theprof00 said:
but it does build something, it builds economy in poorer areas, keeps people in poorer areas content and buying more infrastructure, like satellite dishes. It gives companies a reason to branch into those areas because they become affordable. It grows small businesses in that area, which leads to new development projects and new buildings and when offering greater diversity of businesses, it attracts developers. Many of these poor areas are in havens near cities. As the wealth of that area grows, younger professionals and entry level people start renting in the area. Eventually these poor areas become yuppie developments. Growing up poor I've seen it happen firsthand in several townships around boston, like Everett, Malden, East Boston, Jamaica Plain, The back bay. These were all once just poor neighborhoods and as spending in the area increased, which was unlikely to occur for people living out of town and not crossing the tracks so to speak. That's my opinion of it anyway. So yes, while the gum would send money to people owning the business and working there, it instead tends to support people who don't live or spend in these areas. As area develops, it expands the city. More and more developers and businesses are willing to expand into these areas, set up new buildings, etc. A good example is new york city's greenwich village, and someday soon, the bronx. More people in and with access to the city and businesses means more businesses can support their infrastructure with workers. It cuts down on travel and commuting, saving traffic and road maintenance, etc. Sure it's debateable, I'll agree that perhaps there is a net loss (haven't got the full picture yet), but I don't either see it as simply a waste of resources to provide people the ability to buy products freely. |
I have a few problems with this.
Firstly, you don't seem to understand what infrastructure is.
Secondly, generally when urban renewel projects happen what happens is the poor get pushed out. Not Uplifted.
Thirdly, the areas you talked about aren't areas that were lifted up through welfare.
You seem to be conflating Infrastructure spending, Welfare spending and Urban Renewal as if they were the same thing in an attempt to make them look all Pro and no Con.
There are a few big issues
1) When people talk about infrastructure they don't mean sattelite dishes. They usually mean big stuff like phone lines, dams, stuff like that.
2) In general actually Urban Renewel has lately been one of the biggest problems with cities. Largely because they tend to target older poorer neighberhoods that actually tend to have the kind of buildings that companies looking back to migrate to the city might use. They actually just had a really great guest talking about this on NPR yesterday.
In general, having a private company moving into your poor area is the best way for urban renewel because your not likely to be pushed out of your homes, because your homes are still poor, and not going to be bulldozed for new buildings.
3) Welfare spending... as in, giving people money and stuff because they're poor hurts the economy. That's fine though. I don't know why people try and make up numbers to try and fake and pretend it helps the economy. As far as I know the point of welfare is to help people. Why people try and pretend its something else i'll never get.
