Plano's Generosity (Midland, Richardson, Odessa: houses, safe area, buy)

[stan4]

Originally Posted by BigDGeek

I'm somewhat flattered that you took anything I said personally enough to think we had a beef or something.

I don't.
We usually get along fine despite our disagreements.
No hard feelings.
I do tire of the trope that if you don't want to help someone's specific agenda or solution that you don't care.
We all have different ways of going about things.

[BigDGeek]

Originally Posted by stan4

I don't.
We usually get along fine despite our disagreements.
No hard feelings.
I do tire of the trope that if you don't want to help someone's specific agenda or solution that you don't care.
We all have different ways of going about things.

My issue is the "let them eat cake" mentality of the self-described "fiscal conservatives" in this country.


In broad strokes, they seem to think that it's the fault of the poor that they're poor. "Go back to school." "Get a better job." "Be smarter about money." I don't think they understand that it's nigh on impossible for them to do any of those things...even if they had money left over to fund schooling...because the logistics of being poor make it difficult to impossible, particularly if they have children.


Essentially it's just more of the extreme self-centeredness of American culture...it's like these people have been force-fed a steady diet of everything that streamed forth from Ayn Rand's foul brain.


I confess that that attitude pisses me off.

[kyam11]

It is the fault of the poor that they are poor. I am certainly ok with the decisions they have made to get to that point

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by BigDGeek

My issue is the "let them eat cake" mentality of the self-described "fiscal conservatives" in this country.


In broad strokes, they seem to think that it's the fault of the poor that they're poor. "Go back to school." "Get a better job." "Be smarter about money." I don't think they understand that it's nigh on impossible for them to do any of those things...even if they had money left over to fund schooling...because the logistics of being poor make it difficult to impossible, particularly if they have children.


Essentially it's just more of the extreme self-centeredness of American culture...it's like these people have been force-fed a steady diet of everything that streamed forth from Ayn Rand's foul brain.


I confess that that attitude pisses me off.

[mod cut]

The ideas from your side haven't worked, well really at all. Since The Great Society aggregate poverty rates have barely budged, maybe down just a little. The only real change is those in poverty shifted from the old to children. In the face of spending ten of trillions of dollars on endless programs for the poor we've made almost no progress. One can make a fine case that this spending has been the worst investment in the history of mankind.

Putting a finer point on it......IIRC the post Depression low poverty rate was in 1973 (might have been '72). Since then we've continued to spend more and more and more on poverty measures - we are usually #2 in the OECD in public and private social welfare spending behind France and since then poverty has increased.

It's time to try something else.



________________________________

This all relates to Dallas as Big D seems bent on becoming the new Detroit/St. Louis/Cleveland etc.

[Katana49]

Originally Posted by HP48G

Since the business lobbying arms have been very busy pressing Congress/WH not to mandate or even discuss expanding e-Verify because businesses would lose their unauthorized workforce and be forced to pay HIGHER WAGES to hire legal workers, It’s clear that everything Katana said is pure BS to justify paying poverty wages.

Um.


What the hell are you talking about?



I love when people argue a statement that I didn't make.

[Katana49]

Originally Posted by BigDGeek

My issue is the "let them eat cake" mentality of the self-described "fiscal conservatives" in this country.

In broad strokes, they seem to think that it's the fault of the poor that they're poor. "Go back to school." "Get a better job." "Be smarter about money." I don't think they understand that it's nigh on impossible for them to do any of those things...even if they had money left over to fund schooling...because the logistics of being poor make it difficult to impossible, particularly if they have children.

Essentially it's just more of the extreme self-centeredness of American culture...it's like these people have been force-fed a steady diet of everything that streamed forth from Ayn Rand's foul brain.

I confess that that attitude pisses me off.

I'm a fiscal conservative... and I'm socially liberal. I'm Independent, but I have voted Democrat the last several elections.



I know the type of person you are thinking of though. But that's not a relevant issue regarding Plano's lack of affordable housing. When you ask the government to meddle and get involved in free market forces (in this case, artificially low priced housing stock in an area where prices commanded could be much higher), it's just adding to the complexity of the problem and in most cases creating more problems.


Someone earlier brought up wages. If we didn't have enough high school kids to fill enough of these minimum wage jobs, what do you think would happen? Wages would have to rise.


Instead, low income housing being subsidized by some government entity in fact is keeping wages low by supplying enough low income labor to fill the need without letting the market determine what wages need to be for an affluent area.


Now before you jump down my throat again with some outlandish absolute, let me clarify, some government interference in the economy and such is certainly needed, especially when it comes to public safety, corporate overreach, etc. But trying to artificially prop up the numbers of low income residents in an area is never going to make financial sense.


About the only good thing that comes of that is that any children get to go to a much better school district than they would otherwise be able to. (Good for them of course, not always so good for the district and taxpayers.)

[NP78]

Originally Posted by Katana49

Someone earlier brought up wages. If we didn't have enough high school kids to fill enough of these minimum wage jobs, what do you think would happen? Wages would have to rise.


Instead, low income housing being subsidized by some government entity in fact is keeping wages low by supplying enough low income labor to fill the need without letting the market determine what wages need to be for an affluent area.

I was going to post something similar. I believe TC80 noted upthread that the local chains experience thinner margins in those areas due to high labor cost. Not sure that is justification for subsidizing housing in the area? If costs in an area are higher it is reasonable to expect prices for products/services to go up.

[BigDGeek]

Originally Posted by NP78

I was going to post something similar. I believe TC80 noted upthread that the local chains experience thinner margins in those areas due to high labor cost. Not sure that is justification for subsidizing housing in the area? If costs in an area are higher it is reasonable to expect prices for products/services to go up.

...and then at some point, Plano-ites (Planoans?) simply won't pay the ever-increasing prices for fast casual food, gel manicures, etc. and those businesses will close.

[NP78]

Originally Posted by BigDGeek

...and then at some point, Plano-ites (Planoans?) simply won't pay the ever-increasing prices for fast casual food, gel manicures, etc. and those businesses will close.

We are discussing an area experiencing tremendous growth with high median disposable incomes. For better or worse, that is a very large market for products and services.


Labor costs vary by location for a variety of reasons and those costs should be reflected in the market. In my world, costs for operations in Midland/Odessa exceed that of DFW (speaking of admittedly skilled jobs, not service jobs). We have to pay higher rates of compensation in that area, but so do our competitors. As a result we charge more in that market (as do our competitors).

[tcualum]

Originally Posted by Katana49

For those that can't afford to live in an area, the long term solution is to move. This holds true whether you're pulling down $60-75k in California and can't afford to live where you do or if you're making $25k a year and living in Plano.

Many of the people you are describing are barely scraping by. Moving costs quite a bit of money even if you're just switching apartment complexes. How do you suggest they pay for that?

Originally Posted by kyam11

It is the fault of the poor that they are poor. I am certainly ok with the decisions they have made to get to that point

Is this another example of the charitable work you've mentioned?