3 ms·

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

by 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.
- rmxt 11y ago
  Read this entire article: http://stateofopportunity.michiganradio.org/post/want-out-poverty-move http://stateofopportunity.michiganradio.org/post/want-out-po... It is extremely naive to think that spending $24 on a bus ticket is a one-size-fits-all solution that will work for all poor people in Detroit, and work without a drop of your taxpayer input. That concept might work for a select few, but it's doomed to fail when played out on a large scale. There are thousands of more factors than "spend $24 on a bus ticket, or spend $24 on a six pack and two #2 from McD's". Here are just a couple: do I have family where I am going? do I know that the bus route exists? do I have $24 in cash, or am I running behind on a cash advance from my last paycheck? will I, and my family, be able to eat this weekend if I get this ticket? how do I arrange for housing, temporary or permanent, before I get there? (if I have a job,) what do I do about my job? will I get a job if I move? how do I redirect any government assistance that I am getting to my new temp/perm. address? What is "shower money on the city" if not financial support for social services and infrastructure? How can you say that my impression is off, when you're literally saying "don't shower money on the city"? Where do you think this money goes? The "blight-removal efforts" are a step in the right direction, and hey, guess what? They take taxpayer money! So do community centers, well staffed and equipped schools, and youth programs. I'm very glad that you've apparently handcrafted your own bootstraps, boots and fences over which those boots will climb, but not all of your fellow Americans were born so fortunate. I think that breaking up entrenched pockets of poverty is a good idea, but it's a bad idea to think that it can be done without some governmental intercession.

by rmxt 11y ago

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.

rmxt 11y ago
Read this entire article: http://stateofopportunity.michiganradio.org/post/want-out-poverty-move http://stateofopportunity.michiganradio.org/post/want-out-po... It is extremely naive to think that spending $24 on a bus ticket is a one-size-fits-all solution that will work for all poor people in Detroit, and work without a drop of your taxpayer input. That concept might work for a select few, but it's doomed to fail when played out on a large scale. There are thousands of more factors than "spend $24 on a bus ticket, or spend $24 on a six pack and two #2 from McD's". Here are just a couple: do I have family where I am going? do I know that the bus route exists? do I have $24 in cash, or am I running behind on a cash advance from my last paycheck? will I, and my family, be able to eat this weekend if I get this ticket? how do I arrange for housing, temporary or permanent, before I get there? (if I have a job,) what do I do about my job? will I get a job if I move? how do I redirect any government assistance that I am getting to my new temp/perm. address? What is "shower money on the city" if not financial support for social services and infrastructure? How can you say that my impression is off, when you're literally saying "don't shower money on the city"? Where do you think this money goes? The "blight-removal efforts" are a step in the right direction, and hey, guess what? They take taxpayer money! So do community centers, well staffed and equipped schools, and youth programs. I'm very glad that you've apparently handcrafted your own bootstraps, boots and fences over which those boots will climb, but not all of your fellow Americans were born so fortunate. I think that breaking up entrenched pockets of poverty is a good idea, but it's a bad idea to think that it can be done without some governmental intercession.