4 ms·

> In short, (gov) assistance does not decrease poverty Source? I feel as though the equal housing act and low-income housing decrease this definition of po

by soared 8y ago

> In short, (gov) assistance does __not__ decrease poverty Source? I feel as though the equal housing act and low-income housing decrease this definition of poverty by making housing secure.

ggm 8y ago
I think it demands all government tax spend in ways to alleviate poverty be viewed as an externality which would not be needed in a higher income workforce. So it has qualities of tax hating but in a context of better social equity in pay. Like you, I think rent controls and low income rent support are supporting better lives for working poor, and do far more than paint over cracks, but the poverty trap is real: people who can't afford a small payrise because it triggers loss of rental support or food stamps.
- petermcneeley 8y ago
  So your in support of UBI instead?
  - ggm 8y ago
    Not sure. I'm not a tax hater. I think of economics as a forcing function for better happiness not a thing in its own right.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  > I think rent controls... are supporting better lives for working poor Rent controls make their situation worse, not better. [1][2][3][4][5] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/business/economy/rent-control-explained.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/business/economy/rent-con... [2] https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2015/08/30/do-rent-controls-work https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2015/08/30/... [3] https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html [4] https://fee.org/articles/rent-control-advocates-need-a-lesson-in-economics/ https://fee.org/articles/rent-control-advocates-need-a-lesso... [5] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-01-18/yup-rent-control-does-more-harm-than-good https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-01-18/yup-re...
  - soared 8y ago
    I'm struggling to understand the comment above yours, but affordable housing is entirely different than rent control. Denver requires a percentage of every apartment building over a set number of units have some affordable-housing units. This lets lower income people live throughout the city, and doesn't attempt to solve the problem of high rents for non-poor people.
- dorchadas 8y ago
  > Like you, I think rent controls and low income rent support are supporting better lives for working poor, and do far more than paint over cracks, but the poverty trap is real: people who can't afford a small payrise because it triggers loss of rental support or food stamps. This is actually the one issue I've seen that consistently wins over the "Well, why don't they just get a (better) job?" crowd to supporting a higher limit, or a more varied limit, to benefits. Why would someone get a full-time job if doing so would leave them homeless and starving because they're now above getting any help whatsoever. We usually disagree on the solutions, but at least they come to see it's a lot more nuanced than just down to the people on welfare being lazy, which is a start.
pitaj 8y ago
Funny you use low-income housing as an example. Housing projects have made many things worse, because they concentrate poverty and therefore crime. It's one of the four columns of the poverty-cycle: - drug war - justice system - housing projects - welfare gap
- soared 8y ago
  My view is probably biased since I live in Denver. Every new building with more than a certain number of units (I couldn't find the year it started) is required to have some percentage of units dedicated to low-income / low-rent tenants. So we don't have the problem of concentrated poverty or crime. It is based off of earning a percentage of median income by county (or maybe zip code).
  - pitaj 8y ago
    Sure, that's one way to do it, but it also reduces housing supply. This increases housing costs which is really bad for the poor. The four horsemen of housing cost: - rent control - NIMBYism - zoning - "affordable housing first!!!"
chiefalchemist 8y ago
What I'm saying is, giving someone assistance doesn't undo their status as being in poverty. True, that assistance might lead to some net positive over the long haul. For example, being able to eat helps your health and your performance at work. That aside, to answer your interpretation of my statement, I would sight the article as a starter source.

> In short, (gov) assistance does __not__ decrease poverty Source? I feel as though the equal housing act and low-income housing decrease this definition of po

by soared 8y ago

> In short, (gov) assistance does __not__ decrease poverty Source? I feel as though the equal housing act and low-income housing decrease this definition of poverty by making housing secure.

ggm 8y ago

I think it demands all government tax spend in ways to alleviate poverty be viewed as an externality which would not be needed in a higher income workforce. So it has qualities of tax hating but in a context of better social equity in pay. Like you, I think rent controls and low income rent support are supporting better lives for working poor, and do far more than paint over cracks, but the poverty trap is real: people who can't afford a small payrise because it triggers loss of rental support or food stamps.

petermcneeley 8y ago
So your in support of UBI instead?
- ggm 8y ago
  Not sure. I'm not a tax hater. I think of economics as a forcing function for better happiness not a thing in its own right.
antidesitter 8y ago
> I think rent controls... are supporting better lives for working poor Rent controls make their situation worse, not better. [1][2][3][4][5] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/business/economy/rent-control-explained.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/business/economy/rent-con... [2] https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2015/08/30/do-rent-controls-work https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2015/08/30/... [3] https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html [4] https://fee.org/articles/rent-control-advocates-need-a-lesson-in-economics/ https://fee.org/articles/rent-control-advocates-need-a-lesso... [5] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-01-18/yup-rent-control-does-more-harm-than-good https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-01-18/yup-re...
- soared 8y ago
  I'm struggling to understand the comment above yours, but affordable housing is entirely different than rent control. Denver requires a percentage of every apartment building over a set number of units have some affordable-housing units. This lets lower income people live throughout the city, and doesn't attempt to solve the problem of high rents for non-poor people.
dorchadas 8y ago
> Like you, I think rent controls and low income rent support are supporting better lives for working poor, and do far more than paint over cracks, but the poverty trap is real: people who can't afford a small payrise because it triggers loss of rental support or food stamps. This is actually the one issue I've seen that consistently wins over the "Well, why don't they just get a (better) job?" crowd to supporting a higher limit, or a more varied limit, to benefits. Why would someone get a full-time job if doing so would leave them homeless and starving because they're now above getting any help whatsoever. We usually disagree on the solutions, but at least they come to see it's a lot more nuanced than just down to the people on welfare being lazy, which is a start.

pitaj 8y ago

Funny you use low-income housing as an example. Housing projects have made many things worse, because they concentrate poverty and therefore crime. It's one of the four columns of the poverty-cycle: - drug war - justice system - housing projects - welfare gap

soared 8y ago
My view is probably biased since I live in Denver. Every new building with more than a certain number of units (I couldn't find the year it started) is required to have some percentage of units dedicated to low-income / low-rent tenants. So we don't have the problem of concentrated poverty or crime. It is based off of earning a percentage of median income by county (or maybe zip code).
- pitaj 8y ago
  Sure, that's one way to do it, but it also reduces housing supply. This increases housing costs which is really bad for the poor. The four horsemen of housing cost: - rent control - NIMBYism - zoning - "affordable housing first!!!"

chiefalchemist 8y ago

What I'm saying is, giving someone assistance doesn't undo their status as being in poverty. True, that assistance might lead to some net positive over the long haul. For example, being able to eat helps your health and your performance at work. That aside, to answer your interpretation of my statement, I would sight the article as a starter source.