4 ms·

Common sense would say that if you give someone money or vouchers, they would be immediately materially better off to the extent that you gave them money. I don

Common sense would say that if you give someone money or vouchers, they would be immediately materially better off to the extent that you gave them money. I don't dispute that. Common sense also traditionally held that any public charity needed to be coupled with discipline and oversight to prevent a worsening of social ills. The claim from mid-century academic sociology was that public housing (and later vouchers) in and of themselves would reduce crime and other social ills. You didn't need punitive work houses -- if you just gave the poor better housing they would start behaving better. I see no evidence that this was the case. And with regards to public housing especially, it seems to have contributed to worsening crime and social ills.

digitalzombie 10y ago
> Common sense would say that if you give someone money or vouchers, they would be immediately materially better off to the extent that you gave them money. I don't dispute that. Common sense also traditionally held that any public charity needed to be coupled with discipline and oversight to prevent a worsening of social ills. Your definition of "common sense" is strange. You use commonsense and go straight into an elaborate concept. Also your statement of failure of section 8 is without substance or source. So I had to google it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing)#Studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing)#Studies The studies was disputed. > I see no evidence that this was the case. You also don't provide evidence at all on either side. You present your side of argument without any evidence and went on opinion. No sources.