It's a bad poll and you shouldn't base anything on it.

Source?

Yes.

It's not that hard to imagine that the legal system is set up to protect the comfort and careers of the people who have to be in court every day, and not necessarily the 99% of people who are in there for a handful of days - total, across a lifetime - because they had a bad day or two, or were unlucky, or need help that society is as-yet unequipped to give them. It does not surprise me that the letter and spirit of the law have a tough time surviving the practical realities of being administered, day-in-and-day-out, by fallible and self-interested human beings.

I always wonder why other games get this aspect of the marketing so wrong. Controversial take, but I think if they'd had a handful of cinematics out before release (and they hadn't gone with the atrocious sales model), Concord might have had a fighting chance. There was a lot wrong with that game, but its biggest failure was that no one loved it enough to defend it when the hatedom descended. Compare to, say, Marathon: it still may fail, in the end, but it's hung on for as long as it has because, in part, it genuinely charmed; it made an earnest attempt to get people to people to buy into the qualia of the vision of its world.

https://archive.is/ZUR5H

*Hey, remember how Neal Stephenson's last project was writing for a nascent shared sci-fi universe? Did you get a chance to play the visual novel that was its first entry, which was hosted on a crypto project's website? Well, I sure hope you did, because the crypto project rugpulled and took the VN down with it, effectively turning a Neal Stephenson novella into lost media less than a year after its initial release.

(Before anyone says anything, the face that the consumer-friendly vehicle has an endearing "face" is salient.)

On Baby Boomers with paid-off houses: it's admirable that you were responsible, worked hard, bought your house in the 80s or 90s, and paid it off. However, you made that deal when there were 100 million fewer people in this country. That population growth is part of what kept those house payments affordable for you over that period. We are now in a housing crisis; there are not enough rooms to go around. Many houses are underutilized, including yours. From a strictly utilitarian standpoint, the solution would be to increase taxes to reflect the real societal cost of your residence existing as it does; it would be your decision whether to pay the tax, subdivide the house to increase utilization, or sell. This is a form of austerity.

For the yuppies: 99% of the world can make due on less than half your income, in the same city you live in. Your costs are high because your tastes are expensive. A high tax would not ruin you. It would force you to make decisions, some of which might be difficult. Public school instead of private. A cheaper car, and fewer cars. Better-controlled discretionary spending on things such as entertainment, clothing, food. Full-throated support for single-payer healthcare. Your kid will still get a good education, because you are an involved parent. You will still be able to get where you need to, because you will have a working vehicle. You will be more intentional about how you enrich your lift. You will reap the benefits of dismantling America's broken healthcare system and replacing it with something at least as good as what the rest of the developed world can boast. This is also a form of austerity.

You do not solve this problem simply my making poor people's lives harder.

That said, your assessment of the psychology of inflation is correct. It's just inapplicable here. The issue isn't people not understanding how much richer they are, because they're not. It's the intelligentsia and "elite" refusing to acknowledge the reality, because they'd then have to actually make material changes, which would reverse the siphoning of wealth from the middle class that they've been engaging in for at least the last 30 years.