Perhaps the poor we shall always have with us, but that does not mean we have to have any poor neighborhoods. ISTM that it is not good for poor people to live next door only to other poor people. Kids who grow up in that environment learn bad habits and a poverty-mindset. If we provide subsidized housing for the poor, better it should be built in non-poor neighborhoods and scattered around, not warehousing them all in one or two skyscrapers.
The projects were a big failure, I find it hard to believe anything could be worse than them but I’d love to see some studies since I know I only have anecdotes.
Why disperse the poor and take from them what is probably their greatest possessions-their friends and family? Why not disperse the rich? They are already accustomed to travel and trying new things and have the ability to visit old friends if they feel the need. Stick a couple millionaires in the projects and see how fast things improve.
This cuts to the heart of the matter. You think you know what’s best for them. But you don’t. The more the government has interfered with the poor the worse off they get.
As to the OP, it’s a terrible idea. People tend to stoop to the lowest common denominator, not rise to their peers. Putting people from housing projects in good neighborhoods will harm the good neighborhoods without benefiting anyone.
You can’t solve poverty by shuffling people around.
In theory, the idea is sound, I think. Imma speak in stereotypes here; take them with a grain of salt. I do not feel this way about anyone:
Take disadvantaged people - those with no way out, raised by people with no way out, who themselves were raised by people with no way out - and stick them in a community that does all the stereotypical middle class things. Go to work, wash the car, keep up the yard, take value in ownership, responsible, all those things. With luck, the disadvantaged will learn the value of a day’s work, learn how to work towards the things they want, learn responsibility, learn to be middle class. Get them out of the hood, where all they see is the same hood behaviors, show them how to really live, and everything will improve. I definitely see the appeal; it’s alluring. And has very little chance of working.
I live in a first ring suburb of Minneapolis; it constantly fights the encroachment of low-income elements. It’s a cyclical thing: everyone in town will be vigilant and things get better, then they get lax and it does downhill a bit, which causes us all to be vigilant… Right now it seems we’re on a bit of the downhill slide again, and I’d be lying to you if I wasn’t nervous. Simply put: low-income, “urban” elements scare the middle class. Add too much to the middle class neighborhood, and those with the means to do so will leave for whatever they think is more attractive because they perceive a huge loss in value. Leaving those without the means to do so stuck in a self-perpetuating decline. Et voila! New slum. It just doesn’t work - the mindsets are just too far apart, too alien, to simply transfer from one to another.
We’re talking about generational poverty here. There are no easy answers.
Create a negative tax that generates a guaranteed amount of revenue up to a formula-derived poverty level for all persons. The poorer you are then below that level, the more money you get.
Then they can choose for themselves what sort of communities and housing to live in.
Terrible idea, I bet if you took 10 nice houses in well-kept suburban neighborhoods and rented them out to Section 8 folks, 9 of them would be trashed in a year’s time.
Come, now, practically everyone who is not poor thinks that. Including you, I’m sure, at least to the extent of agreeing that a life of crime is not the best path for them to follow – not even if they live in a neighborhood where no young man is safe unless he joins a gang.
If you’re against the dispersal of the poor, then you’re pro-concrete big building with 3rd world quality of life aren’t you? I’d like to know what people who are anti-dispersal think should be done or if we should just write the poor off.
I think most 3rd-world countries are that way because of the people living in them. Moving those people to a 1st-world country won’t turn them into polite, lawn-mowing, non-steal-your-neighbor’s-stuff folks. It’ll just turn the 1st-world country into a new 3rd-world country. Same goes for neighborhoods.
Oh, I’m all for helping them. Maybe we can build a big concrete wall around the ghettos, and then reward those that are smart / motivated enough to get out with a new job, a college scholarship, or a big pile of cash.
I would support a negative income tax, on the condition that the EITC (earned income tax credit) and welfare transfer payments be simultaneously eliminated. The EITC stemmed from the idea of a negative income tax, except that it did not eliminate welfare. Even with a negative income tax you would still have low income individuals and neighborhoods that will be avoided by anyone who has the means to do so.
Individuals being low income is insoluble. What constitutes low income will adjust over time and region.
You said, “Moving those people to a 1st-world country won’t turn them into polite, lawn-mowing, non-steal-your-neighbor’s-stuff folks.” That’s gotta be a whoosh, right? Because if you know anything about American history, then you know that what you are describing always worked before. Sometimes it took a couple of generations, but it always worked. Even the Irish-Americans are civilized now!
