General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

P M
Channel 4 News
comments

Comments by "P M" (@pm2886) on "Channel 4 News" channel.

@michaelharrison3602 Exactly. All this kind of help is thoroughly abused - just like welfare. It should be heavily policed. No one who isn't genuinely suffering through no fault of their own, should get a cent. And it really needs to 100% no fault of their own.
20
@navidbutt-inflammationwiza1983 That's the point - people shouldn't be trying to do things alone. They're supposed to have the support of family. We're not meant to lean on Govt - we're meant to lean on each other.
12
 @chickenmadness1732 Poor people shouldn't be living alone. Obviously.
7
So if your salary was out of step with the standard for your job, and your boss offered to increase it to match the going rate, would you refuse because you're 'not greedy'? Or how about you decide to sell your car, but instead of selling it for the going rate, you choose to discount it heavily so as not to be 'greedy'?
5
@jamesdarby3991 Not at all. It's exactly the reality of the claim that landlords are 'greedy' because they stay abreast of the market rate. If you're opposed to that kind of thing, you should be happy to work for less than the going rate. And you should be happy to sell your car for less than it's worth. It's EXACTLY the same as a landlord charging the market rate. Not one bit less 'greedy'. Or rather, none of it is actually greedy. People call it greed when they're at the receiving end, but 'fair' when it's a win for them.
5
We became arrogant, and discarded the old ways. Thought we didn't need to live like peasants, because the Govt would save us. We did it to ourselves, IOW. No Govt can save people determined not to save themselves.
4
 @mariog1051 Because Italian families stick together, and support each other.
4
@kathrinkaefer Fine. Food is expensive, so we grow our own. Housing is expensive, so we paid ours off as fast as possible by living ultra-frugally. Power is expensive so we put in solar before the price went up. Etc etc. It's's been obvious for years, that the cost of living was going to skyrocket. We knew we'd be screwed if we did nothing.
4
No single adult should be occupying an entire residence. THAT'S why there's a housing crisis!
4
@africamilton934 Well of course it's a joke .. if you expect to buy in areas you can't afford. And why would you expect that? If you can't afford to buy in the area, you shouldn't be renting there. You'll never buy if you keep doing that.
4
 @mysterymaverick1982 On the contrary, it's the majority. That's why disabled and elderly people are starving.
3
@julibeswick-valentine3690 Having no social life is a choice, though.
3
@@Haneen-zo6wq Exactly. It's outrageous, what we expect. And this expectation is why there's a housing crisis.
3
BINGO! Families are no longer sticking together, and parents are not supporting their kids long enough for them to gain financial security. It's disgraceful.
3
@jsc2606 And who created those kids?
3
@thesupergreenjudy Your expectations are probably so horribly low because you grew up in an environment where parents ditch their kids at 18. That's PARENTAL failure, not kid failure.
3
@victoriavarzinova9748 You missed the point. Parents are supposed to support their kids to financial independence. That might be at 21, or it might be at 28. You don't kick them out at 18, then watch them struggle for another 15 years, then try and fix it after the fact.
3
@victoriavarzinova9748 You're talking about highly dysfunctional people though. Slackers, or maybe addicts. Let's focus on normal, responsible adult children.
3
@victoriavarzinova9748 You must know them to be selfish assholes, in that case. What if you wanted to study medicine .. which takes about 7 years? What would they do? Kick you out and make that impossible for you?
3
No one is stuck. Nothing is preventing people from leaving but their own circumstances. And that's PERSONAL, not systemic.
3
@aleayh No it isn't. If young people stay at home (rent free, obviously) for the first few years of full time work, they can save most of their income. That easily covers a downpayment - as long as they're not an entitled lunatic and expect to buy in one of the world's most expensive cities .. like LONDON.
3
@brownnomad6805 Well said. Kids have to do what the current economic climate demands. If they don't adapt to the economic conditions, they'll fail. For those who aren't born into money, that means STAYING AT HOME and saving as much money as possible while there's no rent or mortgage to pay. It may be the only time in their lives they can do that, so they have to make it work for them. Push it as far as they can. All decent parents will encourage and support this 100%. To do otherwise, would be to sabotage what may be their child's only chance to build any kind of financial security .. and what kind of parent would do that? One who hates their kid, maybe. Or one who's own 'freedom and comfort' are more important that their childs' welfare.
3
@StillJustD 100%. The vast majority of those who claim to be struggling with housing, are in CITIES! It's insane. It's very difficult to feel anything but contempt for them, given that. You wonder what happened .... after all, we used to accept the realities of our economic status, and didn't expect to have champagne on a beer budget. Now we live in fantasy worlds where we think we can live like the rich, and get angry when it doesn't happen. We even demand that govt fix it for us, so we can live where the rich live. Incredible!
3
Your parents didn't do it, unless they kicked you out at 18. If not, then it's your sense of entitlement to your own private residence, in the most expensive big cities. That's the problem. Too many people believing they're owed premium locations, and far FAR too many people attempting to live alone (thus absorbing many times the amount of housing square feet than they actually need).
2
Public housing was never the answer. It was always a token gesture. And it was always a very bad message to send .. that govt would come to your rescue no matter what. That message was taken way too seriously, by way too many people. The only kind of public housing which actually works to raise people out of poverty (and that should be its only purpose .. it should NOT be a lifetime crutch), is the kind Singapore has. Govt builds the tower blocks, and SELLS the apartments to citizens at cost price - which is around half what they would be on the open market. Even low income earners can afford them.
2
While times are definitely tougher, there are some basic economic rules which need to be followed. ESPECIALLY in tougher times. Don't have kids or pets you can't afford. Don't live alone. Don't live in big cities. Don't have any bad habits - even if it's just fast food. Don't pay for services (hair stylists, nail art, pet grooming, gym, hobbies, tattoos, etc etc). These are obvious, and poor people have always had to live that way. The problem in our rich first world societies, is that we've become used to being able to break those rules and get away with it. We're feeling the effects of that hubris now. When we're not wealthy, we have no business trying to live as though we are. We need to remember how people lived back in the Depression. They shared with extended family, they grew their own vegetables, they cooked from scratch, they 'made good and mended' instead of buying new, they bought a cheap house rather than pay rent (which is much more expensive over a lifetime), they didn't eat out or take holidays .. etc etc.
2
@georgesmith8268 How? Who is forcing you to stay there? Why do you think you have some special rights to the place?
2
@justyouraveragehuman4069 No, it's the other way around. Young people are finally realising that they can't expect to live in big cities on the income of the average 22 year old. They're moving out.
2
@pbc5137 Only if they're immature and selfish. That's a cultural problem of the West. In societies where it's normal for multiple generations to live together, people know how to behave.
2
@hellokittydimaggio Meaning they're normal parents. It's tragic that so few Western parents get that.
2
@brownnomad6805 Exactly. And the good thing is that it's all optional. Those who want financial security will do it. Those who don't care what happens to them, will likely chose otherwise. There are still an awful lot of young people out there who think conditions are the same as they were for their parents - in other words that 18 year olds can 'make it alone' on a minimum wage. It's actually really weird to see young folk so out of touch with what's happening currently. They're normally very across trends - both social and financial. The current youngsters are unusually stuck in the past. You wonder if it's some new brand of 'conservatism', to keep plodding along using the same old methods, long after they stopped working.
2
@deenanthekemoni5567 Dude, it's the Progressive Left who are working for the elites. Remember their motto "You will own NOTHING".
2
You can only ever know what's affordable for YOU. What you think isn't affordable, is affordable to someone else. Ditto what you can afford, won't be affordable to the next person. Thus there's no such thing as 'affordable housing'. There's only what you can afford, personally.
2
Renting is voluntary, therefore no one is being ripped off. If they didn't like the price, or the condition of the house, they wouldn't rent the place. Obviously.
1
Yes. Exactly what we should all be doing. We're thoroughly spoiled though, and now we all expect our own private palace. We brought this on ourselves.
1
Bingo! If people truly didn't like renting (because of the cost), they wouldn't do it.
1
You'd have to assume that anyone spending 70% of their income on rent, REALLY wants to live in a big expensive city, no matter the cost. Like .. wants to live there so badly they're prepared to be impoverished for it. Even to the point of knowingly making themselves a burden on their fellows via a need for public assistance.
1
Exactly. Instead of taking action to ensure they have secure housing, people keep expecting 'affordable housing' in prime locations. It's idiotic. Instead of doing whatever they need to do to afford to house themselves ... whether that means sharing, or living outside the prime locations ... people do nothing.
1
@boyo7918 Yet is doesn't. People aren't doing anything to change their circumstances. They're just whining.
1
They're not being displaced, because they were only ever there 'temporarily'. That's what renting is .. temporary use of someone else's property. Those who choose to rent, know that those are the terms. They know full well that they cannot control how long they'll be there. That's what they sign up for when they sign their lease.
1
Yes. We're spoiled babies, who grew used to the idea that we could each have our own private residence in a location of our choice. Obviously that was a fantasy .. even though it was sort of true for a few decades at the end of last century. This is the consequence of holding on to that ridiculous fantasy.
1
@markm7776 Yes, a huge part of this housing thing is that so many people feel entitled to live in expensive big cities. They can't afford it, but they think they're owed it anyway. It's freaking nuts.
1
@northwestcoast Not at all. Married people statistically do better .. especially in the latter half of life.
1
None of these people should be living alone. It's insanity. Living alone is THE most expensive way to live. Even middle class people can't really afford it - so why on earth do poor people do it? It's like they want to be as poor as possible. It's impossible to understand. Meantime, Govts are never going to save everyone. That should be obvious. We have to save ourselves. Start by not living alone!
1
@django3422 That's because it's irrelevant. When you're destitute, only pragmatics matter. Indulging 'trauma' or anything along those lines, is an indulgence that can't be afforded. To indulge those things, you have to be certain of where your next meal is coming from - and if you're certain of that, you're not destitute. Imagine if all the slum dwellers in India decided that their "trauma" was more important than their security. They'd all be dead of starvation. And guess what else .. none of them live alone! That's where the buck stops. If you're poor, you have no business living alone. Anyone who thinks they have that luxury choice, is clearly either NOT poor, or so arrogant and entitled that they expect others to fund the luxury for them. And yes, believing that your 'lived experience' somehow exempts you, is exactly the kind of privilege thinking that makes you arrogant and entitled.
1
@demonhalo67 Why on earth would you assume you'll break up? Are you dysfunctional? Do you intend to marry someone who's dysfunctional?
1
@KazeHorse Yes ... BEFORE 2000. As in last freaking century. If your expectations are that far out of date, you're in for a rough time.
1
@KazeHorse Yes, a whole generation. 23 years which people have had to adjust their expectations. I'm sorry, but only the most determinedly oblivious could have failed to realise where things were going .. in all that time. The rest have no excuse. They saw, they understood, but they chose to pretend it wouldn't happen to them, and so did nothing. But I don't blame young people for this. I blame their PARENTS. They knew what was happening, and did nothing to prepare their kids for it. They didn't bolster their holdings in order to bequeath property .. knowing how important that was going to be for anyone who isn't rich. They didn't teach their kids how to live collectively to save money. They didn't keep their kids at home rent free until they could buy their own place. They failed to prepare for this .. across the board. And their kids are paying the price.
1
@cliffkonkle3467 Not true at all. You can still buy houses in America for less than $50k. There are still plenty of cheap locations and cheap houses, in most countries .. including the UK.
1
@UdumbaraMusic Only if you mix exclusively with white westerners.
1
@imnottellingyoumyname3050 If the obvious solution is considered 'moronic', it's no wonder we're in so much trouble.
1
It's deliberate. Also, it's not govt's job to house you.
1
 @ecaeas4439 No we freaking don't.
1
 @thaliadrew7642 Welfare is the cause of much of this.
1
@ecaeas4439 Bullshit. You can't be fat and "food insecure". It's made up nonsense to explain away the laziness of people who expect grocery stores to be five minutes away, and all food easy to cook.
1
@ecaeas4439 No one in the First World is starving. We're the fattest people on earth, in fact.
1
@ecaeas4439 Again, it's bullshit. Thorough studies have been done, and they've proven time and time again, that processed and convenience foods are MORE EXPENSIVE than the home cooked version. People buy them because they're too lazy to cook from scratch.
1
@LadyDiamondIsHereNow Sorry, no. No one is starving. "Food insecurity" is bullshit. Almost every person you ever encounter who claims to be food insecure, is overweight.
1
Huh? is right!
1
@navidbutt-inflammationwiza1983 Hopefully more people realise that flying solo is a very expensive way to live. Basically a luxury.
1
@tubecated_development Sure, but there are a LOT of people who aren't profoundly disabled, who should be living with family. They become destitute because they're living alone. In other words living way beyond their means.
1
@julibeswick-valentine3690 So he should be with family. That's how we survive - together. Strength in number.
1
@huflungdung9334 None of us are entitled to 'luxury'. And no one is obliged to be 'miserable' because they don't have luxury. I think it's you who has the problem mindset.
1
Actually selling publicly developed housing to citizens is the very best approach to 'public housing'. It should never be held by govts, and just 'loaned' to people. The whole point is to raise people out of dependence. To empower them to direct their own lives. If you simply allow people to rely on subsidised govt owned housing, you disempower them. You also create a system which is abused by 'resource hogging'. People stay in subsidised places for life, meaning no one else can access that house. If you're being subsidised by the tax payer, you should absolutely NOT get more than a few years. Plenty of time to figure out how to support yourself .. then you move on and let someone else in need have the place.
1
They have roofs over their heads because they're not too spoiled to share. Extended families live together and make it work.
1
@thetimelapseguy8 Not relevant. When you're occupying an entire residence - which means a kitchen and bathroom, at the very least - you're hogging housing. There should be at least three people for every kitchen and bathroom.
1
@paulchan6570 No one has ever 'pursued' apartments. They're an evil necessity in some locations, but no one REALLY wants to live in one.
1
The same reason it's so bad everywhere else in the Western world. We've created societies of entitlement, where we all expect to have our own private residence, in the location of our choice. That was ALWAYS an absurd expectation - but we miraculously got away with it for a few decades at the end of the 20thC, so now we think it's our due. There will never be enough housing to meet such an absurd expectation. Or rather, what housing there is in the prime locations everyone seems to think they're entitled to, will be asorbed wholly by the rich, and by the new migrants who have the sense to live collectively. All these entitled people who are not rich, and yet refuse to live collectively - nor in locations they can afford - will be casualties of their own hubris.
1
@xplodax What sort of parent raises a kid who's jobless and not studying at 18? If you've fucked up that badly, you deserve everything that kid gives you.
1
@thesupergreenjudy You're talking about an extreme though (the 35 year old unemployed person or whatever). This is about normal people, who need support in their 20's while they build education/financial security etc.
1
@nawnaw4709 Bingo!
1
@verucasalt9182 Exactly. Such parents are scum.
1
@victoriavarzinova9748 That's even WORSE. Deliberately making yourself a burden on the state, because you couldn't be assed maintaining a strong and stable family.
1
@scarlettdamante4945 If you have done anything at all to cause your own poverty, then you don't "need" help. Had made choices freely, so you merely "want" help. There's a world of difference. People in genuine need don't make those kinds of choices, obviously. And yes, many people in need ARE innocent. Famine victims, slum dwellers, victims of natural disasters and wars, refugees, orphans, etc etc.
1
@LillyC-j5o If we all looked after number one, this wouldn't be happening.
1
@scarlettdamante4945 Exactly. And morally, no one who has contributed to their own poverty has any business asking others to support them. If they made the choice to gamble/do drugs/smoke/drink/live alone/live beyond their means/get divorced four times or whatever, then clearly they were not concerned about their finances. That means they're the kind of person who will do whatever they want, then expect others to clean up after them. Immoral, in other words. And they're not 'mistakes'. Even a child knows that if you spend all your money on 'fun', and don't save any, that things won't go well. They're never unintended consequences. It's just shitty people, not caring.
1
@scarlettdamante4945 I'm not talking about their entire soul, I'm talking about their contribution to their own poverty. And I'm sorry, but victims of circumstances beyond their control (famine, war, natural disaster etc) definitely did not contribute to their own poverty.
1
@unicorntomboy9736 I work with several autistic people. They're medical specialists, earning well over six figures.
1
It's not the job of landlords and govt to take care of you in retirement. You're supposed to plan ahead so that you can take care of yourself.
1
@MrSatnavatron No, it's called profiling. Police do it too. It has nothing to do with racism .. it's statistics based action.
1
That's because it's a psychiatric problem. We should be glad the money is being spent on the root cause.
1
@daniellamcgee4251 It doesn't work like that, unfortunately. A low grade mental illness (like a sub-clinical but still debilitating depression) can't be 'cleared' the way an infection or a bone break can be cleared. Givnen that, ME is more likely an enculturated response to low grade depression. Importantly, ME is something that happens almost exclusively in the First World, meaning it can't be physiological. If it was physiological, rates would be the same all over the world. More importantly, it's rarely seen in people who have no access to support. That's very telling .. because it suggests there's a choice involved. A subconscious choice to be sure, but no less real. If patients mostly only manifest this syndrome when they know they can - because family will do for them, or because they have access to support workers - it proves that there's control over it. The mere fact that those in poor societies, and those who have no access to support, rarely experience this after contracting viruses, tells us so much about the root cause. Having said that, I'm all for further research .. as long as that research isn't not limited by political influence or anti-science social pressure. As long as we refuse to consider all possible root causes, we are obstructing science.
1
@yamomsass1263 So do something else. Buy a house in the city with family. Share.
1
Because for some bizarre reason, we thought that it would stay 1950 forever. That kids could survive alone at age 18.
1
That's the worst possible solution. You can't keep producing more and more housing .. just to satisfy this outrageous expection that every adult will have an entire private residence to themselves. All you'd do is ENTRENCH that expectation .. and at the same time destroy the planet. Besides, it will never end. Every new generation will just expect the same thing, and the entire planet would end up being nothing but buildings. We have to change our expectations. There's more than enough housing to house everyone already .. if we simply stopped being such selfish brats and shared.
1