The city that eliminated poverty, and everyone forgot about it

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jnpy!$4g3cwk, Jan 2, 2015.

  1. jnpy!$4g3cwk, Jan 2, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2015

    jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #1
    An interesting social experiment. Executive summary: negative income tax/mincome actually can work:




    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/30/city-eliminated-poverty-mincome_n_6392126.html

    I'm not sure how this could be translated to the current world of massive human mobility. To some extent, it implicitly assumes that people mostly stay where they are. But, it is an interesting data point.
     
  2. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #2
    If they had truly eliminated poverty, the good times should have continued even after the free money from the government stopped.
     
  3. chabig macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    #3
    Good point. To piggyback on that, everyone should keep in mind that the poverty level is politically defined. To reduce poverty, all the politicians need to do is reduce the income level that defines it. In the same way, politicians can easily reduce the crime rate to zero simply by making everything legal.
     
  4. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #4
    The wikithing article on the "Mincome" experiment says that analysis of the data indicates it seemed to have overall net-positive effects. Reduced economic pressures led to mothers (especially single mothers) working less, in order to spend more time with their children. Teenagers were more likely to graduate because they could stay in school. And there were less visits to the doctor – especially the shrink.

    Which seems to suggest that the structure of our system is making more people worn out, stupid, ill and/or crazy.
     
  5. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #5
    depends on how you live your life. we have lived on a single income for plenty of years, YES IT'S HARD. drove my 95 Altima for a few years, took me forever to get a new car and when bills came due, all the "hobbies" got sold/traded ETC.
    my kids are good, both Hispanics, both with no criminal record, daughter bumped up her GPA to 3.8, is 15, still has her natural eyebrows (no sharpie for her) and is not pregos, son works 8-10 hour days and is happy. wife did a great ***yob*****with BOTH of them. yeah, I don't know the meaning of going on "vacation" because I have no money for such things, but over all, I am happy that SHE stayed home to RAISE them as best as it could be done.

    I work m-f and do uber on the weekends, no complaints, my wife & kids are good.
     
  6. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #6
    No, the analysis does not apply to how you live your life, it is amalgamated. Overall, for the city as a whole, the reduction in economic pressure was on balance beneficial to people in general. No edge-case specifics matter. Not everyone can be a paragon like you.
     
  7. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #7
    but everyone can expect a hand out if things don't work out?

    who paid for the study? what was the cost? how would trying to implement this on a grand scale work out? why did the study only last 5 years?

    EDIT,
    I am no where near a "paragon", I just don't expect others to pay for MY mistakes .
     
  8. jnpy!$4g3cwk thread starter macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #8
    I don't follow you. Some people slip into poverty every year unless something, such as this program, ameliorates it.

    However, the good effects of the program did, in fact, reach far into the future. Read the article.

    You are correct. jkcerda and others' anecdotes are examples of the Fallacy of Composition, covered in the first chapter of an Econ 1A textbook.

    Many of these questions are actually mentioned/answered in the article. Did you read it?

    However, this: "how would trying to implement this on a grand scale work out?" is an unanswered question. It never has been, although politicians and economists have discussed it. As I mentioned in my original post, the experiment took place in a world in which people did not move from one place to the other so easily. It isn't clear how to implement such a thing in today's (highly mobile) world. That doesn't mean that it wasn't an interesting experiment, however. One result was that many (poor) participants behaved quite rationally. Which is not what today's "austerians" seem to want to hear.
     
  9. samiwas macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #9
    This is what I got out of this:

    "I work 5 days a week, then have to do extra work on the weekends in order to make ends meet. We haven't taken a vacation in years and had to get rid of all of our hobbies. I work and work, all for nothing. Instead of finding ways to make society collectively better for everyone, I want everyone else to be as miserable so they can feel it like I did."

    You say no complaints after essentially complaining. Had to sell all your hobbies. Can't take vacations. It's hard. Had to drive an old car. But these are all apparently positive things?
     
  10. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #10
    Wife is not in great shape health wise. But BOTH my kids are doing pretty good . Selling guns because unexpected bills come through is not the end of the world . Things are not that hard and no vacations (visiting in laws does not count) is not the end of the world . Daughter is looking at college and I'll have to figure out a way to get her there. , all things considered I am ok.
     
  11. samiwas macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #11
    Trust me, I get it. We have a special needs child and my wife can't work since she has to deal with everything for him. Taking on an extra $20,000 in bills in a year coupled with the loss of one income has been devastating. But I'm not pretending that everything's awesome just so I can keep everyone else down.
     
  12. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #12
    My apologies if it at all seems like I am trying to keep anyone down . Things somewhat got easy for me, I was pretty much on a single income since I got married. Wife worked here & there part time. Her wages never justified her getting full time employment so we could hire a nanny . I have couples break because of the financial burden some end up with, I never got in that much trouble , no budget/credit or other burden that nailed me that bad. Hope things get better for you
     
  13. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #13
    Huh. I get it, and I do not get it. When I was that age, my parents did not offer to help me get to college, and I did not expect them to. We were middle class, not poor, but there was a sort of prevailing ethos, in my greater family and among most of the people I knew: if you wanted to go to college, it was on you.

    I understand that you want the best for your daughter, but the idea that you should be trying to find a way to get her into college just somehow seems alien to me.
     
  14. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #14
    We are not that far off. I'm taking her to CC, just like I took my son, staying in CC or upgrading to an action college/university will be on them. Happy to give them a ride. Tuition/books is their end.
     
  15. macquariumguy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Sarasota FL
    #15
    It was much the same for me, but in fairness college prices have risen much, much faster than incomes. What was reasonable for a college kid to accomplish on his own in the 60s and 70s is much more difficult now.

    If I had a college aged child now, I would be looking at how they could avoid graduating with 10 or 20 years worth of student loan debt.
     
  16. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    Honestly I see it as lucky, there was no mention of serious illness, or any other problem that can completely ruin your life when there isn't a system of social welfare to catch you.

    I'm glad that guy got by without anything getting too out of control, I really am, others aren't so lucky. My parents lived similarly until my mother became chronically ill, then terminally ill over a period of ten years, my father lost his job.

    We're pretty well off now, but for that ten year patch, without the NHS and various benefits for unemployment we received, we would have really suffered, my fathers mental health would probably have broken down and I honestly have no idea where we'd be.

    Things being ok for you as an individual or family is no argument against social welfare, all it says is you were lucky.
     
  17. jnpy!$4g3cwk, Jan 4, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2015

    jnpy!$4g3cwk thread starter macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #17
    One of the peculiarities of right-wing == edging to ==> libertarian rhetoric is precisely the aspect of wanting to keep someone down. The freedom to succeed, or fail, is a defining American characteristic, but, the desire to punish those who fail, and their children, too, seems medieval to me. I think of the old British class system, or, the Indian caste system-- everybody in his place, and, everybody better stay in his place. In the U.S., the historical aspect of this thinking was slavery==> Jim Crow, and, now that racial prejudice is widely viewed as unchristian, it is interesting how LGBT prejudice seems to have taken its place. But, that is kind of a sideshow to entertain the masses-- the real issue is the leap backward the U.S. has been taking in inequality. The super-rich are "winning".
     
  18. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #18
    The gist of this article is that when the welfare checks stopped after five years, people had to find jobs.

    I think that’s reasonable; however, HuffPo considers it a humanitarian disaster.
     
  19. jnpy!$4g3cwk thread starter macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #19
    Apparently you either did not read the entire article, or, did not understand it.

     
  20. samiwas macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #20
    The article does say this:

    It seems to read that checks were given to people who had jobs, but just couldn't make it. And receiving the check didn't make them give up their job.
     

Share This Page