Okay, so when do they get to live in Lower Manhattan?.......................
Then we should put them in ghettos, right? I’m just saying...
Poor boys are much more likely to be in a single mother home. When dad is missing to discipline them, boys will be boys.
Higher profit margin in redistributing stuff without the government middle man.
“A team of researchers at Duke University found that low-income boys in mixed-income communities are more likely than their peers in uniformly poor neighborhoods to engage in anti-social behavior such as fighting, lying, and stealing. The greater the economic inequality in the neighborhood, the worse the low-income boys in this study fared.”
and the end result will be the school districts in these areas will go down the crapper so the people paying taxes and their kids will suffer..
Do away with rent control, and watch the market sort itself out.
And yet, when Newt Gingrich suggested that low income kids get a job as a janitor at schools just to learn a work ethic, he was blasted for it.
I guess that only liberals are allowed to make suggestions like this.
-PJ
This idea will NEVER work.
The second the government starts placing poor people into rich neighborhoods. The rich will simply leave, since they wont tolerate their children being exposed to the goings on of feral children.
If you live in a wealthy neighborhood, you can afford to move when undesirables move in.
Going to be a law.
Social engineers are morons who feel the Middle Class should have the sole burden of supporting the lowest classes, not the elites.
“Mixed income neighborhoods” afford enhanced conditions of envy and enhanced temptations and opportunities to steal. Mixed income urban neighborhoods evolve quickly into homogenous welfare neighborhoods
Maybe the gubbmint should decide how much each family should earn, you know, to be fair.
“”These programs rest on the assumption that mixed-income communities benefit low-income residents.”””
Sure they do. Just not in the way that is right.
Libs have already tried that in suburbs 3-4 decades ago, and it failed.
As the poor moved in and local crime increased, those more financially able moved out.
Thus, the result was little more than a movement of the poor and crime from inner cities to the suburbs.
What about the most important factor, morality?
Following that logic, all we have to do to eliminate ghettos and high crime areas is put a few Tiffany’s in and VOILA-things start improving! Somehow I think the opposite has always proven true-putting a business( or naïve people who fix up abandoned housing or move into ‘mixed income’ projects) into a poverty ridden area means the business(and the people) get harassed, robbed,perhaps killed, and eventually leave said ghetto as it was before. If I’m wrong, all concerned businesses have to do( Macy’s, Tiffany,Lord and Taylor,Saks etc is open in South Central LA, or Bed Stuy, or the Lower 9th ward of N.O. Wonder why they don’t?
If big government would leave us alone, we’d all still believe in Jesus.
“... on the assumption that economic integration gives low-income children a better chance at overcoming poverty.”
Well, they don’t have to travel across town to steal the good bikes, so I guess there may be something to that.