There is an endless list of ways to improve the city and help the poor. The list of issues planting poor communities is long. Major cities in the US have areas with bad schools, crime is ramped, sidewalks and streets are nothing more than tile rubs, fresh food is scarce, and there are no parks or playgrounds. It should be easy to help people in this low state. It will make school better. Hire more police officers. sp species and asphalt. Start a farmer’s market. It will be built in a playground. It’s simple isn’t it?
not much. Amenities are expensive even if you don’t have to pay directly. why? They create a better and therefore more attractive place to live. People like to live in safe and walkable areas with great schools and parks, so they add all tresis amenities to their current low income idb to keep everything constant and live in the newly improved parts of the town. A better local amenities that keep everything else constant means the lens will rise, which will increase the price of submarines living in the neighborhood.
They are considered to be families living in crime-filled local apartments with terrible schools and terrible public infrastructure. Our minds bleed for them and we want to do SUB. So we do the above. Now more people want to live in their family apartments. And unless they can eat money to pay higher rent, they will come out of the neighborhood. Intuitively, the winners from all these improvements are not the families occupying these apartments, but the landlords who are currently earning higher rents. People cannot pay directly to the parks or schools, but they pay them indirectly, as higher rents and real estate prices reflect their value.
People may raise a lot of objections. Why not pass a law that prevents landlords from charging higher rents or evicting tenants? There is the obvious problem of creating a housing shortage and if people cannot compete artificially for rare apartments by paying the price of Heiger, they compete by accepting lower quality. Swedish Economic Stat Azarulindbeck said rent management is most effective in destroying bombing cities. The history and impact of rent management in the United States and elsewhere confirms his observations.
From my time writing comments like Bese and discussing online, I am sure many people will do so by doing the right thing to this argument. “You say the poor don’t deserve a good school in a safe community?
“I can’t believe that sub-people who are very well trained in critical thinking clearly miss the point,” he replied. Economic arguments like these have nothing to do with what people deserve or the kind of world we want to see. I am sure there are a few sadists who enjoy watching the poor suffer. I’ve never heard anyone say, “Cruelty is the key,” or “The right thing to do is say, “They should suffer!” At the annual general meeting of the Association for Private Business Education, which loves the free market. No one claims there is something morally enveloping about a life of poverty and tort. No one doesn’t push the button to magically eliminate poverty.
But as the great Thomas Sowell explains, we usually discuss it for cross-sectional purposes. Economists aren’t about what is or what it is, but about the possible social processes we are moving towards. When we try to help Perepur by doing anything other than giving the night money, it is not clear that we will succeed — and inserting helping the people we want to help, we enrich their landlords.
Economist John Cochran has a line that has stuck with me ever since I first read it. Don’t try to mess with prices and redistribute the Inome by offering free parks and schools. The outcome doesn’t have to be a disaster, but it’s not clear that it will make people better.
