Shocking Photos of Cramped Hong Kong Apartments

[Awesome]

Just because I understand those driving points does not mean I agree and approve of them being the basis for a socialist/communist society.

Do I feel any shame in living in such a home? Absolutely not. When the builders constructed my house, they did not rob materials and space from anyone in China, India, or Africa.

Do I feel any shame in eating dry aged prime rib steaks a couple times a week? Absolutely not. Those are American cattle fed/raised by American ranchers on American soil, and they did not rob anyone anywhere in the world of their livestock.

The demand for equal distribution of wealth is based on petty jealousy. I have no problems with anyone laboring just enough to get by. But if that person demands that I allow him the freedom to labor just enough to get by with the bare minimum necessities for HIS life, then it is only fair that he understand that I have the equal right to labor harder than him so I live in ways that I see fit for MY life.

There is life in general, then there is MY life and YOUR life. To date, there are only two successful communist/dictatorship societies: The Family and The Monastery.

In The Family, there is an absolute need for a benevolent dictatorship -- the parents -- because children are too physically and intellectually weak to fend for themselves. They do not contribute equally, therefore they do not share equal distribution of wealth. This is what the Soviet Union and China tried to do with The Communist Party being that benevolent parent/dictator. We know what a disaster that experiment was.

In The Monastery, we have the ideals that Marx was pining for where vows of poverty are VOLUNTARY and the needs of others override one's own. Basically, if everyone look out for his fellow man, then no one would be neglected. But this self sacrificial attitude must be internally compelled and can never be externally forced.

If I want for MY life items A, B, and C, that is my burden to earn, while if you want for YOUR life items X, Y, and Z, that is your burden to earn. This is something that communists have a difficult time accepting or even understanding. The more hypocritical ones among them uses Marxism to enrich themselves at the expense of his fellow men. Look at how communist leaders always live in those supposedly "worker's paradise", larger homes, fancier cars, and the best capital of all, political capital. The result is that those leaders live in Western derived luxuries while their citizens struggles to get even poor toilet paper.

The greatest evil inflicted upon modern mankind is communism (not Marxism) and the greatest hypocrite to date is the communist.

As long as the issue is labor vs labor I can agree with you. But the issues here are more opportunity vs opportunity.

I'm a guy who can't live without air conditioning. In Pakistan due to the power crisis air conditioning is hardly ever available in most homes.

There can be a guy who is more educated than me, more of a hard worker than me. But hes getting squat, but since my father was in UAE around the time of my birth, I got to settle in the UAE. Got my UAE education, got my UAE jobs, got to enjoy UAE's lack of power probles.

Rich get richer, poor people get poorer... Right now I'm living in a bigger house than what my father put over my head. I've done nothing special in my life, just went through the motions. Why am I more special than my counterpart in Pakistan?

 

[gambit]

As long as the issue is labor vs labor I can agree with you. But the issues here are more opportunity vs opportunity.

I'm a guy who can't live without air conditioning. In Pakistan due to the power crisis air conditioning is hardly ever available in most homes.

There can be a guy who is more educated than me, more of a hard worker than me. But hes getting squat, but since my father was in UAE around the time of my birth, I got to settle in the UAE. Got my UAE education, got my UAE jobs, got to enjoy UAE's lack of power probles.

Rich get richer, poor people get poorer... Right now I'm living in a bigger house than what my father put over my head. I've done nothing special in my life, just went through the motions. Why am I more special than my counterpart in Pakistan?

The definition of 'opportunity' is: a favorable juncture of circumstances.

Opportunity can come from planning and/or fortune. If your father left you one million rupee, that is an opportunity from fortune. If your father labored to give you chance at an education he did not have, that is an opportunity from planning. If the goal is a Ferrari, you can buy the car with the one million rupee or get that education and get a good job, then buy that Ferrari. So essentially an opportunity is an opening -- that favorable juncture of circumstances -- that either planning or fortune laid in front for you to exploit towards a goal. Of course, YOU being at the right place at the right time is necessary for you to have that opportunity. Your father is not likely to leave his one million rupee to or labor to provide education funds for someone else's child, correct?

So outside of the family circle, what can society do to ensure that everyone have an equal chance at the many opportunities available? Can the government say: 'Every legal adult will have one million dollars on the day he/she turn 18 yrs old. Whatever the person does with it is his/her business.' ? Absolutely the government can be such 'sugar daddy'. But is the government MORALLY OBLIGATED to do so? I can argue 'No' but you can argue 'Yes' and the level of moral obligations by the government, aka 'society', have been the crux of many debates regarding equal opportunity, if not equal wealth, in trying to create a just society.

That is why since the founding of the US, people have been working their hardest to get to the US. No, we are not perfect. We are far from it. But what the US have been good at -- if not perfect at -- is providing as equal opportunities as possible in this imperfect world. It is not difficult to find where we have erred: Blacks in America will be the first to tell you how unequal are the opportunities in the US. But those errors and deviations did not negate the basic idea that the government main responsibility is to ensure equal opportunities, if not equal wealth, and how a person exploit that opening is none of the government's business. Those errors and deviations are failures and/or refusals in execution.

That is why I have a problem with any argument using the word 'distribution' as if somehow wealth is a finite quantity and economics is a zero sum contest between individuals and countries. Two workers in different companies are paid $1000 each. If worker A get a $100 raise to $1100, that does not mean worker B lost $100 to $900. That is what the word 'distribution' and zero sum argument really mean.

People either confuse or deceive with 'wealth' and 'budget'. A company can have an estimated wealth of $1,000,000 but a budget between all depts of only $500,000. Wealth can be unlimited but a budget is always a finite quantity. So in this case, workers A and B inside the same company can experience that net gain/loss in salary in a zero sum situation. But no sane company will do that. It will go out of business quick because either no one would care to work there or would not work there for long.

Same thing with countries. A country's wealth can be unlimited and governmental policies can have direct effects on opportunities for all citizens. The government can impose salary limits to everyone, can limit or even eliminate private property, can impose laws on how people can spend whatever money they have, and so on. The more you argue the government is morally obligated to do this and that, the more power you give to the government to intrude into your lives IN SUPPORT OF THOSE MORAL OBLIGATIONS.

The result is we have in the world UNEQUAL LEVELS of freedoms among all the countries and along with that inequality of freedoms we have UNEQUAL LEVELS, not inequitable distribution, of wealth among all the countries. You just had an opportunity that you exploited in a different country with a different set of values.

American way of living just sucks the worlds resources dry,...

Really...??? You know the exact amount/levels of global resources, from energy to food, to credibly support that argument?

 

[RazPaK]

The definition of 'opportunity' is: a favorable juncture of circumstances.

Opportunity can come from planning and/or fortune. If your father left you one million rupee, that is an opportunity from fortune. If your father labored to give you chance at an education he did not have, that is an opportunity from planning. If the goal is a Ferrari, you can buy the car with the one million rupee or get that education and get a good job, then buy that Ferrari. So essentially an opportunity is an opening -- that favorable juncture of circumstances -- that either planning or fortune laid in front for you to exploit towards a goal. Of course, YOU being at the right place at the right time is necessary for you to have that opportunity. Your father is not likely to leave his one million rupee to or labor to provide education funds for someone else's child, correct?

So outside of the family circle, what can society do to ensure that everyone have an equal chance at the many opportunities available? Can the government say: 'Every legal adult will have one million dollars on the day he/she turn 18 yrs old. Whatever the person does with it is his/her business.' ? Absolutely the government can be such 'sugar daddy'. But is the government MORALLY OBLIGATED to do so? I can argue 'No' but you can argue 'Yes' and the level of moral obligations by the government, aka 'society', have been the crux of many debates regarding equal opportunity, if not equal wealth, in trying to create a just society.

That is why since the founding of the US, people have been working their hardest to get to the US. No, we are not perfect. We are far from it. But what the US have been good at -- if not perfect at -- is providing as equal opportunities as possible in this imperfect world. It is not difficult to find where we have erred: Blacks in America will be the first to tell you how unequal are the opportunities in the US. But those errors and deviations did not negate the basic idea that the government main responsibility is to ensure equal opportunities, if not equal wealth, and how a person exploit that opening is none of the government's business. Those errors and deviations are failures and/or refusals in execution.

That is why I have a problem with any argument using the word 'distribution' as if somehow wealth is a finite quantity and economics is a zero sum contest between individuals and countries. Two workers in different companies are paid $1000 each. If worker A get a $100 raise to $1100, that does not mean worker B lost $100 to $900. That is what the word 'distribution' and zero sum argument really mean.

People either confuse or deceive with 'wealth' and 'budget'. A company can have an estimated wealth of $1,000,000 but a budget between all depts of only $500,000. Wealth can be unlimited but a budget is always a finite quantity. So in this case, workers A and B inside the same company can experience that net gain/loss in salary in a zero sum situation. But no sane company will do that. It will go out of business quick because either no one would care to work there or would not work there for long.

Same thing with countries. A country's wealth can be unlimited and governmental policies can have direct effects on opportunities for all citizens. The government can impose salary limits to everyone, can limit or even eliminate private property, can impose laws on how people can spend whatever money they have, and so on. The more you argue the government is morally obligated to do this and that, the more power you give to the government to intrude into your lives IN SUPPORT OF THOSE MORAL OBLIGATIONS.

The result is we have in the world UNEQUAL LEVELS of freedoms among all the countries and along with that inequality of freedoms we have UNEQUAL LEVELS, not inequitable distribution, of wealth among all the countries. You just had an opportunity that you exploited in a different country with a different set of values.

Basically sometimes life just kicks you in the nuts.

 

[Anonymous user]

Really...??? You know the exact amount/levels of global resources, from energy to food, to credibly support that argument?

Not sure what support you;re seeking unless you're suggesting that a finite resource can support an infinite increase of usage? Can this world support an SUV for every man woman and child on the planet?

 

[eddieInUK]

Even in America there is poverty.

And I don't think corruption in China compares to corruption in Pakistan. We have it a lot worse.

According to Transparent International, China is slightly better than Pak, but we are nowhere near to a clean country. Corruption still remains as a major problem in China.
I think, not for sure, corruption is more general is Pak and India, but China when officers in Govt have power, he might be more corrupted than the same position holder in Pak and India.
You will not find police charge people on street or in the airport, I have never seen or heard this kind of case. In other words, I think, bigger guys in China might be more corrupted than bigger guys in South Asian, small government staff are less corrupted than small ones in South Asian. I cant say for sure but I feel so.
No offensive on other countries, China is corrupted in a somehow different way. But corruption is corruption.

I took the info from a report showed on German TV, no offence.

Europe takes more care on poor with a high tax schema, in HK, tax is very low. I think the public housing schema is better than US poverty service system, but not near to Europe. But of course, high social welfare system in EU brought a trouble to south Europe countries.

 

[eddieInUK]

since when?

In 2002, the Indian guy purchased two properties in Beijing, one is a house one is a shop, which is a very wise decision. The price increased a lot now.

 

[Mian H Amin.]

dear brother, i am sorry but i didnt mean to offend you. but growing population is actually a big issue which need to be addressed.

 

[gambit]

Not sure what support you;re seeking unless you're suggesting that a finite resource can support an infinite increase of usage? Can this world support an SUV for every man woman and child on the planet?

YOU are the one implied that you know that there is a finite amount of resource in this world, so the burden is upon you to support your charge that the American lifestyle is 'draining' global resources.

But it looks like you have a problem with critical thinking...

If you have $1,000,000 and you spend only one dollar a year, how long would it take you to spend that finite amount of resource? One million years? How about you spend $2 a year? Or $5 a year? Or $100 a year?

Take oil for example...

It is very easy for gullible people like you to spout generalities about oil resource and that the US is 'draining' that finite resource, as if somehow the US robs other people to support our lifestyle, without one shred of credible arguments regarding whether the world have one million or one trillion or one hundred trillion barrels of oil, and that every country in the world is using a percentage of that finite quantity.

Say that God came and revealed that there is one trillion barrels of oil in the world. A definitive figure of a finite resource. Here is global oil consumption...

World Crude Oil Consumption by Year (Thousand Barrels per Day)

Say that the US uses %50 more than all the other countries combined based upon 2010 figures. How long will it take the world to use all of that one trillion barrels?

With people like you, even if the US go all nuclear to heat our homes, cook our food, and charge our electric cars, you would still find some ways to say that we are using up all the world's atoms.

 

[Anonymous user]

YOU are the one implied that you know that there is a finite amount of resource in this world, so the burden is upon you to support your charge that the American lifestyle is 'draining' global resources.

But it looks like you have a problem with critical thinking...

If you have $1,000,000 and you spend only one dollar a year, how long would it take you to spend that finite amount of resource? One million years? How about you spend $2 a year? Or $5 a year? Or $100 a year?

Take oil for example...

It is very easy for gullible people like you to spout generalities about oil resource and that the US is 'draining' that finite resource, as if somehow the US robs other people to support our lifestyle, without one shred of credible arguments regarding whether the world have one million or one trillion or one hundred trillion barrels of oil, and that every country in the world is using a percentage of that finite quantity.

Say that God came and revealed that there is one trillion barrels of oil in the world. A definitive figure of a finite resource. Here is global oil consumption...

World Crude Oil Consumption by Year (Thousand Barrels per Day)

Say that the US uses %50 more than all the other countries combined based upon 2010 figures. How long will it take the world to use all of that one trillion barrels?

With people like you, even if the US go all nuclear to heat our homes, cook our food, and charge our electric cars, you would still find some ways to say that we are using up all the world's atoms.

A finite resource is a finite resource, its well known and I don't have to prove anything. If you here come to challenge that the world has an infinite resource then its down to you to prove it not me. Anything else you argue about is moot point.

Simply turning it around to argue about rate of depletion does not counter the fact that the world resource are finite, but if you must go back to my early argument about everyone living the American way of life.

You are saying I am against American way of life, that's not true I said everyone living that way of life will suck the world dry of resources. The rest of us are subsidizing it.

And yes everyone is aware of alternate sources of oil at the moment, shale oil, tar sands, shale gas etc. What has yet to be proven is if they can replace the current conventional oil, so unless proven its not even worth mentioning.

Can the world support an SUV for every man woman and child on earth, if you believe the resources are infinite then you must have a yes for this question. How many tires would it take to fill that order I wonder.

If America was really self sustaining then of course it will not be an issue (be it nuclear or fart gas) but we all know that's not really the case is it?

Unless I am wrong and it is, if so maybe you should run for president and turn back the trade deficit.

 

[gambit]

A finite resource is a finite resource, its well known and I don't have to prove anything.

When you said that the American lifestyle '...sucks the worlds resources dry...' you are implying that you know the exact amounts of those finite resources. There are plenty of swimming pools in the US, probably more than any other country. So are we denying water to Africa for our swimming pools? One liter of water or one barrel of oil, each is a finite resource and we know the exact quantities: one liter and one barrel. So in order for US to 'sucks the worlds resources dry' you have to prove percentage of US consumption of those resources, from food to water to oil to nuclear atoms, to known quantities of those resources, not to what other countries consume.

If you here come to challenge that the world has an infinite resource then its down to you to prove it not me. Anything else you argue about is moot point.

Nonsense. Nowhere did I say that we have infinite resources in the world. If anything, am willing to concede there are finite amounts of many of them. But the issue is US consumption in percentages of known quantities in order for you to say that we are in excess and denying others the use of those resources, not US consumption compares to others' consumption.

Simply turning it around to argue about rate of depletion does not counter the fact that the world resource are finite, but if you must go back to my early argument about everyone living the American way of life.

Fine.

Say that there is $1,000,000 for you and I. Say that each one of us spending $100/yr and lives good on that amount. That is a total of $200/yr. How long will it take to use up one million dollars? Remember, one million dollars is a finite resource. Consumption or rate of depletion is $200/yr. How long will it take both of us to use up that one million dollars?

You are saying I am against American way of life, that's not true I said everyone living that way of life will suck the world dry of resources. The rest of us are subsidizing it.

That is absurd. How is the rest of the world subsidizing our lifestyle? Is Africa feeding US so they can starve? You are good at rhetoric but not in critical thinking. Too bad that there are too many of your kind.

And yes everyone is aware of alternate sources of oil at the moment, shale oil, tar sands, shale gas etc. What has yet to be proven is if they can replace the current conventional oil, so unless proven its not even worth mentioning.

But shale oil is proven. The US is on the way to beating Saudi Arabia as an exporter.

Can the world support an SUV for every man woman and child on earth, if you believe the resources are infinite then you must have a yes for this question. How many tires would it take to fill that order I wonder.

I have no problem believing the world has finite resources. However, I have problems believing that anyone besides God knowing EXACTLY the amount. Apparently, you are God?

If America was really self sustaining then of course it will not be an issue (be it nuclear or fart gas) but we all know that's not really the case is it?

Unless I am wrong and it is, if so maybe you should run for president and turn back the trade deficit.

Meaningless drivel.

 

[indiatester]

^^^
This reminds me of Simon–Ehrlich wager!

 

[shuttler]

dear brother, i am sorry but i didnt mean to offend you. but growing population is actually a big issue which need to be addressed.

No worries Bro!

In 2002, the Indian guy purchased two properties in Beijing, one is a house one is a shop, which is a very wise decision. The price increased a lot now.

He should have made some very good profits before the restriction on purchase is enacted.

 

[cirr]

It says that HK is one of the richest and most expensive area in the world。

It reminds me of the days when a bloomroom in an apartment in London's Knightsbridge sold for 200，000 sterling pounds。

 

[Green Bullet]

Actually most of these people who live in such conditions come from Mainland China, because they want to find a much better life earning more money. However when they arrive, things become much more different, because they are frowned upon by the Hong Kong people....which very pisses me off because they have attitude of superiority over Mainland. I hope this posts did not offend my Chinese friends but this is the experience that I have gathered my self, and the blatant discrimination felt by my personal Chinese friends from Beijing, Dalian, Chengdu, Yunnan and Shangdong. This is not the fault of the CCP but the inefficient Hong Kong government who is ignoring this problem.

 

[S10]

Population control is purely a political issue.

I came from before the Internet, that would be 'pre-historic' to you. I once read that the world's entire population can be fitted inside the Grand Canyon (US) and each person would have a 3x3x3 meters cube for living space. Now see if you can figure out why population control is purely political in scope.

What is the land area needed to grow food for the population? How much resources are needed to ensure they have proper living amenities, access to education and healthcare? How about employment in order for people to earn an income?

Apparently in your world humans can be fit into a 3X3X3 meters cube and left without support.