How to increase the poor's SOL

[Stunt]

Currently cities have a massive problem with extremely poor and homeless people. I have been trying to understand why people of such poverty would live in areas with such high costs of living.

Why is it that a company can move an employee to other regions for his/her job, career oriented people tend to move to where the jobs are; yet the homeless and poor do not feel this applies to them?

I've spent my life growing up in both big cities and small towns, there's really no difference except for a more open and tight community in the smaller towns. The cost of living in these smaller towns are litterally nothing.

For the same price of giving handouts to a person on the streets in a major city, the same person can actually pay rent, buy food and be integrated into society. Therefore I propose we as citizens demand people who cannot work, live or survive in the cities be moved to rural towns where they can a) get off the street, b) lead a normal life, c) not die from homelessness, d) get a sense of community and hopefully get back on their feet.

It just seems like we are going in circles on this issue and we as tax payers should not put up with investments with no return. Notice I am not arguing against any social program here, just that funds can be appreciated/realized in a different environment.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Stunt

That works for me!

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Stunt

How to increase the poor? Make the pie higher, of course.

 

[Jmman]

How come I find this post somewhat ironic especially with that whole "Proof I'm smart" in the sig.....:laugh:

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Jmman
How come I find this post somewhat ironic especially with that whole "Proof I'm smart" in the sig.....:laugh:

Apparently my intelligence has nothing to do with mistakenly hitting the send hotkey

Posted by the way!!

 

[Slew Foot]

Most homeless people are either drug addicts, alcoholics, or have mental problems. They probably wouldnt fit in anywhere.

 

[blackangst1]

Well, typically cost of living increases with size, and the bigger the city, the more public assistance programs would be my guess.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Currently cities have a massive problem with extremely poor and homeless people. I have been trying to understand why people of such poverty would live in areas with such high costs of living.

Why is it that a company can move an employee to other regions for his/her job, career oriented people tend to move to where the jobs are; yet the homeless and poor do not feel this applies to them?

I've spent my life growing up in both big cities and small towns, there's really no difference except for a more open and tight community in the smaller towns. The cost of living in these smaller towns are litterally nothing.

For the same price of giving handouts to a person on the streets in a major city, the same person can actually pay rent, buy food and be integrated into society. Therefore I propose we as citizens demand people who cannot work, live or survive in the cities be moved to rural towns where they can a) get off the street, b) lead a normal life, c) not die from homelessness, d) get a sense of community and hopefully get back on their feet.

It just seems like we are going in circles on this issue and we as tax payers should not put up with investments with no return. Notice I am not arguing against any social program here, just that funds can be appreciated/realized in a different environment.

You're assuming that homeless people are of normal functionality and are just down on their luck.

The vast majority (Notice I didn't say ALL) of homeless people are mentally ill, hopelessly addicted to drugs and/or alcohol or some combination thereof. Simply changing their environment will not change the deficincies that made them homeless in the first place. Moving them to rural areas will only make them someone else's problem.

 

[her209]

How does a poor person get to work without any method of mass transportation?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Stunt
Currently cities have a massive problem with extremely poor and homeless people. I have been trying to understand why people of such poverty would live in areas with such high costs of living.

Why is it that a company can move an employee to other regions for his/her job, career oriented people tend to move to where the jobs are; yet the homeless and poor do not feel this applies to them?

I've spent my life growing up in both big cities and small towns, there's really no difference except for a more open and tight community in the smaller towns. The cost of living in these smaller towns are litterally nothing.

For the same price of giving handouts to a person on the streets in a major city, the same person can actually pay rent, buy food and be integrated into society. Therefore I propose we as citizens demand people who cannot work, live or survive in the cities be moved to rural towns where they can a) get off the street, b) lead a normal life, c) not die from homelessness, d) get a sense of community and hopefully get back on their feet.

It just seems like we are going in circles on this issue and we as tax payers should not put up with investments with no return. Notice I am not arguing against any social program here, just that funds can be appreciated/realized in a different environment.

You're assuming that homeless people are of normal functionality and are just down on their luck.

The vast majority (Notice I didn't say ALL) of homeless people are mentally ill, hopelessly addicted to drugs and/or alcohol or some combination thereof. Simply changing their environment will not change the deficincies that made them homeless in the first place. Moving them to rural areas will only make them someone else's problem.

Ok...worst case scenario the people get a place to live and will not be so despirate and turn to crime or die on the streets.

Spreading the highly concentrated poor in a small number of large cities to the many thousands of rural towns and cities will reduce crime accross the board and will clean up cities.

Think of it as low-income housing but instead of building appartments and trying to keep prices down in a high demand area...move the people to the low-cost housing. If they don't have jobs, and are barely getting by...why be in cities?

 

[Jmman]

The real problem with the majority of homeless people is that they have no real desire to be anything other than homeless. I have met lots of homeless people and as long as people are willing to provide for them and give them handouts, they have no reason to actually try and change their station in life......

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: her209
How does a poor person get to work without any method of mass transportation?

In small cities one can get to work without a car or mass transit.
It's obvious they cannot support themselves on that job anyway.

I'm saying people can support themselves on straight up handouts in rural cities, unlike urban areas.

 

[EatSpam]

Chicago is actually trying this experiment with the small cities in Central Illinois. The developers pay off the corrupt mayors to take the welfare/project people from Chicago and move them down here.

Net result? People still live in the bad part of town, on welfare, since there aren't any more jobs here than there are in Chicago (probably less) and our crime rate has skyrocketed.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: her209
How does a poor person get to work without any method of mass transportation?

In small cities one can get to work without a car or mass transit.
It's obvious they cannot support themselves on that job anyway.

I'm saying people can support themselves on straight up handouts in rural cities, unlike urban areas.

Except that the value of the handouts is a lot lower in rural cities...big cities tend to get a lot of tourists that can be connived, persuaded, or annoyed into providing decent sized handouts. I used to live 3 blocks from Times Square...I can tell you a LOT about handouts and how they are handled. The people that live in NYC don't, in general, give handouts (I never do, it feeds the situation). It is the out-of-towners that provide much of the take, with the odd $10 bill thrown in by a Wall St. type out to impress his date or buy his way into heaven...


Future Shock

 

[Orignal Earl]

The only thing cheaper in small towns is rent. Groceries cost alot more, most small town people will even pay gas expense and travel into the city to buy.
There are no jobs in small towns. In Canada most of the homeless are teens who have ran from the small town or reservation to the city

 

[BarneyFife]

Yeah, living in a small town means you have to drive 50 miles to go to work.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: her209
How does a poor person get to work without any method of mass transportation?

In small cities one can get to work without a car or mass transit.
It's obvious they cannot support themselves on that job anyway.

I'm saying people can support themselves on straight up handouts in rural cities, unlike urban areas.

Except that the value of the handouts is a lot lower in rural cities...big cities tend to get a lot of tourists that can be connived, persuaded, or annoyed into providing decent sized handouts. I used to live 3 blocks from Times Square...I can tell you a LOT about handouts and how they are handled. The people that live in NYC don't, in general, give handouts (I never do, it feeds the situation). It is the out-of-towners that provide much of the take, with the odd $10 bill thrown in by a Wall St. type out to impress his date or buy his way into heaven...


Future Shock

I don't disagree cities have invested tons in helping the poor; unforunately most have had little impact on the number of poor or the poor's standard of living. All your numbers of increasing number of poor, low incomes just help justify my points; the poor cannot afford to live in urban areas.

Think logically here...Where should low income/skilled people live? High cost regions or low cost regions? If you answer the high cost, I pity your lack of reasoning. Fact of the matter is, the poor are more of a drain on society than contributers; therefore the funding will follow them no matter where they are. Being in a city doesn't make you better off or else you wouldn't see all the poor you do in cities.

Notice how the minimum wage is constant across whole states? Are you going to try to convince me the cost of living across whole states is constant (ie. no bearing on urban/rural)??

 

[Future Shock]

A quick question for you Stunt - what do you think the average rental price for a tenament apartment in the Bronx or Queens is these days? One that has it's share of rats, roaches, and drug dealers and killings? Do you think that it is high?

Now, second question - do you believe that being in the company of your extended family, everyone that you knew growing up, your children if they are not living with you - is part of the Standard of Living? If not, how about Quality of Life?

Does it make any sense to you that people may be quite happy to live in poor physical surroundings (which to answer my question above, are dirt cheap) if it increases their quality of life by being aroud the people they have known all their lives, especially when they have no real career aspirations or other long-term values? And because of those ties, you would bascially have to force them to move...otherwise they would move now. I suggest you go look for WWII films of whole families being loaded onto boxcars and re-located to work in "better surroundings"...

Future Shock

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I don't disagree cities have invested tons in helping the poor; unforunately most have had little impact on the number of poor or the poor's standard of living.

What are your specific examples? Your thinking is too abstract. You are removing the human element. The story. The context. Your idea might look good on paper, but that's because paper has rather limited thinking, unlike human thoughts which have unlimited variation.

You cannot remove the human element. Use specific examples to support your ideas. It is difficult -- but if you want useful ideas it is necessary.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Fact of the matter is, the poor are more of a drain on society than contributers;

My god that is a sickening statement! I'm sorry but the poor ARE society. Economic networth has little to do with the value of a human. This statement reeks of abstract capitalistic rot.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Jmman
The real problem with the majority of homeless people is that they have no real desire to be anything other than homeless. I have met lots of homeless people and as long as people are willing to provide for them and give them handouts, they have no reason to actually try and change their station in life......

I agree with
Slew Foot
Most homeless people are either drug addicts, alcoholics, or have mental problems. They probably wouldnt fit in anywhere.


I think many of these homeless people, most homeless people, want a place to live. They just cannot handle money in a responsible way, coupled with the price of apartments versus disability and/or welfare payments.

 

[Rainsford]

Hmm, I think that theory, while interesting, is missing a few key points. The major one I can think of is that ideal placement of lower income people is about more than cost of living. The theory seems to be that rural and urban places are identical, save that the cost of living is lower in a rural area. But think about it, why do RICH people (or middle class people) live in cities? Why would anyone want to live in an expensive metro area instead of Podunk, Iowa?

Sure, some people just prefer cities to rural areas and can afford to live in either place, but I think there is a more rational explanation that applies to people in all economic bands...jobs. For people seeking jobs, rural areas are terrible places to live. The number and variety of jobs at all levels is going to be much lower, living in the DC metro area opens you up to more jobs in a few square miles than you'd find in the entire state of Iowa. Granted, the number of jobs per capita might be the same, but the job density is much higher in urban areas, something that's important to people who have low-paying jobs they'd like to get out of, or no job at all.

It's an ok idea on the surface, but it suffers from some fundamental problems, mostly stemming from the fact that there are many more factors in choosing where to live than how much it costs to live there. All else being equal, yeah, living in a cheap place makes sense. But all else is NOT equal.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Interesting question . . . sort of.

As recently as 2001, SF was giving the "registered" homeless a monthly stipend of like $400. What can you buy in SF for $400:
1) two "massages"
2) two weeks of groceries at Whole Paycheck
3) 20 weekdays supply of the cheapest hooch at the corner liquor store
4) Enough 2 buck Chuck to drown your liver and a couple of buddies

The working "poor" are a different issue altogether so I will stick with the homeless. For many of them moving from the city will mean going from mild-moderate social services to having next to none. Children constitute a substantial portion of the homeless and you would essentially guarantee that they would get few of the services they desperately need. Further, the few adults looking to escape the lowest rungs of SES scale would have no access to substance abuse, education, or vocational skills training. Granted all of those have been on the decline since Bush boy took office anyway.

Now the "working" poor would be crazy to give up city "employment" considering the benefits:
1) more jobs
2) better jobs
3) depending on the locality . . . "living wage" laws
4) services . . . public and private