🚀 go-pugleaf

John Kawakami (johnk@crl.com) wrote:
: In article <fringeDxxnM7.540@netcom.com>, fringe@netcom.com (Fringe Ryder)
: wrote:
: > : "These folks have something to lose." That's excatly what the beverly
: > : hills cop told me when he stopped me for driving through a residential area.
: > : No, _we_ don't have anything to lose... all we have are our lives and our
: > : identity.... What do you have?
: > 
: > Well, many of us would be happy to lose you!
: > 
: > We also have security to lose - crime rates are lower in Brentwood/Santa
: > Monica/Beverly Hills.  Try to figure this one out - maybe it's a cultural
: > thing, maybe not, but either way freedom from crime and threat is something
: > they have to lose.

: Well, the city of BH has four times more police per-capita than the city
: of LA.  The cities you mentioned are rich and can afford private security
: patrols, good education, excellent public services, and a hopeful outlook
: for the future.  Factor that stuff in.

You're right - they are "rich".  Factor in the loss of tax revenue as Raul
eagerly drives them away, and that's my point - they will lose their
security.

: > Lack of graffitti is also open to loss.  Although that problem has gone down
: > since Masters shot the stupid taggers.

: Masters didn't have much going on in his head either.

Perhaps not, but graffitti has gone down since then.

: The presence of police deters graffiti.  See above for the possible causal link.

Lots of things deter graffitti, including rain and cold weather, stronger
public morality, better lighting, and killing taggers.


: > As for who is already paying, this is an easy one - the middle and upper
: > class, mostly.  Although the lower-class puts a much larger percent of their
: > income into lottery.

: Well, of course.  If you make $5 an hour, then a lotto ticket is 20% of
: your hourly income.  If you make $20 an hour, the same ticket is 5% of
: it.  And if you make $35 an hour, it's 2.8%.  $50 : 2%.    $150 : .6%.

: But all that ignores what the lotto is promising: economic freedom. 

The lotto is not delivering much economic freedom.  Mathematically, your
chances of success are slim no matter what percent of your income it
represents.  I ahve been dirt poor (or smog poor - I couldn't afford dirt.)
I am no longer, and discipline with what limited money I had helped.  (I
could not have made it if I had kids though, which is a substantial
difference.)  Part of that discipline was NOT playing lotto, not smoking or
drinking, and indeed not buying expensive groceries such as red meat.  That
money went to education, transportation, and appearance, facilitating my
continued move up in the world.  It's a conscious decision and choice.

Which is off the point that L.A. IS in a decline, and the Mexican block
party Raul was lauding is not a sign otherwise.

Regards