. Who the fuck wants to live in Alabama?

Texas is an appealing state because it's way more affordable than CA. But Texas culture is ignorant and backward in many ways. Having lived for a long time in both places, CA culture is way better. Texas feels like a redneck backwater compared to CA.

I think CA attracts a lot of homeless there as well cause of the weather and liberal culture. I heard that they had some homeless people find their way there cause they would freeze to death if they stayed in some shitty mid-west state. It's really visible though. I wonder why you don't see it as much in NYC for instance. It is there for sure in NYC but it just doesn't stand out like it does in LA. Are there more homeless in LA in general and how do they define homeless as well? What percentage are locals that fell on hard times due to addiction and prices? I know some "traveling kids", those sort of counter culture hippies that play music on the street and are on drugs maybe get counted in the group when they are more so choosing or pretending to be homeless. California just is the perfect place to be homeless too. It's expensive and if you have issues and end up on the street you will be relatively okay compared to some other places where the police will beat you and kick you out of the warm subway during the dead of winter. 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Lyubov

[Leo Gura]

In a conservative state they would probably just arrest all the homeless and put them in a for-profit prison.

Although there are tons of homeless in Austin. You don't see Joe Rogan talking about that.

[Hardkill]

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I would attribute the CA homelessness problem more toward CA's crazy real estate prices, which are due to CA's popularity as a highly successful and desirable state to live in.

The rent in CA is like 3x that of Nevada, for example. It's not even affordable for me to buy a house there, and I'm rich.

To live well in CA you gotta be more than a millionaire.

Ask yourself this, if CA is such a shitty place, why do so many people move there and want to live there? Despite the recent CA exodus, people have been flocking to CA for the last 50 years because it was such a great and progressive place to live. The progressiveness of CA is part of its appeal. Who the fuck wants to live in Alabama?

Texas is an appealing state because it's way more affordable than CA. But Texas culture is ignorant and backward in many ways. Having lived for a long time in both places, CA culture is way better. Texas feels like a redneck backwater compared to CA. Once I went to a grocery store in Forth Worth and asked them where the capers were. The cashier had no clue what capers were. So she called up her manage to help. The manager had no idea what capers were either. I looked at them like they were Neanderthals and left shaking my head in disbelief.

And it won't take long before Texas real estate prices also skyrocket.

I have lived in California with my family for almost two decades now and we have lived in very decent homes in relatively wealthy areas of SoCal. However, I wouldn’t say that my family is exactly rich.