3 ms·
If "we" == "USA", then no you don't "heavily subsidise poverty". As for empirical evidence that "throwing more money" at it gives an improved outcome, you can l
by semi-extrinsic 7y ago
If "we" == "USA", then no you don't "heavily subsidise poverty". As for empirical evidence that "throwing more money" at it gives an improved outcome, you can look at basically any country in Western or Northern Europe.
- frockington1 7y agoI did some quick research by googling poverty rate in {country} USA: 12.3% Spain: 12.1% France: 14.1% Norway: 0.2% Germany: 15.7% Besides Norway, they all seem relatively consistent. I initially thought this might be due to their oil reserves but it seems oil rich US states are still in the 11-12% range
- charwalker 7y agoOf those, Norway probably has the strongest social programs. It also has the lowest population by a lot.
- semi-extrinsic 7y agoPoverty rates are almost by definition useless metrics to compare by here, because they are computed from the gross income distribution. Poverty aid programmes are almost all focused on reducing the cost of living for poor people, which has literally zero effect on poverty rates. Subsidized housing/childcare/healthcare, food stamps, progressive taxation, you name it, they all leave gross income unaffected yet give a large increase in quality of life and discretionary income.