How to fix the bad neighborhoods in Chicago and all of America. (Union: low income)

[ptug101]

Living in Chicago,and I went to school for economics, I consider myself more of Keynesian,but I do believe
the Austrians,Monetarist, and business cycle theorist have alot to offer to the discussion. My plan is based mostly on economics,but takes into the account the reality of politics and sociology.

The problem we have in the inner city is there is not enough low skill but mid paying jobs to lift
them out of poverty,so we end up subsidizing,because we are not going to let people starve on the streets
despite libertarian wishes. These subsidies though the right thing to do morally encourage bad behavior having kids you cant afford,not taking of the economic and educational opportunities that are avaliable,which compound the basic market problem of them not having low skill but good paying jobs. This leads to us spending more money
on police and other social spending

The Conservative solution make people work or get training for their benefits is the right idea,but
has one huge problem,the market does not have enough jobs and adding people to the workforce
by cutting off their benefits leads to cheaper wages on people who have a job,more crime because
people can not make a living thus more police spending which is a drain on the economy.

Since we acknowledge we are going to spend money either through more police or social services
no matter if you believe in wealth distribution as a liberal or enforcement of the law as a conservative either way your spending money,but we just cant have people sitting around doing nothing.

Heres the solution classic keynsianism,pay people to work but in non productive jobs and use the money
from our current social welfare system.law enforcement to pay for it and subsidize health care, but turn food stamps and others programs use that to pay their salaries. for example we can pay poor men to pay to dig up holes and fill them up again,once again it adds no value to the economy,but he is working and not taking a job away
from anyone else,because the private market place would not dig a whole and fill it up again. make everybody who is on welfare do these type jobs,

benefits,people on welfare who actually do have potential will probably opt to go back to school
or try and get retrained for a higher paying job(which might put wage pressure on mid level professionals,but that will have less of an impact on society,if a computer programmers has his salary cut by 10% from wages pressure he is not going to go rob a bank). The jobs will be easy enough that its better in engaging in high risk but low paying crime,but hard enough that people with potential might do other things. Also these jobs will be humane enough that liberals couldnt really complain( We can make woman do pointless paper work in a air conditioned office)

Conservatives will complain that we are paying people not to contribute,but like I said you pay either
way,I will have to do some number crunching to see how much its all going to cost to atleast do this in high crime poor areas,but I think we can do this low income but moderate crime areas as well in small rural towns

This is essential what happened during WW2 and what happens with alot of our military,we build bombs we never use or that explode and they add no value to the economy,sure some military mission keep the world stable,so that global commerce can commence but not all. This will probably be good for low wage workers in the private sector as well by removing a huge amount of poor people from the labor force,it will slow down wage deflation from globalization and automation.

Now my children policy,the problem with this is that maybe if we gave these people these type jobs
they would maybe keep producing children that we have to subsidize all over again,I think we should use data analytics to see who is at risk for reproducing people who can not achieve,thus we should give these woman enough money to live plus a bonus for not having children in a tax credit to dwindle this population
over time, which is a humane way of population control.

I have plans to revamp the education system,but I will save that for later

[nightlysparrow]

Originally Posted by ptug101

These subsidies though the right thing to do morally encourage bad behavior having kids you cant afford

a drain on the economy

we just cant have people sitting around doing nothing

pay poor men to pay to dig up holes and fill them up again

We can make woman do pointless paper work in a air conditioned office

removing a huge amount of poor people from the labor force

these people

they would maybe keep producing children that we have to subsidize all over again

I think we should use data analytics to see who is at risk for reproducing people who can not achieve

we should give these woman a bonus for not having children to dwindle this population over time, which is a humane way of population control.

In Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol," Ebeneezer Scrooge is asked to help the poor.

"Are there no prisons?'' asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons,'' said the gentleman.

"And the Union workhouses?'' demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?''

"They are. Still,'' returned the gentleman. "I wish I could say they were not.''

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?'' said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir.''

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,'' said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it. I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.''

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die.''

"If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."