Hacker News Reader

Comment by chiefalchemist | Hacker News Reader

"Thanks in part to increased government assistance, U.S. poverty according to this measure has fallen, especially for children."

Pardon me but I'm a tight-ass when it comes to words / language and how their use effects perception.

In short, (gov) assistance does __not__ decrease poverty. It might sugar coat poverty. It might keep the poverty stricken alive. Etc.

But poverty remains the same. It's there. Alive and well. The level of denial about poverty in the USA is very disheartening.

As a side note. I found the book "Evicted" by Matt Desmond to be extremely insightful. The Poverty Industrial Complex is a powerful force.

http://www.evictedbook.com/

View on HN

> In short, (gov) assistance does __not__ decrease poverty

Source? I feel as though the equal housing act and low-income housing decrease this definition of poverty by making housing secure.

I think it demands all government tax spend in ways to alleviate poverty be viewed as an externality which would not be needed in a higher income workforce. So it has qualities of tax hating but in a context of better social equity in pay.

Like you, I think rent controls and low income rent support are supporting better lives for working poor, and do far more than paint over cracks, but the poverty trap is real: people who can't afford a small payrise because it triggers loss of rental support or food stamps.

So your in support of UBI instead?

Not sure. I'm not a tax hater. I think of economics as a forcing function for better happiness not a thing in its own right.

> I think rent controls... are supporting better lives for working poor

Rent controls make their situation worse, not better. [1][2][3][4][5]

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/business/economy/rent-con...

[2] https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2015/08/30/...

[3] https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html

[4] https://fee.org/articles/rent-control-advocates-need-a-lesso...

[5] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-01-18/yup-re...

I'm struggling to understand the comment above yours, but affordable housing is entirely different than rent control. Denver requires a percentage of every apartment building over a set number of units have some affordable-housing units. This lets lower income people live throughout the city, and doesn't attempt to solve the problem of high rents for non-poor people.

> Like you, I think rent controls and low income rent support are supporting better lives for working poor, and do far more than paint over cracks, but the poverty trap is real: people who can't afford a small payrise because it triggers loss of rental support or food stamps.

This is actually the one issue I've seen that consistently wins over the "Well, why don't they just get a (better) job?" crowd to supporting a higher limit, or a more varied limit, to benefits. Why would someone get a full-time job if doing so would leave them homeless and starving because they're now above getting any help whatsoever.

We usually disagree on the solutions, but at least they come to see it's a lot more nuanced than just down to the people on welfare being lazy, which is a start.

Funny you use low-income housing as an example. Housing projects have made many things worse, because they concentrate poverty and therefore crime. It's one of the four columns of the poverty-cycle:

- drug war

- justice system

- housing projects

- welfare gap

My view is probably biased since I live in Denver. Every new building with more than a certain number of units (I couldn't find the year it started) is required to have some percentage of units dedicated to low-income / low-rent tenants. So we don't have the problem of concentrated poverty or crime.

It is based off of earning a percentage of median income by county (or maybe zip code).

Sure, that's one way to do it, but it also reduces housing supply. This increases housing costs which is really bad for the poor.

The four horsemen of housing cost:

- rent control

- NIMBYism

- zoning

- "affordable housing first!!!"

What I'm saying is, giving someone assistance doesn't undo their status as being in poverty. True, that assistance might lead to some net positive over the long haul. For example, being able to eat helps your health and your performance at work.

That aside, to answer your interpretation of my statement, I would sight the article as a starter source.

Poverty is not having enough money. If the gov't gives you money, you are no longer in poverty.

Now, if your point is that the gov't payments don't actually solve the underlying issue, that I would agree with.

Um. An overly socialized economy incentivizes counterproductive behavior. The early puritans in Massachusetts /started/ with the extremity of a socialist system of non-ownership with the hope that all would collectively contribute to a wonderful Christian society. They starved until they based their society on ownership and focus on equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcome.

My point is that once you start just giving money away - you shift to the early Massachusetts model...which leads to poverty and starvation. Even the most moral of men (can you argue that early puritans were more focused on morality than us?) will fail under a system that rewards sloth.

If I get the support of my rich uncle for food and housing did he help reduce my poverty? I would say he did... If his name is Sam suddenly its untrue?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com