4 ms·

>My guess is that fixing Detroit would start with a massive cash infusion from the state or federal government to address crime and crumbling infrastructure. No

by tsotha 11y ago

>My guess is that fixing Detroit would start with a massive cash infusion from the state or federal government to address crime and crumbling infrastructure. Nobody wants to live in a city that is unsafe and has no quality housing or reliable transportation. I don't see any reason we should spend federal dollars to rescue a city that's responsible, in large part, for its own plight. And it's not like we've imposed a visa system on Detroit residents, trapping them there.

thomk 11y ago
Detroit is something like 95% black and poor, making it the least diverse city in the country as well as the biggest to be bankrupt. People who live in the city don't stay there because of a visa system, they stay there because there are no other options. When you are poor, moving just means an added expense to just live in another poor place. Might as well just stay put.
- tsotha 11y ago
  I'm always amazed that poor people seem to be able to afford cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol, but they can't scrape $24 together for a bus ticket to Chicago. I have nothing against people who want to stay in Detroit. It's just that I don't want to spend a bunch of money subsidizing their decision.
  - almost 11y ago
    You can't understand why someone doesn't just get a bus ticket so they can turn up in a strange city with only the things they can carry and no contacts?
    - tsotha 11y ago
      How many people don't have contacts anywhere? No family or friends, nobody from the neighborhood who joined the military and moved away? That's just inertia.
  - rmxt 11y ago
    Can you really say with a straight face that it's "cigarettes, drugs and alcohol" keeping a non-negligible amount of people from spending their way out of Detroit? The idea that poor people are "wasting" their money on entertainment is wishful myth. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/04/how-the-rich-and-poor-spend-money-today-and-30-years-ago/360103/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/04/how-the-...
    - tsotha 11y ago
      I can absolutely say with a straight face anybody who drinks or smokes could instead find $24 for a bus ticket. Have you ever been to a poor neighborhood? Every other shop is a liquor store. The owners of those stores aren't keeping them open as a charity.
      - rmxt 11y ago
        If the solution were as simple as getting a bus ticket out of town, don't you think more people would do that? (Hint: it's not that simple.) The evidence shows that poor people spend less on entertainment than rich people. Have you ever been to a rich neighborhood? Every other shop is a Starbucks or Gucci. The owners of those stores aren't keeping them open as a charity. (This statement, like yours, is a non-sequitir. I think what you are trying to get at is basically, "poor people are already disproportionately affected by addiction, so we should take away social services (i.e., where your taxes dollars go) that help them escape said addiction." That's damn circular logic if I've ever seen it.)
        tsotha 11y ago
        >If the solution were as simple as getting a bus ticket out of town, don't you think more people would do that? (Hint: it's not that simple.) Yes, the solution is really that simple. Why don't they do it? Moving sucks. You only move when you have to. Note here I don't have a problem with it. Move or not move, that's up to them. >The evidence shows that poor people spend less on entertainment than rich people. Well, good. Poor people should spend less money on entertainment. They're poor. The question isn't whether they spend more or less money on entertainment; the question is whether or not it's reasonable to expect people to cough up $24 for a Greyhound bus ticket to Chicago. In California twenty four bucks buys about half a carton of cigs. >Have you ever been to a rich neighborhood? Every other shop is a Starbucks or Gucci. The owners of those stores aren't keeping them open as a charity. (This statement, like yours, is a non-sequitir. No, mine was not a non sequitur. We were talking about poor people. I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Some kind of free association? >I think what you are trying to get at is basically, "poor people are already disproportionately affected by addiction, so we should take away social services (i.e., where your taxes dollars go) that help them escape said addiction." I suggest you reread the thread here, since there's no way you could have gotten that impression by reading what I actually wrote. Nobody is trapped in Detroit. As a taxpayer I have no obligation to shower money on the city in an effort to make it a nice place. The people who live there have two options - either they can make it a nice place through their own efforts or they can go somewhere else. If they're waiting for the rest of us to pick up the tab, well, they can keep waiting.

by tsotha 11y ago

thomk 11y ago

Detroit is something like 95% black and poor, making it the least diverse city in the country as well as the biggest to be bankrupt. People who live in the city don't stay there because of a visa system, they stay there because there are no other options. When you are poor, moving just means an added expense to just live in another poor place. Might as well just stay put.

tsotha 11y ago
I'm always amazed that poor people seem to be able to afford cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol, but they can't scrape $24 together for a bus ticket to Chicago. I have nothing against people who want to stay in Detroit. It's just that I don't want to spend a bunch of money subsidizing their decision.
- almost 11y ago
  You can't understand why someone doesn't just get a bus ticket so they can turn up in a strange city with only the things they can carry and no contacts?
  - tsotha 11y ago
    How many people don't have contacts anywhere? No family or friends, nobody from the neighborhood who joined the military and moved away? That's just inertia.
- rmxt 11y ago
  Can you really say with a straight face that it's "cigarettes, drugs and alcohol" keeping a non-negligible amount of people from spending their way out of Detroit? The idea that poor people are "wasting" their money on entertainment is wishful myth. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/04/how-the-rich-and-poor-spend-money-today-and-30-years-ago/360103/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/04/how-the-...
  - tsotha 11y ago
    I can absolutely say with a straight face anybody who drinks or smokes could instead find $24 for a bus ticket. Have you ever been to a poor neighborhood? Every other shop is a liquor store. The owners of those stores aren't keeping them open as a charity.
    - rmxt 11y ago
      If the solution were as simple as getting a bus ticket out of town, don't you think more people would do that? (Hint: it's not that simple.) The evidence shows that poor people spend less on entertainment than rich people. Have you ever been to a rich neighborhood? Every other shop is a Starbucks or Gucci. The owners of those stores aren't keeping them open as a charity. (This statement, like yours, is a non-sequitir. I think what you are trying to get at is basically, "poor people are already disproportionately affected by addiction, so we should take away social services (i.e., where your taxes dollars go) that help them escape said addiction." That's damn circular logic if I've ever seen it.)
      - tsotha 11y ago
        >If the solution were as simple as getting a bus ticket out of town, don't you think more people would do that? (Hint: it's not that simple.) Yes, the solution is really that simple. Why don't they do it? Moving sucks. You only move when you have to. Note here I don't have a problem with it. Move or not move, that's up to them. >The evidence shows that poor people spend less on entertainment than rich people. Well, good. Poor people should spend less money on entertainment. They're poor. The question isn't whether they spend more or less money on entertainment; the question is whether or not it's reasonable to expect people to cough up $24 for a Greyhound bus ticket to Chicago. In California twenty four bucks buys about half a carton of cigs. >Have you ever been to a rich neighborhood? Every other shop is a Starbucks or Gucci. The owners of those stores aren't keeping them open as a charity. (This statement, like yours, is a non-sequitir. No, mine was not a non sequitur. We were talking about poor people. I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Some kind of free association? >I think what you are trying to get at is basically, "poor people are already disproportionately affected by addiction, so we should take away social services (i.e., where your taxes dollars go) that help them escape said addiction." I suggest you reread the thread here, since there's no way you could have gotten that impression by reading what I actually wrote. Nobody is trapped in Detroit. As a taxpayer I have no obligation to shower money on the city in an effort to make it a nice place. The people who live there have two options - either they can make it a nice place through their own efforts or they can go somewhere else. If they're waiting for the rest of us to pick up the tab, well, they can keep waiting.