What would reduce the poverty rate?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:40:10 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Economics (Moderator: Torie)
  What would reduce the poverty rate?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: What would reduce the poverty rate?  (Read 4958 times)
Republican Left
Left Wing Republican
Rookie
**
Posts: 108


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 30, 2019, 11:53:42 AM »

How would you reduce the poverty rate, specifically in the U.S but answers for other countries are welcome? How do you think poverty in other countries is different to that America?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,962
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2019, 02:15:22 PM »

We all know what reduces poverty. Only one thing has ever successfully done so anywhere in the history of the world. It's called redistribution.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,709
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2019, 10:49:59 PM »

In the developing world:  better inputs for smallholding farmers that will crowd-in additional improved cultivation practices.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2019, 08:16:01 PM »

Someone wanting to badly enough.
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,320
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2019, 05:22:03 PM »

Cheaper housing and fewer zoning regulations. Scrapping rent control laws. Bolstering the community college system and encouraging people to get degrees from there.
Logged
mileslunn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,799
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 21, 2019, 01:05:46 AM »

I actually think GAI is best way to reduce it as it gives the poor money so you can cut a lot of the bureaucracy and duplication for social assistance.  Also any money you give the poor, they will spend it in the economy which helps grow the economy overall creating a multiplier effect thus more jobs and more tax revenue.
Logged
Balsanator03
Rookie
**
Posts: 37


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 29, 2020, 09:19:45 PM »

Expand public housing with incentives.

If more public housing is built nationwide with the incentive to bring homeless off the streets or the impoverished by setting the monthly income to $250 per month, and a requirement being to get a job, people can have a better life and poverty and homelessness decrease tenfold.
Logged
Rover
Rookie
**
Posts: 177
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.18, S: -4.42

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 30, 2020, 07:40:22 AM »

Through education, both academic and vocational training. College fees need to be subsidized and dealt with.
Reform the housing sector, and perhaps adopt the Singaporean housing model in cities that are struggling, i.e. San Francisco, Boston, Chicago. Markets have clearly failed and rents are ridiculously high in many cities throughout the nation.
Reform healthcare and make sure everyone is insured. We can learn something from our neighbors in Canada.
Healthcare, college loans, and rents are eating much of the average millennium salary.
Logged
Starry Eyed Jagaloon
Blairite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 30, 2020, 10:48:40 PM »

Negative income tax, zoning reform, education reform, baby bonds, making higher education more affordable (but actually), single-payer healthcare, criminal justice reform, targeted infrastructure investment, etc.
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2020, 08:37:53 AM »

We all know what reduces poverty. Only one thing has ever successfully done so anywhere in the history of the world. It's called redistribution.

Yep, but people will do anything they can to avoid admitting that fact. Including arguing that the failures of neoliberalism are in fact the failures of an insufficient level of neoliberalism. Intellectually, it's the equivalent of refusing to recognise that the USSR's Communism was failing in the 1980s.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 13, 2021, 11:23:31 AM »

1. Stronger trade unions. Unionized workers get better pay and working conditions, but also get better opportunities for their children. For kids whose parents are in the same occupations, the union workers' kids fare better in school, getting better grades and being less likely to drop out... and to go further with their formal schooling.

2. More subsidies for formal education. If education is about as expensive as a hobby (which is about what it was in the 1970's at land-grant universities), then people are less likely to quit for reasons of cost... or compromising their education to work in menial jobs. It's  hard to see what college students learn from working in fast-food places, dollar stores or convenience stores... the people who need such work most as a long-term career are typically poor people with little education and few skills.

3. Drug rehab. That should be obvious.

4. Promote the establishment of high-tech industry in what are now cities in economic decline. Just think of Detroit, which when the automobile industry was so important attracted talented and hard-working people much as Silicon Valley does today. The auto industry isn't as big a share of the economy anymore, and it has dispersed heavily from southeastern Michigan. I could give plenty of other examples.

It is a terrible idea to have economic activity concentrated in a few high-cost areas. Need I tell you about Ohio?     
Logged
Kamala’s side hoe
khuzifenq
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,314
United States


P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2021, 03:46:14 PM »

2. More subsidies for formal education. If education is about as expensive as a hobby (which is about what it was in the 1970's at land-grant universities), then people are less likely to quit for reasons of cost... or compromising their education to work in menial jobs. It's  hard to see what college students learn from working in fast-food places, dollar stores or convenience stores... the people who need such work most as a long-term career are typically poor people with little education and few skills.

https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/who-cares-about-the-ivy-league?

Quote
We need to question the importance of matching in our society. Tyler Cowen makes a good case in his book The Complacent Class that America has over-indexed on sorting and stratification in our society. There’s probably diminishing returns to putting all the top people in one room or on one team. It means ideas spread around less, and the top people have less of a chance to educate others. It’s like a gifted-and-talented program for all of society, but instead of one hour a day it’s forever, and instead of just extracting the nerds it extracts the rich kids too.

And there’s a strong possibility that our obsession with matching has negative side effects — when all the talented and rich people befriend and marry all the other talented and rich people, the rest of society is left to sort of fend for itself. What’s more, even the commentariat doesn’t seem to realize what a problem this is, possibly because so many of us went to those top schools too.

A creeping, toxic elitism

I don’t want to veer too far into cultural hand-waving here, but it seems like obsession with the Ivy League is a symptom of a creeping, toxic elitism that has permeated American society over the last four decades. We’re obsessed with high-status winner-take-all jobs. Our economy is dominated by superstar companies. The cult of Hollywood celebrities may have given way to the cult of Instagram influencers and YouTube stars, but it’s still all about the glittering few. Even the people who spend all day yelling about Elon Musk on Twitter are still spending all day…thinking about Elon Musk. It’s as if the inequality of income and wealth is mirrored in a general inequality of status, where only a few people and institutions matter and everyone else is left to watch the glitterati from the cheap seats.

I don’t know how we reverse this trend. I don’t know how the everyperson becomes central to our culture and our policy and our visions of our own lives again. Maybe redistribution will do the trick. But I think one small piece of it is for the commentariat (and that includes me) to focus less on the Harvards and Stanfords of the world, and more on the Cal State Long Beaches and the SUNY Stony Brooks. Already I like what the Biden administration is doing, focusing more resources on HBCUs and community colleges. Perhaps the old man is onto something.
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,320
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2021, 05:08:56 AM »

We all know what reduces poverty. Only one thing has ever successfully done so anywhere in the history of the world. It's called redistribution.

Yep, but people will do anything they can to avoid admitting that fact. Including arguing that the failures of neoliberalism are in fact the failures of an insufficient level of neoliberalism. Intellectually, it's the equivalent of refusing to recognise that the USSR's Communism was failing in the 1980s.

The word "neoliberal" has, in the past 40 years, been applied to everyone from Milton Friedman to Kamala Harris. Its meaning has effectively been lost to time.
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2021, 06:30:51 AM »
« Edited: February 23, 2021, 06:46:05 AM by parochial boy »

We all know what reduces poverty. Only one thing has ever successfully done so anywhere in the history of the world. It's called redistribution.

Yep, but people will do anything they can to avoid admitting that fact. Including arguing that the failures of neoliberalism are in fact the failures of an insufficient level of neoliberalism. Intellectually, it's the equivalent of refusing to recognise that the USSR's Communism was failing in the 1980s.

The word "neoliberal" has, in the past 40 years, been applied to everyone from Milton Friedman to Kamala Harris. Its meaning has effectively been lost to time.

That's only partially true. Word's have meaning because people have a shared understanding of what they mean. The fact that it is thrown out at every possibility may mean that it has a rather imprecise meaning, but that applies to basically every political concept. The fundamental principle of the ideology - namely the perspective that the rules of free market competition should be introduced as widely as possible, still holds true and is still the basic understanding that people have of it. And more importantly, any honest discussion about politics has to accept that this is a guiding ideology that many people follow.

In that respect, it's no different to any other ideological label - but I don't go around arguing that the words "socialism" or "fascism" don't mean anything just because some people are inclined to use them as a catch all to refer to things that they don't like.
Logged
The Smiling Face On Your TV
slimey56
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,494
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.46, S: -7.30

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2021, 11:55:46 PM »

1. Stronger trade unions. Unionized workers get better pay and working conditions, but also get better opportunities for their children. For kids whose parents are in the same occupations, the union workers' kids fare better in school, getting better grades and being less likely to drop out... and to go further with their formal schooling.

2. More subsidies for formal education. If education is about as expensive as a hobby (which is about what it was in the 1970's at land-grant universities), then people are less likely to quit for reasons of cost... or compromising their education to work in menial jobs. It's  hard to see what college students learn from working in fast-food places, dollar stores or convenience stores... the people who need such work most as a long-term career are typically poor people with little education and few skills.

3. Drug rehab. That should be obvious.

4. Promote the establishment of high-tech industry in what are now cities in economic decline. Just think of Detroit, which when the automobile industry was so important attracted talented and hard-working people much as Silicon Valley does today. The auto industry isn't as big a share of the economy anymore, and it has dispersed heavily from southeastern Michigan. I could give plenty of other examples.

It is a terrible idea to have economic activity concentrated in a few high-cost areas. Need I tell you about Ohio?     




In addition, stronger unions even help laborers in non-union businesses. Labor strength offers an incentive for non-union employers to pre-emptively offer benefits+a fair wage to placate workers from organizing themselves.
Logged
georgelee
Newbie
*
Posts: 3
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2021, 04:34:53 AM »

How would you reduce the poverty rate, specifically in the U.S but answers for other countries are welcome? How do you think poverty in other countries is different to that America?

Welfare trusts play great role under this regard. We should be the one solid part of these trusts.  Sunglasses
Logged
Red Velvet
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,013
Brazil


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2021, 12:30:07 PM »

We all know what reduces poverty. Only one thing has ever successfully done so anywhere in the history of the world. It's called redistribution.

Yup. But not just that.

So I would add investment in public infrastructure as well. Assuring the poorer have access to universal healthcare, free public education of quality, that kind of basic stuff.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2021, 06:09:48 PM »

More broadly shared economic growth. 
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2021, 04:01:13 PM »

1. Stronger trade unions. Unionized workers get better pay and working conditions, but also get better opportunities for their children. For kids whose parents are in the same occupations, the union workers' kids fare better in school, getting better grades and being less likely to drop out... and to go further with their formal schooling.

2. More subsidies for formal education. If education is about as expensive as a hobby (which is about what it was in the 1970's at land-grant universities), then people are less likely to quit for reasons of cost... or compromising their education to work in menial jobs. It's  hard to see what college students learn from working in fast-food places, dollar stores or convenience stores... the people who need such work most as a long-term career are typically poor people with little education and few skills.

3. Drug rehab. That should be obvious.

4. Promote the establishment of high-tech industry in what are now cities in economic decline. Just think of Detroit, which when the automobile industry was so important attracted talented and hard-working people much as Silicon Valley does today. The auto industry isn't as big a share of the economy anymore, and it has dispersed heavily from southeastern Michigan. I could give plenty of other examples.

It is a terrible idea to have economic activity concentrated in a few high-cost areas. Need I tell you about Ohio?     

In addition, stronger unions even help laborers in non-union businesses. Labor strength offers an incentive for non-union employers to pre-emptively offer benefits+a fair wage to placate workers from organizing themselves.

One pro-union publication also mentioned that unionized workers are less likely to get killed or disabled in industrial accidents. To be sure, some companies are able to defeat unions before they form by having excellent systems of compensation or of being entrepreneurial start-ups. One gets low pay and primitive conditions in such places but knows that the company is on a track for greatness. On the other side are sweatshops that traditionally overwork and underpay their workers and treat their workers accordingly. Those companies tend to be reckless on safety. They keep overworking people (thus they are more likely to work while tired and vulnerable to lapses in safety) and underpaid until market conditions drive them into bankruptcy.

Deaths and crippling injuries from workplace accidents themselves create poverty.

Logged
The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ
laddicus finch
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 22, 2021, 10:31:58 PM »
« Edited: May 22, 2021, 10:43:16 PM by laddicus finch »

UBI, while not currently feasible in most countries, should be the ultimate goal. Building more housing, including subsidized housing, is a more short-term thing we can do.

Workers are squeezed because the value of labour is only going down thanks to technological development. Governments try to correct for this by increasing the minimum wage. While this is a good short-term fix, it's just that, a short-term fix. All you're doing is artificially making labour more expensive without dealing with the real problem - the low value of low-skilled labour. Economic output is higher than ever and keeps increasing - even with COVID, something that theoretically should have crashed the economy, most economies stayed relatively afloat (in terms of overall output, of course real economic conditions have been atrocious for many people), and it's only bouncing back. But wages haven't kept up because the value of labour is only going down. Some of it is down to a decrease in unionization, some of it is down to free trade. Many would argue that we need more unions and less free trade, and that's a reasonable position, but neither of those address technology and automation. When you can do more things while employing less human labour, the value of human labour goes down.

Some would say this calls for socialism, but I'm skeptical. Workers seizing the means of production doesn't seem like an attainable goal at this point. The means of production are increasingly advanced and require more capital input, which puts a worker-owned economy at an even greater disadvantage. But wages are stagnating, prices are going up, and the traditional welfare state model is increasingly inadequate at dealing with these challenges.

The welfare state was created when most people could find a decent enough job to live on, and welfare was a fall-back option for when they couldn't. Means-tested programs where people without an income get support make sense when people who are working don't need much government support. But now, even people who are working are often struggling to get by. Where I live, in Ottawa, Canada, the average rent for a 1-bed apartment is $1495/month according to one source. If you work minimum wage ($14.00) 40 hours a week, your gross pay is $2240/month. Even if you don't factor for taxes, an average 1-bed apt would take 2/3 of your monthly income. You can increase the minimum wage, but a higher minimum wage doesn't increase how much an employer values a worker's labour. If anything, it decreases it in relative terms by making labour more expensive, which will only lead to employers seeking cheaper methods like AI, which only decreases the value of labour, and so on.

Affordable housing is a relatively easy fix. We need more supply, which means zoning regulations should be relaxed and amended to create more multi-family units (apartments, townhouses, etc). There's plenty of space to build if we can just overcome the NIMBYs and build higher, not wider. Along with this goes public transport. The reality is that urban cores will always be more valuable (therefore more expensive) than suburbs, and people who can't afford cars are stuck with either even more unaffordable downtown apartments, or literal crackhouses where they share a floor with five other people, twenty rats, and who knows how many roaches. Public transport allows cities to expand more sustainably.

But the free market and a little infrastructure spending won't fix the issue. On the other side of my country, in the beautiful city of Vancouver, there is excellent public transit and plenty of high-rises and mixed units. But it's still one of the most unaffordable places in North America, in large part because wealthy, often foreign investors, are buying up all the units. A real estate developer would rather develop luxury condos for a Chinese billionaire to drop money on, rather than a reasonable apartment building that working-class people can live in. The way to correct for this is to build affordable units. This can be done through zoning that prioritizes these kinds of units, subsidizing low-income housing, or both. You cool the rental market by making low-rent units more available.

I focus on housing because that's what causes a lot of poverty. For most people, rent/mortgages are their biggest expense.

UBI is more long-term, but that's a policy that could actually eliminate poverty. Apart from the obvious benefit of increased disposable income, it also gives working people more bargaining power. If you're already guaranteed $2000/month (or whatever), you can choose whether or not to take that job at Walmart, or how many hours you're willing to do. In other words, people aren't stuck making poverty wages at dead-end jobs to avoid starvation. It also helps people adopt to a gig economy. Uber shouldn't be something you rely on for your primary income, but if you're already guaranteed a good bit of income, driving around a few hours every night delivering McDonald's to hungry stoners provides a decent top-up.

How do we pay for it? I think UBI should not be paid for by increasing income taxes. Even with a UBI, ideally you want people working, so they can add more value to the economy, which eventually goes to fund UBI among other things. However, corporate productivity is going up, and labour costs are going down. We can increase corporate taxes gradually to help fund UBI, as well as other revenue sources associated with increased corporate productivity.

And finally, I think universal healthcare (or at lease subsidized health insurance system like most European countries have) would go a long way in the states. Medical bills are a huge source of financial insecurity, and a monthly check from the government doesn't help alleviate the ridiculous levels of medical debt people have.

Edit: I think the bottom line is, we're getting closer and closer to a post-work economy. This is a good thing. A lot of people derive enjoyment from their jobs, I personally do (somewhat, work is still work). But for most people, work is what you do to make ends meet. As long as human labour is the primary input that creates wealth, work is unavoidable, capitalism or not. But increasingly, human labour is losing its importance. I think a lot of people on both the left and right get this upside down - instead of trying to artificially increase the value of labour, whether through higher minimum wages or less free trade/immigration, we could accept the fact that labour is losing its value, and try to build an economy where this doesn't lead people into starvation. In other words, #YangGang. As far as housing, I think there's a pretty reasonable and relatively easy solution that governments loathe to take action on because they don't want to piss off NIMBYs and landlords. But you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.
Logged
progressive85
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,312
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 24, 2021, 06:32:31 PM »

Capital and investment
Less people in the cities, more people in the rural and exurban areas
A very large and expanding middle class
**Reversing the growth of income inequality that's been occurring over the last 50 years**
Tax burden shifting off of the backs of those that really can't afford it and onto the backs of those that can easily afford it.
Abandoning trickle-down, welfare for the rich
Less money going to expensive 4 year colleges
An education system that focuses on getting jobs and prepares kids to become adults, also actually teaching personal finance.
Hard work and personal responsibility (which I think much of the country is already doing, but it has to be said)

Probably a combination of conservative, progressive, and populist ideas coming together... and also of course good luck and good timing -

also no horrific natural disasters, no plagues like COVID, no wars, etc.
Logged
mileslunn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,799
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 31, 2021, 09:16:19 PM »

Depends a lot on country.  In many developing countries, universal education, better infrastructure, cleaner water and also less corruption (in developing countries a lot is wasted on corruption) as well as better tax collection (in most countries, you have a cash economy so tax gap quite large meaning government doesn't get revenue it needs).

However, turning to my country Canada, it is a bit different.  We don't have the extreme poverty like you see in developing world where people live on less than $2 a day, lack basic sanitation, live in crowded slums, but we still have our faire share of poverty.  Even within country there are many causes so below is a few solutions

-  For housing, improve supply and move to density.  In particular with more people working remotely; convert as many former offices as possible into apartments and condos as working remotely for many companies will likely become new norm so won't need as many offices.

-  Try to diversify economy so you have jobs in other less costly places, not just in the largest most expensive cities

-  Allow First Nations to get a stake in all projects on their land.  Many Indian reserves are like third world countries so this could help lift poverty.

- Work closely with First Nations community and share best case solutions.

-  Decriminalize all drugs and treat addiction as a mental health issue not a criminal one.  Incarcerating drug addicts just makes things worse.

-  As finances permit, raise basic minimum to $30,000 so no one making below that pays income taxes.  To fund this, phase out the basic minimum as income rises so higher income earners pay taxes on entire income, no exemption on first 15K.  Use a tax bubble like UK or standard deduction like US (but only available to those below certain income).  This would not mean hiking top rates so would not hurt tax competitiveness.

-  Put more resources into mental health

-  Have strong community programs in high crime areas.  Getting a criminal record can be a life sentence of poverty as tough to get a good job with one so best to act early so people don't end up a prison.  Community based programs help those in high risk neighborhoods find life outside of crime and thus can lead more productive lives.

-  Increase high skilled immigration while reduce low skilled so less downward pressure on wages.

-  Limit free trade to countries with comparable standards of living or that at least have comparable environmental and labor standards, not ones like China they cheat and try to undercut things.  Trade agreements should be about improving standard of living for all partners, not race to bottom.  USMCA and CETA are good examples of ones that achieve that as well as TPP.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 12 queries.