Forums >Off the Beaten Path>A practical application of socialist ideas
Best Present Ever
It's obvious that schools are really weak mechanisms for redistributing social outcomes. Sometimes when we say that education is the answer, people jump straight to the conclusion that "schooling" is the answer. For example, it might be argued that a primary way to really help folks in poor/marginally middle class communities would be to pass universal health care so that instead of being stressed out by their poor health and the high cost thereof, parents could do the work of parenting. That would do a lot for education in America.
It's obvious that schools are really weak mechanisms for redistributing social outcomes. Sometimes when we say that education is the answer, people jump straight to the conclusion that "schooling" is the answer.
For example, it might be argued that a primary way to really help folks in poor/marginally middle class communities would be to pass universal health care so that instead of being stressed out by their poor health and the high cost thereof, parents could do the work of parenting. That would do a lot for education in America.
I would argue that housing is even more fundamental than healthcare. If people had access to affordable, safe housing, a whole lot of health problems would be resolved. Of course, being the crazed near-socialist that I am, I think we ought to ensure access to affordable safe housing AND universal health care at the same time. And I'd happily pay higher taxes to see it happen.
The problem with the way we have provided housing in the past is that it has been shown to actually create poverty, rather than alleviate it. (source here)
Developing low-income housing in urban areas eliminates space that could otherwise be used for businesses, thus driving down the number of opportunities available. Additionally, by growing the amount of housing units, we have increased the amount of maintenance required without thinking about how to pay for the maintenance.
Much of the generally held beliefs about urban dynamics and how things are linked is actually untrue. I highly recommend reading the linked document.
I wonder what all the socialistic programs cost in total per year
Social Security
Medicare
Welfare
These are all big numbers - But likely bigger is: Everything about the public education system (Schools to reduced price lunch etc) - Something that charges people if they have kids there or not is socialistic
Say 100,000,000 kids in k-12? Maybe 50,000,000
Cost average $10,000 per kid (At least)
500 Billion to 1 trillion is probably low.
Long dead ... But my stench lingers !
I wonder what all the socialistic programs cost in total per year Social Security Medicare Welfare These are all big numbers - But likely bigger is: Everything about the public education system (Schools to reduced price lunch etc) - Something that charges people if they have kids there or not is socialistic
Why are these considered "Socialist" programs? Because they are run by the government?
#artbydmcbride
And because they are funded by all of us to help the currently needy.
Runners run
Did i suggest building a lot of low income housing in the middle of urban areas? just curious how "safe affordable housing" and "lots of crappy low incomes housing projects in depressed urban centers" got conflated. Also, poor people aren't 'beckoned' into crappy, overpopulated, unsafe, low income housing, they are forced there because they can't find other places to live. His analysis of lots of abandoned buildings next to overpopulated buildings may work in some declining industrial cities (I'm thinking Detroit) but he doesn't look anything like the serious housing problem I see here in the midAtlantic. I didn't read the whole thing -- heading to a meeting -- but really, there's nothing more persuasive than an author who starts a paper with a lot of condescending comments about how no one analyzes the problem right except for him.
It depends - If people take more out than they paid in - I consider it socialistic - My Grandfather did not pay a dime in
Welfare for the obvious
Unemployment
Basically I use as my guide "Things I pay taxes for that I will likely never receive an ounce of benefit from" So taking my money or my companies money (That they could pay to me) and they are run by the government - So I have no choice the matter to pay for them
Don't take my comment the wrong way - I am think we should be socialistic - I can argue about how well we execute on the programs.
I support helping people in need. I support burden based upon income. But I hate that people think it is a burden.
I would be willing to pay higher taxes if we could truly help people more ... or reduce the deficiet
To be fair, the paper is a few decades old, when there was a boom of low-income housing development. For some background on the author, his name is Jay Forrester. He founded the field of System Dynamics, which became Systems Thinking. It is a different way of evaluating issues, a far cry from the linear problem-solving method that is usually attempted. The point of his approach is to analyze a problem from the view of flows within the system, to identify the leverage points.
I brought the paper up to show that things are never as simple as we like to think they are, and that the issues are almost never solved by the obvious answers. It's easy to say "There's a housing crisis, so we need to provide safe, affordable housing." I'm curious as to how you would propose doing so. Where is the housing built? How do we support the housing, in terms of maintenance? Are we building new, or adapting existing? What are the effects going to be on the local areas? Do we add residential zoning, or do we remove industrial/business zoned areas and change them to residential?
There is already a surplus of homes on the market, and will be for a number of years. The problem is that these homes tend to be in areas where no one wants to live because there are no jobs. On one hand, home ownership helps to develop ties to a community. On the other hand, it acts as an anchor, preventing people from being able to follow the work. In other words, it ends up being a bit of a Catch-22.
It depends - If people take more out than they paid in - I consider it socialistic - My Grandfather did not pay a dime in Welfare for the obvious Unemployment Basically I use as my guide "Things I pay taxes for that I will likely never receive an ounce of benefit from" So taking my money or my companies money (That they could pay to me) and they are run by the government - So I have no choice the matter to pay for them
No, that's fine. I just wanted to be clear on how you were defining "socialist"/"socialistic". To me, "Socialism" has a very distinct meaning, and it tends to be in terms of an econo-political definition. I know that's somewhat specific, so I wanted to understand where you stood.
Feeling the growl again
Of course, being the crazed near-socialist that I am, I think we ought to ensure access to affordable safe housing AND universal health care at the same time. And I'd happily pay higher taxes to see it happen.
What incentive does one have to work hard to pay for their own housing, if we are to guarantee it on the taxpayers' dime?
As for universal healthcare, be prepared to give up either quality or quantity. The system's current costs are already unsustainable, and other nations with universal healthcare -- who put restrictions on who gets what -- are also struggling with how to continue to keep the system afloat...rationing care is an almost universal constant in universal coverage.
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
A nice little cottage of your own versus an apartment in public housing? The same kind of incentive that makes you work hard now.
Our systems's current costs are what will be most improved.
Other nations with universal healthcare are not struggling to keep their system afloat.
Prince of Fatness
Is our government capable of doing this?
Not at it at all.
Why is it sideways?
Put a man on the moon, back when people thought things were possible instead of being cynical about everything.