
Aerial photos reveal the stark divide between rich and poor - JonEllis
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-45257901
======
subsubsub
These sort of photos, while interesting visually, prove nothing and say even
less.

Except that rich people and poor people exist and that if you're a developer
you should be careful where you build lest your new development appear in a
moralizing photographic exhibition.

To be clear, I am not saying inequality does not exist or that there aren't
real problems of disparity of wealth, just that drawing very wide conclusions
from proximity is probably a bad idea.

~~~
zzt
These photos are powerful, and say a lot about inequality in just a handful of
scenes.

The ideal situation would be for everyone to live in functionally identical
dwellings that provide their every need. Somewhat like the world described by
E. M. Forster in The Machine Stops, except without the dystopian aspect of
fully enclosed spaces and unmaintained infrastructure.

Until we reach that pinnacle of human existence, we should all work towards
preventing the majority of the world's population living in poverty. A good
start would be redistributing the ill-gotten wealth of that lucky minority who
lord it over everyone else in a perpetual state of power-hungry me-too
selfishness.

~~~
taneq
> Until we reach that pinnacle of human existence, we should all work towards
> preventing the majority of the world's population living in poverty.

Are talking about absolute or relative poverty? I absolutely agree that no
human should go without food, clean water, shelter, and sanitation. But I
absolutely disagree that a 50" flatscreen TV should be considered a human
right just because Bill Gates has a 200" flatscreen TV.

> A good start would be redistributing the ill-gotten wealth of that lucky
> minority who lord it over everyone else in a perpetual state of power-hungry
> me-too selfishness.

So if you work hard, and are resourceful and inventive, at what point does
your wealth become ill-gotten and subject to redistribution?

~~~
snarfybarfy
Well one good point would be with your death.

Inheriting large fortunes has obviously nothing to do with resourcefulness and
inventiveness.

~~~
taneq
My wealth is mine to do what I want with, including to give it to someone else
(unless you're proposing that wealth be somehow nontransferable?)

Inheritance isn't about the receiver getting something for nothing, it's about
the right of the deceased to have their possessions disposed of as they see
fit.

~~~
snarfybarfy
Why would it only be about one side? Why is it NOT about the reveiver getting
something for free? Why do I have to pay income tax on money I earned by
working all year?

I agree it is morally more complicated on the giver side, but on the taker
side it is fairly clear cut.

On the other hand the giver is dead and why should he have any more rights?

------
21
On a bigger scale, Whole Foods versus Walmart in California:

[https://i2.wp.com/famvin.org/en/files/2013/03/Walmart-and-
Wh...](https://i2.wp.com/famvin.org/en/files/2013/03/Walmart-and-Whole-
Foods.jpg)

~~~
abraham_lincoln
Interesting where the 2 spots that have both a Walmart and Whole Foods.

~~~
fipple
The Mountain View Whole Foods and Walmart are across the street from each
other (along with Target and Trader Joe’s).

~~~
whataboutism
If you aren't familiar with this neighborhood, it is incredibly pedestrian
friendly, not only can you walk to all of those stores, it is located next to
a Caltrain station.

~~~
jchrisa
Pedestrian friendly _for the Bay Area_. It's still a car-strewn wasteland by
most civilized standards. I used to walk to lunch there multiple times a week,
and bike to work a few times a week also. I do not care much for the Bay
Area's suburban form.

~~~
whataboutism
I worked at your old company :-)

------
JoeAltmaier
I'm always confused by these kind of pictures. The 'developed' spaces have
apartment towers and dense construction - many more people appear to live
there per acre. If land is at such a premium (and the towers seem to indicate
this) then how on earth does the shack-dweller afford so much land
(relatively) for their very-much-lower density housing? Sure maybe 20 people
live in a shack, I understand that, but in the same area as half a dozen
shacks you could build an apartment building that houses thousands.

Further by this measure, it appears that there are many, many more apartment
dwellers than shack dwellers. Because shacks are one story tall after all, so
the population density per acre is relatively low.

What am I missing?

~~~
21
Location, location, location.

Price per square m/ft is much lower in the slum than in the gated community.

If you couldn't aford a place in the gated community, would you use that money
to buy a place in the slum? Or would you try elsewhere?

The problem in general is not absolute lack of space for building (except
islands like Japan, ...), but lack of place to build in desirable locations.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
They are across a fence from one another. If land was at a premium, I'd assume
somebody in power would burn the slums and sell the land? That's what I don't
get.

~~~
21
Apparently that happens:

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/mumbais-slums-make-way-for-
luxu...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/mumbais-slums-make-way-for-luxury-
residential-towers-1485259208)

~~~
personlurking
In Brazil as well (as India), though it mostly happened in the 20th century.

------
harshulpandav
This exists probably in all countries. I also don't quite get the message out
of these pictures. Or if it is even a matter which needs to be solved. If it
is, redistribution of wealth is not practical IMO.

~~~
petermcneeley
Let me paraphrase what you said:

"I dont see the problem. If there is a problem I dont know we should solve it.
If there is a problem we shouldnt solve it because its natural. If it is a
problem and we should deal with it we shouldnt use redistribution."

Isnt there a name for this type of reasoning?

~~~
lkbm
Kettle logic:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic)

~~~
r00fus
Why do legal arguments constantly seem to use this method all the time?

~~~
closeparen
Guessing: a defense needs to establish reasonable doubt, not an airtight
theory of the case.

------
mmirate
If this link isn't the kind of boring pure-ideology flamebait that we all hate
so dearly, then I don't know what is.

(cf the overly-impassioned, albeit correct, top-voted comment; and its wholly
equal-and-opposite counterpart)

------
Xcelerate
Not to quite the same degree, but I find it interesting how you can discern
the border of Atherton, CA from the surrounding area just by looking at the
density of trees in the satellite view.

~~~
underwater
The visual difference is almost as pronounced in this view:
[https://binged.it/2wgPj2m](https://binged.it/2wgPj2m) (easier to see in
Bing). The difference being the houses on the "poor" side are multi-million
dollar homes.

------
amelius
How about building a poor-man's house as an extension to a rich-man's house?
That way, the poor man can work for the rich man without travel expenses.

------
modells
In CA, 101 acts as that wall between PA and EPA. The differences are more
subtle: less trees.

[https://goo.gl/maps/c6t8e6dtHbn](https://goo.gl/maps/c6t8e6dtHbn)

Trees are one of the major factors affecting property value. If antifa really
wanted to attack the 1%, they would covertly kill trees around the richest
folks' homes and start fast-food franchises nearby.

~~~
Pulcinella
Antifa is anti-fascist not anti-wealth. The are a lot of leftists who are
both, but they are not the same thing. Antifa groups don’t protest Republican
political rally’s, for example.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Antifa isn't any more "anti-fascist" than the People's Democratic Republic of
(North) Korea is a "democratic republic", or than old-school _Pravda_
contained truth.

They are violent communists.

P.S. there haven't been any real fascists for, like, 70 years. So, mission
accomplished then?

~~~
v_lisivka
Wikipedia: Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian
ultranationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible
suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the
economy,[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

Putin? Dictatorial power: yes, suppression of opposition: yes, forcible
regimentation of society and of the economy: yes, radical ultranationalism:
yes.

~~~
Turing_Machine
I have not noticed any "antifa" "protests" in Moscow, have you?

Wikipedia is a poor source for such definitions, by the way. It reflects the
political agenda of the last person to edit the page.

In _fact_ , fascism (and national socialism in general) are heresies of
socialism. Fascists are only "on the right" if you're Stalin. Fascism and
communism have far more commonalities than they have differences.

For example, Mussolini was a high official in the Italian Socialist party
until he broke with the "international" socialists during WWI, and switched to
his own brand of "national" socialism.

Neither type of socialism has much in common with the classical liberalism
that has historically been the guiding philosophy of the United States.

In practice, "fascist" today appears to simply mean "someone who isn't a
communist".

