This is a list of notable tent cities. Notice how many of them are not in large metro areas. The one here isn't even a notable one because there are only around 2000 homeless people here.
Here's the major difference: we're not just talking about tent cities. You specifically said those were people with full-time jobs that couldn't afford living quarters.
Can you prove that the tent cities outside of major cities are primarily occupied by full-time workers?
There you go moving goalposts and trying to distort reality. This is why I don't trust you.
Then there is no discussion. My argument ever since your reply has been that the phenomenon that you pointed out can only happen in major cities: people working full-time but can't afford living quarters.
Yeah, of course a homeless person without a job needs more money. I'm not referring to them because there's honestly no point to. You knew I wasn't referring to them, which is why you had to specify some of the people there were working full-time jobs.
I'm referring to the people working jobs who feel they should get paid more while people around the world work harder for less. Those are the ones I do not take seriously.
You, the liar that you are, posted a picture of people living in tents then said some of them have full-time jobs? How much is some? And to those some, I am specifically referring that their money would go further outside of major cities.
Anyways. This entire argument is in bad faith. I can tell you're the kind of person who thinks more money is the solution to all working class problems. It isn't.
I was responding to this:
How about you stop asking me questions or pretending to be confused so I don't have any further explanations to give?
Are you going to reply to this and be like "why are you still continuing"? Lol.
This is a list of notable tent cities. Notice how many of them are not in large metro areas. The one here isn't even a notable one because there are only around 2000 homeless people here.
Here's the major difference: we're not just talking about tent cities. You specifically said those were people with full-time jobs that couldn't afford living quarters.
Can you prove that the tent cities outside of major cities are primarily occupied by full-time workers?
There you go moving goalposts and trying to distort reality. This is why I don't trust you.
Primarily occupied? No. Because I never made that claim. Feel free to quote me. Since, you know, I'm the liar here.
Then there is no discussion. My argument ever since your reply has been that the phenomenon that you pointed out can only happen in major cities: people working full-time but can't afford living quarters.
Yeah, of course a homeless person without a job needs more money. I'm not referring to them because there's honestly no point to. You knew I wasn't referring to them, which is why you had to specify some of the people there were working full-time jobs.
I'm referring to the people working jobs who feel they should get paid more while people around the world work harder for less. Those are the ones I do not take seriously.
You, the liar that you are, posted a picture of people living in tents then said some of them have full-time jobs? How much is some? And to those some, I am specifically referring that their money would go further outside of major cities.
Anyways. This entire argument is in bad faith. I can tell you're the kind of person who thinks more money is the solution to all working class problems. It isn't.
Gonna block you now.
None of that was a quote. Hmm…