3 ms·

The second part of the article is pretty interesting too. Apparently giving poor people money would save money in the long run.

• dpc59 10y ago
  "Granted, it would take a big program to eradicate poverty in the U.S. According to economist Matt Bruenig’s calculations, it would cost $175 billion. But poverty is even more expensive. A 2013 study estimated the costs of child poverty at as much as $500 billion a year. Kids who grow up poor end up with two years’ less education, work 450 fewer hours per year, and run three times the risk of bad health than those raised in families that are well off."
  • G43nm45ji 10y ago
    It seams like a lot, but then I think about military spending and at least its less then that. Can't really compare them more than that though.. I'm not trying to start something. Just a thought.
    • noir_lord 10y ago
      I think the last figure I saw for military spending was 650bn a year. Of course if you cut that by half you'd lose a lot of workers many of those with families (in one respect you could look at the military as a jobs program, what was the last time the US had more than 10% of it's total military personal actually fighting a war).
      • gertef 10y ago
        Imagine if the military was converted to be mostly Corps of Engineers, building schools and roads and cafes, instead of building stuff to blow up.
        • majewsky 10y ago
          The left opposition in Germany has actually recently run a bill in Parliament to establish a "Willy Brandt peace corps" next to our army. The line of thinking is that the army is well-regarded because of their development aid during foreign missions, and especially because of their help during domestic natural desasters. If that reputation went towards a peace corps instead, we would have an easier time arguing for less military spending.