Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Im from 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
The thing you're not taking into account is that many are not actually interested in solving the welfare problem. The elites want a large underclass dependent on them because it serves their purpose of maintaining their positions of power and control.
If you really want to solve the problem I think the best place to start is with the family. The single parent family is not healthy for the single parent or the children. This was something liberals and conservatives used to agree on almost universally. But now if you suggest that single parenting is bad for kids, you are written off as a right wing nut job.
There is a glimmer of hope though....left leaning scholars and think tanks such as the Brookings Institution are starting to admit single parenthood is not a good thing:
The thing you're not taking into account is that many are not actually interested in solving the welfare problem. The elites want a large underclass dependent on them because it serves their purpose of maintaining their positions of power and control.
If you really want to solve the problem I think the best place to start is with the family. The single parent family is not healthy for the single parent or the children. This was something liberals and conservatives used to agree on almost universally. But now if you suggest that single parenting is bad for kids, you are written off as a right wing nut job.
There is a glimmer of hope though....left leaning scholars and think tanks such as the Brookings Institution are starting to admit single parenthood is not a good thing:
Im from 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
You are not going after the root causes which needs to be corrected. (ie making bad choices ie broken homes..) Unfortunately you ignore that and put a band aid over the hemmorage..
The thing you're not taking into account is that many are not actually interested in solving the welfare problem. The elites want a large underclass dependent on them because it serves their purpose of maintaining their positions of power and control.
If you really want to solve the problem I think the best place to start is with the family. The single parent family is not healthy for the single parent or the children. This was something liberals and conservatives used to agree on almost universally. But now if you suggest that single parenting is bad for kids, you are written off as a right wing nut job.
There is a glimmer of hope though....left leaning scholars and think tanks such as the Brookings Institution are starting to admit single parenthood is not a good thing:
single parent households are not the problem boys from middle class single parent households do not commit crime or are not a drain on GDP. Also marriage rates and illegitmacy rates were rising before Lyndon Johnson started welfare. The single parent household in poor neighborhoods is more correlation of birth control,abortionand woman having decent access to the work place changing the dynamics of sex. Now I acknowledge welfare does play a role in prepetuating bad character traits,and I deal with this by offering at risk woman at ax credit for not having kids. you could let kids starve on the street and long term that may have some benefits,but the cyclical dysruption in the mean time would probably be too great and a strain on our law enforcement and state foster care service.
Somehow, I don't think it will be the economists who come up with a "solution" to the fact that some people are more productive than others. We are simply not ants. Economists can advise us on how to deal with that fact, but not how to repair it, and the "problem" will never cease to require ongoing remedy according to the collective ethics of the community. It will not correct itself through compliance with an economic theory.
You need to start taking kids away from parent(s) that don't parent. Lock them up and throw away the key and put these kids in foster homes where they can get 3 meals a day and a bed to sleep in every night and adults that wake them up for school and yell at them for bad grades or bad behavior.
So, what do you do with the guy who takes his shovel and spends the day sitting and smoking dope instead of digging holes? Are you going to have an overseer with a whip to make sure the slugs put in a solid days work?
So, what do you do with the guy who takes his shovel and spends the day sitting and smoking dope instead of digging holes? Are you going to have an overseer with a whip to make sure the slugs put in a solid days work?
nope if there is a performance issue just cut off his benefits,and he can go home
and he will not get anything from the state until he wants to comply that includes food and housing.
You need to start taking kids away from parent(s) that don't parent. Lock them up and throw away the key and put these kids in foster homes where they can get 3 meals a day and a bed to sleep in every night and adults that wake them up for school and yell at them for bad grades or bad behavior.
You want to break the cycle then really break it.
wont work, we cant tell who is parenting and who is not,without sending a social worker
in every home not economically possible. We cant take away parents based on income,unless we banned all welfare and let kids starve,even then the strain on fostercare would be too much and too many kids would fall through the cracks that the system missed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
