'Imbicilification.' You sir have captured this in a a magnificent way. I was trying and failing to describe what was happening in the video clip of him in front of congress at 5:31. So passionate. So idiotic.
Not much of a book review in the short amount of time it takes to deliver it. I suppose one could manage to say whatever they want about a book in 10 minutes. Even just listening for these 10 minutes, I could name off a few factors that this speaker either failed or just deliberately overlooked. But hey, you only had 10 minutes. Before we tack on the label of "imbecilic" or "imbecilification", and if we want to make an informed decision as to what that word means and how the book presents whatever evidence, it would probably be a good idea to put down the beer, turn off the TV and go out and read the book.
@@sPi711 Are you implying the speaker in the video did not read the book or that the posters in the message board did not read it? I confess, I did not read it. But you got to admit, imbicilification is great word.
These people always feel like they are basically examining themselves and then trying to rationalise that and make themselves feel better by projecting it on to everyone else as well.
Hypocrisy is lazy rebuttal. Does not refute the point, just attacks character . Very patriotic form of argument. Thank you internet. Commence the half-witted responses below
I’ve read Evicted by Desmond and it focused mostly on the emotional side of things. It is very moving to hear about the struggles of the people he researched but in the last chapter, he throws out absolutely unhinged propositions to upend the rental market with ideas such as guaranteed right to an attorney for eviction courts and taxpayer funded rent for people who can’t (or won’t) hold down a job to pay. He wants to turn the concept of housing into a government administrative quagmire.
Exactly what is happening in NY. They give renters more and more "protections" and "rights". I think the ultimate goal is to extinguish private renting and replace it with government house "to protect renters from predatory landlords".
I started renting my house when I was deployed overseas so that makes me a landlord: What happened woth Covid egiction freeze was tenants stopped paying and just pocketed a year+ free rent because you were legally prevented to evict them. Many small owners lost homes and businesses to banks because they were not equally enpowered to atop paying their mortgage or insurance etc and new home construction fell off a cliff (hard to determine exactly how much was covid vs covid policy like this, but still). The fact that an awarded ivy league professor espouses that as a permanent policy is evidence of brain damage more than anything else.
@CUTTER101 They force tenants to rent from them? Really? If you can't afford a house, buy one with friends. Do the repairs and maintenance yourself. Work out the division of labor and expenses. You may come to less of a leech's view about renting.
@@glennwatson3313 No, capitalism is the free use of one's property to generate wealth with respect to the rights of others. What you described could just as easily be assigned to serfdom as a definition, or even outright slavery.
@@solar02130 Right, because in non-capitalist economies, there's no such thing as "poverty" - what we call poverty is just called "normal" there. Making everyone equal means making everyone poor. Bonus: you won't find many people lying around in their own filth doing drugs in a non-capitalist country, though - the government has them killed or sent off to labor camps
This professor honestly suggests taxing homeowners for rental income they are not receiving? Sounds like a great way to make homeownership even LESS available to lower income people.
Yeah, because perfectly hard working low income people who are that way because they have some sort of issue or disability that makes it hard to get a good paying job never inherit a fully paid off house from their parents, right? That just never happens. 😊😊(sarcasm)
@@bobthemagicmoose Don't give them ideas. My employer can't put a cafeteria in our workplace (which is not open to the public--we have security on every door) because the city considers that a restaurant and they don't want the competition for the existing restaurants. Because the politicians think they can force us to actually leave during our 30 min. lunch break and go to a restaurant, so they can get tax money from it. And all the assorted backhanders and such they get from all the hoops they make restaurateurs jump thru, that they know my employer won't do.
it's incredible how some people want to believe that poverty, which has been the natural state of man since the dawn of time, is a quirk of the economic system that made so many people rise out of it. What did they think? that we were all rich until some evil people deviced the concept of property rights?
That is kinda what some people actually believe! Jean Jacques Rousseau argued that life in the state of nature (before society and private property) was peaceful and everyone had everything that they wanted. Society and property rights then came along and provided new goods and social distinctions for people to fight over. Rousseau popularized the idea of the "noble savage" and a lot of left leaning philosophies and ideologies and can trace their history back to Rousseau.
just saw this and you're right. that's very likely one of the contributors to this worldview. Of course, as we now know, he was really wrong on the facts.@@hans7686
@@hans7686 Thats a good synopsis, its wrong of course, Thomas Sowell has proven through his research that noble savages were anything but noble or savages.
I'm always amazed to hear Aaron's intelligent and sober analyses. They seem so out of place among the miasma of ignorance and spin that is the media landscape in 2024. Keep doing what you do!
I grew up in a single mom, welfare dependent home. I can assure you poverty has more to do with personal decisions and moral failings. I dropped out of HS at 16 with little direction and no path towards a stable life. I worked for minimum wage, then as a commission based bike messenger. In doing so I more than doubled my income. I showed up everyday, put in the work and slowly worked my way into management. I spent the next 30 years slowly improving my station in life. Home ownership was a large part of creating a stable financial base for my life and that of my family. By living below our means, my wife and I were able to retire in our mid 50's. Our success in life was a product of delayed gratification and not playing keep up with the Joneses. Buying $400 sneakers and the latest Iphone is how you stay poor.
Lacking money is a moral failing. You see, it used to be that two thirds of Americans were moral enough to afford to buy a home, but now only one third. People, despite being more educated, are simply twice as likely to make poor decisions these days. It’s not systemic at all. It’s tens of millions of collectively timed individual shortcomings. -bootstraps crowd having X-ray vision allowing them to see right through reality and behold what they decided a priori was causing issues.
You can tell the motivations of someone making a case in this way. The only reason to cherry pick stats, ignore inconvenient truths, and mislead is that you are looking for power, not trying to solve an issue.
Political Science professor at the University I graduated from (in Poli Sci) railed on the same points Desmond does. ~Imagine our surprise when we learned that he owned a couple rental properties...
@@vivienneb6199no you don’t. I have no interest in your deflection by trying to change the topic of the conversation. You lied about income taxes and I gave you data proving that the poorest get more than they pay. I cited the IRS directly. You refused to read this and immediately changed subjects because you are a leftist liar and loser
He has competent colleagues. Check the hundreds of names in the acknowledgments in Evicted. He uses many regression models Hedonic regression Ordered logistic regression Negative binomial regression Doubly robust regression Lagged OLS regression Discrete hazard regression Lagged dependent variable regression These models, no matter how complex, cannot render the regression enterprise useful for this type of empirical phenomenon (i.e. the causes and consequences of residential eviction). The problems run deeper. There is no technical fix.
Where I live we have anti discrimination laws. In housing. I don’t know that very many landlords in my area discriminate against people for any of the reasons covered by the law but it does mean that if you say no to someone, they can sue you. They may not win but it can tie you up. If you are a big company with lots of buildings, you can afford the legal expenses and you have enough of a history that you can prove you don’t discriminate. If you have a duplex and are renting out your upstairs and you get an ahole you are screwed
Cut welfare spending, cut military spending, cut all forms of wasteful government spending, and that is how you can decrease the size of government and make our country more free, peaceful, and prosperous.
@@ScienceWatch2000-xs5nh Nobody should have to pay for public utilities at all. In fact, I think that public utilities should be privatized because the private sector does a better job at alot of things than the government does.
Poverty in America can be explained by my high school classmate Roderick. Rod was born poor to a dissolute single mother on welfare. Today, both Rod and I are in our sixties. While I worked and paid taxes, Rod played with the women. While I paid my bills and had one child I could afford, Rod had 30 with a variety of single mothers who all live on the government dole. So, we taxpayers paid to keep Rod out of poverty and he repaid the taxpayers by creating 30 more impoverished welfare dependents. This is unsustainable level of generational poverty.
It is so depressing that people who are well educated are unable to ignore their priors. It’s like the minimum wage debate. Theoretically trained economists should know better.
Economics isn't theory. If you've paid attention for the past 100 years you'd know that. Libertarian economics are outdated but you shill for the financial elite who hate you. Do everyone a favor and keep your rehersed/childish talking points to yourself.
Hah! My son's last place in Brooklyn was next to a crazy, and frequently threatening, neighbor that the landlord couldn't get rid of because eviction is already much too hard.
Wildly overpraised books. I am from Milwaukee and can see the BS in Evicted. In Poverty he dissed the success sequence in two sentences. This is what passes for state of the art in sociology - ignorance of economics and serious policy analysis, low quality data, problematic measures, inappropriate use of 'causal modeling', social justice agenda instead of research integrity, intolerance, no self-scrutiny, belief in their moral superiority, etc. I don't even think his ethnographies were first rate. I know some of the people and he mischaracterizes them. Desmond is a big deal in his field. He has an empire, PR agencies for speaking and media engagements, etc. He fancies himself a public intellectual. The sociology hotshots with huge centers at other schools are not much better., e.g. Bruce Western 'carceration studies center' at Columbia, the Inequality Center at Stanford, etc. The retail worker 'shrink project' center is better. They are more careful and modest in aspirations.
Yes, a lot of the Americans who are the poorest of us have problems that put them in that situation, like criminal records, drug addictions, etc. Yes, there also is a culture issue. But by simply blaming that won't fix anything. And the poorest of us are focused on surviving day to day, and will not care that policies like making eviction easier would potentially make rent more affordable in the long run.
I'm a homeowner and I'm poor. I have less than $500 in my pocket with a mortgage of $600/mo and only make about $30k a year. I make due with living paycheck to paycheck and forgo essentials like ignoring health concerns.
Abolishing poverty is almost impossible, humanities natural state is poverty not wealth, it is the extreme few in the world that are born into some form of wealth. The rest of humanity has to earn their wealth to rise out of poverty.
Morally speaking no one would want to be born into a world where your start in life can be high or lower depending on the uterus you came from. This has been the natural state but should not be. My solution is too radical for libertarians but here it goes. A society where people are born in machines and there are no families of any kind. Money does not exist fundamentally and everyone is born for a specific kind of job. You work till 60 and then focus on educating the youth. Not working is not an option. So basically communism in an absolutely pure sense since money or value does not exist.
@@yashpatel261 if humans are born in machines why bother with biology at all ? You obviously would also want an AI managed government since you want there to be no money, essentially that is advocating for a resources based economy with takes massive management overhead that can only really be achieved through AI. If there are no families you are once again advocating for the death of humanity and frankly being born into a job for life sounds like life long slavery - why use humans at all - build a machine to do the job and get rid of people. So you want to eliminate families, money, value, mothers, fathers, births - essentially eliminate humanity - did I miss anything ? What would be the point in living in such a society ? Why would any human care about what happened in that society ? Why would you care about that type of society ? The libertarian view of automation, robotics and AI is that it can free us from the drudgery of work,. I don't want a job for life. I don't want a job at all. Automation can set humanity free from work just like machines have always done. If humans can live free to pursue what they desire then machines will have accomplished their purpose. By the way that would also result in a resource based economy where money is irrelevant and production cost of everything will be reduced to the raw materials and energy required to manufacture it. You really should read The Singularity is Near and How to create a mind !
@@yashpatel261 If you want to grow humans in machines why bother with the biology at all ? Whats the point ? If machines are powerful enough to gestate humans then they should just replace humans.
A big issue that these Ivy League professors never seem to address is that the financial illiteracy rate in America is astoundingly high. When people don’t understand how basic taxes, contracts, or payment obligations work, then the odds of them bettering themselves and pulling themselves out of poverty are slim.
@jonathanjones3126 The trick is growing enough food, enough to pay the rent on the land, enough to feed the whole family for the year, enough to produce fiber for clothes, enough to provide anything else the family needs. Productivity, even in rural areas, has often been insufficient for the above-mentioned needs. The equivalent of less than $1.90 per day for more than 95% of the human race includes those who farm. It is a fantasy to imagine farm life as always abundant. It often wasn't.
@joanhuffman2166 people often didn't live in abundance, winters got really low on food more often then not. Food got alot cheaper once nitrogen based fertilizers became cheap after world War 1
@jonathanjones3126 That doesn't mean they were able to grow enough. The figure of less than the equivalent of $1.90 per day applies to rural people, too. Rural poverty has been invisible throughout history. Have you forgotten about crop failure and famines?
@jonathanjones3126 Spring is, in fact, the lean time of year when food runs out. Nitrogen fertilizers are a 20th-century phenomenon. Poverty has been the lot of most of our human ancestors.
I mean, Desmond is right just not who. Poverty is a great way for the Government both local, state and Federal to launder money between Public Employee Unions and Politicians. No one is going to say no in cutting programs for the poor....yet no one is willing to check the books on how much money is exchanging hands. LA there was such study, found out that only .10 cents on the dollar in poverty programs was going to help the poor...the rest went to new jobs for Public Sector works...who in turn made nice donations to local politicians. Desmond wants the government to help but he's just too stupid to understand that government is the problem in majority if not all of these cases.
Culture.everything is about culture. Why do east asia success while latin american a failure? Why do some ethnic group success while other group trap in the cycle of poverty.?
So Professor Desmond can't explain the persistence of poverty, but he'll still write a whole book trying to explain it anyway? That would be okay if he had the decency to admit that he wasn't sure that he had any good answers.
I wonder if he knows the truth? My suspicion is that most like him do in fact know that capitalism saved the world and socialism/communism led to figurative and literal graveyards. I suspect that he also knows that he and those like him will have more power under a far left government and that this causes him to lie. But I’d honestly love to know what he really believes.
It's just hard to make generalizations, some people are poor because of circumstances outside of their control and need help, but some have just made terrible decisions in life and are suffering the consequences.
So he just dismisses single mothers as a contribution to poverty? Not having a father figure growing up is the single largest predictor of outcome later in life, greater than IQ, race, family income, or parent(s) education level, and by a significant margin. In fact, if you control for single parents, much of the disparity correlated with race disappears. Asians are one of the most successful demographics in the US, and 80-90% of them grow up with fathers. Only 20% of Black Americans grow up with fathers. And the largest contributor to housing prices are zoning and similar restrictions on building. Lots of people want to live in cities, because that's where the jobs and businesses are, but it is literally illegal to build enough housing to fit those people, so property prices go up. Abusive landlords exist where supply of housing is artificially limited far below demand. Even dense cities full of tall buildings, like NYC, still have huge areas of low density, and San Francisco has incredibly high property prices, while limiting most residential area to 2 story buildings to preserve the "look" of the city. You can blame "greed" for zoning, but that ignores the fact it is only through government control of a market, not a free market just arbitrarily raising prices.
SF has some strips of single story houses. Astonishing in a city. They're nice but not museum pieces. Just allowing 3 or 4 stories on those streets would make a big difference.
Having both parents in the household is crucial for a child to have much chance of success when they grow up. The mother is necessary for nurturing the child, while the father is meant to provide the children with discipline and protection, not to mention to be the primary breadwinner. This was a critical ingredient in the rise of the African-American community from poverty and into the middle classes in between the days just prior to Jim Crow ending and the implementation of LBJ 's Great Society programs. Linden B Johnston's "Great Society" was the catalyst for the breakup of the black American family, as the welfare benefits encouraged single motherhood. The only thing better than a two-parent household for the success of a child is an extended family. Extended families have several advantages over the traditional nuclear family, such as there being at least someone guiding and looking after the children at all times, and there being more support if needed. Having adult children and/or grandparents living under the same roof or nearby lends itself to saving money on child care and elder care. Also, zoning stifles affordability in numerous ways. The paradigm of single-family zoning is very much against "missing-middle" housing. Missing-middle housing refers to types and densities of housing that are between large single-family houses on large yards and dense apartment complexes. More specifically, missing-middle typically denotes 2-8 dwelling units [although it can be up to 12] constructed on a lot that a single-family house would normally be built (such as two sets of semi-detached houses or a row of four townhomes on a quarter acre lot, a 3 or 4 storey apartment house with 12 units on a typical single-family lot, 6 tiny houses forming a pocket neighborhood, or 4 small detached houses on a standard lot). Not only can such missing-middle housing developments offer affordable housing, but some could cater to the growing percentage of the population experiencing intellectual and developmental disabilities as an alternative to group homes. One barrier to denser (or no) zoning is the relatively high concentration of NIMBYs in neighborhoods and on municipal zoning boards. NIMBYs, or the Not-In-My-BackYard types are people who diametrically oppose most changes to their communities, those suffering from NIMBYism are typically up in arms over the pettiest of changes to a neighborhood, such as a tiny house or two being put on a vacant lot, one of the homeowners operating a small relatively non intrusive business out of their houses, even a change in occupancy of one of the existing houses!
Phase out the national income tax and phase in a flat national sales tax on good and services and cut the size of the government by about 90%. Im talking wholesale shrinkage here, folks.
Imagine the business boom that would happen in this country if we did away with the income tax. Every company in the world with the capital to do so would domicile themselves here. That would be the ultimate jobs program.
Poverty is an effect, not a cause. Our success or failure in life is the result of the choices we make *_during_* our lifetime. A person can feel any way they choose about this fact, but they cannot escape it. What makes people like Desmond wrong - that Capitalism has inherent flaws that are responsible for poverty - is the existence of the United States of America...a country that *_used to be_* the most Capitalist nation on earth. The US of A is the living refutation of Marxism. This is also an unescapable fact. To regain the moral ground, Desmond and his brothers and sisters in spirit are trying to destroy the fact that Capitalism is about the freedom to choose. The freer a person (or group of people, whether you call them a community or a nation) is, the greater chance they have to flourish. Poverty is a problem free people solve for themselves. Some make the wrong choices, and they suffer as a result. Freedom gives them the opportunity to try again...until they succeed or give up. Modern intellectuals believe "we" will never be free from poverty...and that we all share the guilt if only one person can't make ends meet. They're no different than the Dark Age priests and monks who preached "original sin" to keep the "flock" under control. This is the condition of the modern American humanities; they are preaching a doctrine that cost 100 million lives in the 20th century. The religion responsible for socialism, communism, fascism, etc., have been thoroughly proven neither true nor moral. Yet...creatures like Desmond cling to it. Why? More importantly, why are Americans supporting it? 🤨
You answered your own question. Because it is a religion. They will lie, manipulate, disregard all reason and evidence…all kinds of nasty things to maintain their religious doctrine. It’s a cult and they do not reason.
The UK penalised landlords with higher taxes and increasing legislation and is currently proposing laws to make it more difficult for landlords to evict. The result is an exodus of landlords and rents rising 30% or more in many desirable areas meaning only those with high incomes choosing to rent can afford them while the poor are pushed into the same deprived areas.
It's stunning to me, a guy with a six grade education how little people are educated about the potential finances in their life. I think that, young people were educated in school everything from what taxes are for and how to balance, your checkbook and the best way to stay out of poverty we would be a lot better off. When I say education, I'm saying that educating young people up through high school would be sufficient to make them understand how to stay out of poverty. Get a high school education, don't have children before you're married and for sure get a job while you're in school part time if you can and try to educate yourself about what you like to do best, and then pursue that.. I'm not trying to go to the moon here. I'm just trying to get people to the point where they understand for 99% of us it's not that hard.
I've thought that too, but it wouldn't do much unless the students and teachers actually took the classes seriously and paid attention in them. A lot of high schools used to have what they called independent living classes, where they covered things like how to buy a car and how to find an apartment, and I think they still do. And they had a lot of other stuff about this in health class too. But in my experience, the teachers just breezed through the material and didn't take it very seriously or really know what they were talking about. (This was like 20 years ago, but I think my experience is still relevant.) They had us play the stock market game, which was a website where you picked fake stocks. But to the teachers, it was just busy work - like "here, go play around with this pretend stock market website for 45 minutes and get out of my hair." I just randomly picked stock in a clothing company for some reason and didn't even keep track of it. Naturally, I didn't learn a damn thing. Their approach to financial education was akin to if a math teacher thought they could teach algebra by just passing out some textbooks and saying to the kids, "Here, these books explain what algebra is, read through them and see if you can figure out how to do some equations." And then they never test them on it at all but pride themselves for supposedly having taught them how to do it. They say they're teaching us about the stock market, but they were just paying lip service. What they need, is to be able to give specific advice. I want to hear, "You need to get a job that pays this specific amount of money. You need this specific amount of money to live on when you retire at ---age. In order to get that amount, you need to put away X amount of money every month in this SPECIFIC account with THIS SPECIFIC COMPANY, for this many years." That's what no one ever tells you. All I ever hear is, invest, invest, invest. But in WHAT SPECIFICALLY? That's what always drives me crazy about financial education, whether it be from a high school teacher or some financial guru on social media. If they have a financial education class in high schools, it has to have specific goals and standards for what exactly they want the students to be able to do and they need to be tested on this knowledge and not be allowed to graduate if they don't pass, just like reading and math. (Or at least they're supposed to do that, anyway.) Otherwise, you just get a bunch of lazy teachers patting themselves on the back for saying they're teaching this stuff, when in reality they're not doing anything.
We pay impoverished teenaged single mothers more and more money based on how many new impoverished fatherless children she can birth in her life time. These children repeat the process. In US, one unemployable profligate girl in poverty can exponentially increase the number of people in poverty. There is no way a shrinking number of taxpayers can ever hope to keep up with these numbers much less afford to make each and every one of these EBT babies rich.
If you want to reduce poverty you first need to provide opportunities. Imagine if we didn’t have a minimum wage? Sure some people would be paid a $1 in hour, but there would be twenty employees getting on the job experience. Imagine if the government wasn’t able to attack small business? Sure some people might get shitty services and some businesses would fail, but the abundance of choice for consumers would be amazing.
If you want to reduce poverty, you need to change your behavior. Opportunities exist but people are complacent in the behavior that’s kept them in poverty. A handout from the government is easier than working 40 hour weeks. You know why some Countries experience little to no poverty? Because the government doesn’t give out welfare.
@@russellh8702 All western countries have low poverty because of welfare. Without it you westerners would be at poverty levels seen in asia, latin america and africa.
If you want to eliminate poverty, you raise the minimum wage, strengthen unions, and increase support for the poor, while raising taxes on the rich and corporations. The Great Society cut poverty in half with a strong social safety net, and Biden's COVID bailout package reduced child poverty 50%, but only temporarily, because the GOP apparently wanted poor children to stay poor.
By far the majority of people in the top 10% by wealth by age 60 were in the bottom 20% at age 20. These people did this by acquiring skills others would pay for and improving their skills through experience and working hard. They would have accepted handouts when they were available but didn't rely on them. The answer to poverty is, and and has been for long time, get a job, work hard and stay employed, get married have a family and stay married. The statistics support this. The truth here is nothing profound.
"By far the majority of people in the top 10% by wealth by age 60 were in the bottom 20% at age 20." That's simply not true: Very few people move from the bottom 20% to the top 20%, especially, in America, which has the very worst social mobility among wealthy nations.
Complicated certainly, and not easily addressed. But addressing it we must, accountability and transparency toward that end seems the answer. Politicians looking to get re-elected is not an answer.
Poverty makes it harder to deal with life's periodic shocks. Recently I lost my job and spent a few months unemployed. I had enough in savings that I could take the time to look for good opportunities. A poor person would have had to take whatever they could get, which probably would have been a substantial pay disparity. Instead of savings, probably they'd have to deal with usury and lose out even more since their new income would have to service these loans. There's a very real feedback loop that tends to keep poor people poor.
Poverty persists because people grow up in around enviorments that promote them to lead a life of poverty and often criminality. If poverty were a simple issuse of lack of money then the government would have mostly elimnated it by now, but when was the last time the government stating taking steps to improve the quality of neighborhoods where generational poverty persists instead of throwing money at the issue. Providing fair oppturtinies and enviorments is the long term solutuion to reduce poverty.
Last year, the borough of Gettysburg changed waste collection companies, and everyone had to get new trash bins. Professors at Gettysburg College did not know how to buy a new trash bin!
"The question is how do some people get so wealthy?" A combination of talent, hard work, luck, and rigging the economic system to give themselves a bigger and bigger portion of the pie.
@@HealingLifeKwikly almost all wealthy people got there by hard work...are there weasely poop heads that rig the system..yup...there are also idiots politicians that take the money to rig the system! No one gets wealthy receiving welfare checks, and bitching about.
Actually, poverty does exist because some people will and wish it to. Our disagreement is who the people doing the W&W are: incumbent property owners have stymied greater supply to meet demand for going on two generations. Many people W&W that the war on drugs continue (again, practially two generations). The WOD creates most of the crime that turns inner city housing markets. Another way to say W&W: very bad policies have created unintended consequences. Those became entrenched because the political status quo W&W it to be so.
@@BrockJamesStory is this a trick question? A bad policy is one that does not solve a given problem. A very bad policy is one where the cure is worse than the disease. The WOD has not changed addiction numbers in over a half century. It cost over a trillions dollars, and is directly responsible for making the USA the most violent country in the developed world.
I have a grade 8 education and was a single parent with two kids, two dads. I benefited from social services but hated being a lover in life. I am worth a couple million now and I had to turn against my losing mentality many times over the years. I have a steely will and ferocious work ethic. I see the absence of self determination in the poor in general. It's a cop out and that's all there is to it. I think society has a maintenance free mentality which I called bullshit on year's ago. I just got raped by a pedophile in grade 7 , lived with 2 parents hospitalized for mental illness and turned to drugs, etc. Luckily it just takes grade 8 math and a will to succeed to overcome setbacks. I challenge all in poverty to turn your back on your own situation ! Peace
Hahahaha poverty because this is a very poor country. Yep . This is not a rich country at all, in fact the country owes a ton of money and will probably never pay it back. This is a poor country that just happens to be home to some of the world's wealthiest that's all but it is a very very broke country
Why does anybody listen to him? I'll answer my own question by saying that he tells people what they want to hear. If you want to be popular, tell people what they want to hear. If you want to be helpful, tell people what they need to hear.
Are they talking absolute poverty or relative poverty? Absolute poverty is when you are the only family in your neighborhood who can't afford to buy a chicken to eat. Relative poverty is when you can't afford to eat at the same three-star restaurant as your neighbor. The former might raise a moral question about society. The latter is a personal problem that could be solved with a little introspection and self-improvement.
@Stafus You disregard relativity at your peril. Capitalism cannot function without cheap-er labor. It's the relative cost of labor that make enterprises profitable or not, not its absolute cost.
Poverty is a result of low intelligence. IQ is the single most predictor of success. Crime is a product of that poor intelligence (on the fringe, mind, but it has a huge impact if it is concentrated to a certain group). It is also why poverty is hereditary; it is not because because rich parents had money that their children are successful, but because they inherited their intelligence.
I like Tom Sowell's principle that poverty is a natural state, and so asking for its cause is backwards. Instead, ask what the causes of wealth are, and then investigate why some can't or won't create it for themselves.
The official poverty rate does not include all transfers and so does not measure how many people live in poverty. Studies that measure consumption show a rate less than 2% living in poverty. A UBI Replacement for SNAP, TANF ect. And ending Ueclidian zoning would make poverty rate 0.
@@rrmackayit's laughable how much poor people I've known complain about their life condition when their fridge is full of food, they're watching cable TV while looking at their phone, they have a roof over their heads, a half decent car and their kids wear nicer clothes than I do.😅 All while working 30-40 hours a week at most and still getting govt benefits from every direction. They think if they don't have the best of everything, they're suffering. Except the very lowest income ppl, Americans have it quite good compared to the rest of the world...
Wealth creates poverty the same way wealthy parents risk ending up with spoiled children. In a wealthy country there is less risk for making foolish decisions because the individual reaps the rewards of living in an environment that wealth created. Ambulance service as an example.
I think his premise is flawed. He tries to answer the question, "Why is their so much poverty in this incredibly rich country?" What poverty? The government will give you $200 a month to spend on groceries and in any American city you can get fat on free food, housing is subsidized for the poor, education is free. If he wants to study poverty he should go to Africa. He's got his cause and effect backwards or maybe leftwards as well. Poverty doesn't have a cause, it's the default condition of humanity.
The reason there is so much poverty here is because there is so much fat that you can coast and still survive. If there wasn’t so much fat, that would end. It takes a complete ignoramus to starve to death in the United Stares because there are so many safety nets.
Winning the John Kenneth Galbraith Award for Economics is like winning the Pee Wee Herman Award for Basketball. Also, it is incredible that ostensibly intelligent people actually think that banning evictions is a good idea. A property owner might as well sign the deed over to the tenant when they sign the lease.
@@BrockJamesStoryif you can’t understand the negative impacts on people who cannot afford a mortgage or the negative impacts on new housing supply then you haven’t thought of things or lack critical thinking capacity altogether.
@@BrockJamesStorybecause it violates people’s rights and causes bad economic effects. Why would anyone think it to be a moral good? There is neither the principled nor consequentialist argument to be made here.
@@ExPwner I could see many reason why people would think it was morally good, because it may prevent some from being evicted. Where do these rights come from?
Povertyism it is real. Just as I am a human being.More educated people with money aka power in the US, should be addressing these definitive facts. Some want other people to suffer. It's just the good,the bad,and the ugly. Living life.
The answer is in Karl Marx book, but you will not read it, about political economy, the name is "Das Capital". There you can get up and close with explanation for all your "questions".
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
That Ivy League professor reminds me of myself when I was eight and thought that toys cost money only because toy stores were greedy.
😂😂😂
And then throwing your toys away when you don’t get what you want.
And what critique do you have? Oh thats right.. "muh free market". "Muh capitalist whipping dog". The 8 year old's economic analysis is better.
Producing novelty is an expensive process.
@@JeffCaplan313 Not that children care about that!
The imbicilification of our educated class is really the story of our time. It's an absolute marvel.
'Imbicilification.' You sir have captured this in a a magnificent way. I was trying and failing to describe what was happening in the video clip of him in front of congress at 5:31. So passionate. So idiotic.
Good descriptive word. Spot on.
Apparently, there is nothing like high intelligence to make one dumber than the average moron.
Not much of a book review in the short amount of time it takes to deliver it. I suppose one could manage to say whatever they want about a book in 10 minutes. Even just listening for these 10 minutes, I could name off a few factors that this speaker either failed or just deliberately overlooked. But hey, you only had 10 minutes.
Before we tack on the label of "imbecilic" or "imbecilification", and if we want to make an informed decision as to what that word means and how the book presents whatever evidence, it would probably be a good idea to put down the beer, turn off the TV and go out and read the book.
@@sPi711 Are you implying the speaker in the video did not read the book or that the posters in the message board did not read it? I confess, I did not read it. But you got to admit, imbicilification is great word.
Quick, someone ask him why his book cost $20 or why a degree from the university he "teaches" at costs more than $200k for a BS.
BS is about right!
These people always feel like they are basically examining themselves and then trying to rationalise that and make themselves feel better by projecting it on to everyone else as well.
Brilliant. So yes.
He could do both the classes and the book, for free. No? Why not?
Hypocrisy is lazy rebuttal. Does not refute the point, just attacks character . Very patriotic form of argument. Thank you internet. Commence the half-witted responses below
I’ve read Evicted by Desmond and it focused mostly on the emotional side of things. It is very moving to hear about the struggles of the people he researched but in the last chapter, he throws out absolutely unhinged propositions to upend the rental market with ideas such as guaranteed right to an attorney for eviction courts and taxpayer funded rent for people who can’t (or won’t) hold down a job to pay. He wants to turn the concept of housing into a government administrative quagmire.
@stafusthat is a lie and you are clearly a paid spammer
Exactly what is happening in NY. They give renters more and more "protections" and "rights". I think the ultimate goal is to extinguish private renting and replace it with government house "to protect renters from predatory landlords".
I kjnow, he should say we have to end capitalism altogether. Halfway measures don't cut it.
@@solar02130 that’s idiotic
@@ExPwnerYes, that's the nature of sarcasm. It's idiotic on its face but wise in reflection.
I started renting my house when I was deployed overseas so that makes me a landlord:
What happened woth Covid egiction freeze was tenants stopped paying and just pocketed a year+ free rent because you were legally prevented to evict them. Many small owners lost homes and businesses to banks because they were not equally enpowered to atop paying their mortgage or insurance etc and new home construction fell off a cliff (hard to determine exactly how much was covid vs covid policy like this, but still).
The fact that an awarded ivy league professor espouses that as a permanent policy is evidence of brain damage more than anything else.
You should sue your former tenants. You can get a judgement and garnishment of their wages till they pay or they go to jail.
@stafus what do you mean ?
@stafus are you a thief if you own a house?
@stafuslandlords aren’t stealing anything. Piss off
@CUTTER101 They force tenants to rent from them? Really?
If you can't afford a house, buy one with friends. Do the repairs and maintenance yourself. Work out the division of labor and expenses.
You may come to less of a leech's view about renting.
You had me at "Princeton professor."
Like Woodrow Wilson?
@@1krani Yes, just like THAT ultimate scumbag!
Gee I wonder what this Princeton professor is going to say about poverty, said no one ever.
@stafus That is not true. Capitalism is the use of capital, land and labor to create goods consumers want to buy.
@@glennwatson3313
No, capitalism is the free use of one's property to generate wealth with respect to the rights of others. What you described could just as easily be assigned to serfdom as a definition, or even outright slavery.
Saying evictions cause poverty is like saying airbags cause car crashes. Completely idiotic.
Well capitalism causes both. That's the cause o the poverty & evictions.
@@solar02130 no it doesn’t
Catching second hand embarrassment after reading your comment. @solar02130
@@solar02130 Nope, its not capitalism, government intentionally causes poverty because it empowers them.
@@solar02130 Right, because in non-capitalist economies, there's no such thing as "poverty" - what we call poverty is just called "normal" there. Making everyone equal means making everyone poor. Bonus: you won't find many people lying around in their own filth doing drugs in a non-capitalist country, though - the government has them killed or sent off to labor camps
This professor honestly suggests taxing homeowners for rental income they are not receiving? Sounds like a great way to make homeownership even LESS available to lower income people.
Perfect way to stuff the middle class and barely affect the upper class so the democrats will love it
Yeah, because perfectly hard working low income people who are that way because they have some sort of issue or disability that makes it hard to get a good paying job never inherit a fully paid off house from their parents, right? That just never happens. 😊😊(sarcasm)
That’s like taxing someone for cooking their own dinner instead of eating out.
@@bobthemagicmoose Don't give them ideas.
My employer can't put a cafeteria in our workplace (which is not open to the public--we have security on every door) because the city considers that a restaurant and they don't want the competition for the existing restaurants. Because the politicians think they can force us to actually leave during our 30 min. lunch break and go to a restaurant, so they can get tax money from it. And all the assorted backhanders and such they get from all the hoops they make restaurateurs jump thru, that they know my employer won't do.
@@Melissa0774So what if they do?
it's incredible how some people want to believe that poverty, which has been the natural state of man since the dawn of time, is a quirk of the economic system that made so many people rise out of it. What did they think? that we were all rich until some evil people deviced the concept of property rights?
That is kinda what some people actually believe!
Jean Jacques Rousseau argued that life in the state of nature (before society and private property) was peaceful and everyone had everything that they wanted. Society and property rights then came along and provided new goods and social distinctions for people to fight over.
Rousseau popularized the idea of the "noble savage" and a lot of left leaning philosophies and ideologies and can trace their history back to Rousseau.
just saw this and you're right. that's very likely one of the contributors to this worldview. Of course, as we now know, he was really wrong on the facts.@@hans7686
@@hans7686 Thats a good synopsis, its wrong of course, Thomas Sowell has proven through his research that noble savages were anything but noble or savages.
The system that brought people out of poverty is not the same system we live in today. Completely different. It's not even really capitalism
[grammar nazi mode on] *devised [grammar nazi mode off]
I'm always amazed to hear Aaron's intelligent and sober analyses. They seem so out of place among the miasma of ignorance and spin that is the media landscape in 2024. Keep doing what you do!
I grew up in a single mom, welfare dependent home. I can assure you poverty has more to do with personal decisions and moral failings. I dropped out of HS at 16 with little direction and no path towards a stable life. I worked for minimum wage, then as a commission based bike messenger. In doing so I more than doubled my income. I showed up everyday, put in the work and slowly worked my way into management. I spent the next 30 years slowly improving my station in life. Home ownership was a large part of creating a stable financial base for my life and that of my family. By living below our means, my wife and I were able to retire in our mid 50's. Our success in life was a product of delayed gratification and not playing keep up with the Joneses. Buying $400 sneakers and the latest Iphone is how you stay poor.
Disinformation comment.
Lacking money is a moral failing.
You see, it used to be that two thirds of Americans were moral enough to afford to buy a home, but now only one third. People, despite being more educated, are simply twice as likely to make poor decisions these days. It’s not systemic at all. It’s tens of millions of collectively timed individual shortcomings.
-bootstraps crowd having X-ray vision allowing them to see right through reality and behold what they decided a priori was causing issues.
This is a true success story ❤
Well done 👏. Doing better by your kids than your pants did by you is worth respecting. 🫡
@@SigFigNewtonthe home ownership rate is higher now than it was decades ago. You have no idea what you are talking about.
[T]he failure of capitalism is still much better than the success of socialism.
-Garry Kasparov
That is an awesome quote.
The Failure of capitalism turns into Fascism
Nice try.
You can tell the motivations of someone making a case in this way. The only reason to cherry pick stats, ignore inconvenient truths, and mislead is that you are looking for power, not trying to solve an issue.
@stafusyou are a liar and paid shill
Or he’s dumb and can’t see his bias.
Political Science professor at the University I graduated from (in Poli Sci) railed on the same points Desmond does.
~Imagine our surprise when we learned that he owned a couple rental properties...
And imagine the rage when it was discovered that he expected the rent to be paid on time. Greedy bastard!
It makes perfect sense, he's getting rid of his competition by using the government to do it for him.
@@thepuncakian2024 Or he is using government subsidies to make his properties more profitable.
A sociologist who is not well versed with statistics. Who would have thought?
@@vivienneb6199 you don’t care about facts remember?
@@vivienneb6199no you don’t. I have no interest in your deflection by trying to change the topic of the conversation. You lied about income taxes and I gave you data proving that the poorest get more than they pay. I cited the IRS directly. You refused to read this and immediately changed subjects because you are a leftist liar and loser
He has competent colleagues. Check the hundreds of names in the acknowledgments in Evicted. He uses many regression models
Hedonic regression
Ordered logistic regression
Negative binomial regression
Doubly robust regression
Lagged OLS regression
Discrete hazard regression
Lagged dependent variable regression
These models, no matter how complex, cannot render the regression enterprise useful for this type of empirical phenomenon (i.e. the causes and consequences of residential eviction). The problems run deeper. There is no technical fix.
Things is, there's no excuse for a sociologist to not have a firm grasp of statistics.
Where I live we have anti discrimination laws. In housing. I don’t know that very many landlords in my area discriminate against people for any of the reasons covered by the law but it does mean that if you say no to someone, they can sue you. They may not win but it can tie you up. If you are a big company with lots of buildings, you can afford the legal expenses and you have enough of a history that you can prove you don’t discriminate. If you have a duplex and are renting out your upstairs and you get an ahole you are screwed
Cut welfare spending, cut military spending, cut all forms of wasteful government spending, and that is how you can decrease the size of government and make our country more free, peaceful, and prosperous.
Cut taxes and bureaucracy /regulations
@@kathleenirish1981 That's good too.
While you're at it, why not just get rid of the federal government; you can't get any smaller than "non-existent."
@@laurendoe168 That's even better.
@@ScienceWatch2000-xs5nh Nobody should have to pay for public utilities at all. In fact, I think that public utilities should be privatized because the private sector does a better job at alot of things than the government does.
Poverty in America can be explained by my high school classmate Roderick. Rod was born poor to a dissolute single mother on welfare. Today, both Rod and I are in our sixties. While I worked and paid taxes, Rod played with the women. While I paid my bills and had one child I could afford, Rod had 30 with a variety of single mothers who all live on the government dole. So, we taxpayers paid to keep Rod out of poverty and he repaid the taxpayers by creating 30 more impoverished welfare dependents. This is unsustainable level of generational poverty.
It is so depressing that people who are well educated are unable to ignore their priors. It’s like the minimum wage debate. Theoretically trained economists should know better.
Economics isn't theory. If you've paid attention for the past 100 years you'd know that. Libertarian economics are outdated but you shill for the financial elite who hate you. Do everyone a favor and keep your rehersed/childish talking points to yourself.
It because they care more about their ideology than they do about the truth. Even to the point of deceiving themselves.
@@vivienneb6199 Grateful for what? Being used and abused for generations ?
Professor Desmond has a book to sale.
Hah! My son's last place in Brooklyn was next to a crazy, and frequently threatening, neighbor that the landlord couldn't get rid of because eviction is already much too hard.
Get the behavior on video and call the cops
@@jmatt98that don't work in nyc
@@jonathanjones3126 you have to file a complaint against the officers to get their attention
@jmatt98 of course, but if you file a complaint you are more then likely to be arrested for nothing
Wildly overpraised books. I am from Milwaukee and can see the BS in Evicted. In Poverty he dissed the success sequence in two sentences. This is what passes for state of the art in sociology - ignorance of economics and serious policy analysis, low quality data, problematic measures, inappropriate use of 'causal modeling', social justice agenda instead of research integrity, intolerance, no self-scrutiny, belief in their moral superiority, etc. I don't even think his ethnographies were first rate. I know some of the people and he mischaracterizes them.
Desmond is a big deal in his field. He has an empire, PR agencies for speaking and media engagements, etc. He fancies himself a public intellectual. The sociology hotshots with huge centers at other schools are not much better., e.g. Bruce Western 'carceration studies center' at Columbia, the Inequality Center at Stanford, etc. The retail worker 'shrink project' center is better. They are more careful and modest in aspirations.
Perhaps the definition of poverty has changed. I've been to very poor neighborhoods. They had heat in the winter, internet, TV's, even cell phones.
More videos like this please!!! Sensible analysis like this is missing in today's conversations, keep it up!
Yes, a lot of the Americans who are the poorest of us have problems that put them in that situation, like criminal records, drug addictions, etc. Yes, there also is a culture issue.
But by simply blaming that won't fix anything. And the poorest of us are focused on surviving day to day, and will not care that policies like making eviction easier would potentially make rent more affordable in the long run.
If you expect that the state will fix anything, you will always be disappointed. Fck having everything up for a vote.
I'm a homeowner and I'm poor. I have less than $500 in my pocket with a mortgage of $600/mo and only make about $30k a year. I make due with living paycheck to paycheck and forgo essentials like ignoring health concerns.
Abolishing poverty is almost impossible, humanities natural state is poverty not wealth, it is the extreme few in the world that are born into some form of wealth. The rest of humanity has to earn their wealth to rise out of poverty.
Morally speaking no one would want to be born into a world where your start in life can be high or lower depending on the uterus you came from. This has been the natural state but should not be. My solution is too radical for libertarians but here it goes. A society where people are born in machines and there are no families of any kind. Money does not exist fundamentally and everyone is born for a specific kind of job. You work till 60 and then focus on educating the youth. Not working is not an option. So basically communism in an absolutely pure sense since money or value does not exist.
@@yashpatel261 if humans are born in machines why bother with biology at all ? You obviously would also want an AI managed government since you want there to be no money, essentially that is advocating for a resources based economy with takes massive management overhead that can only really be achieved through AI. If there are no families you are once again advocating for the death of humanity and frankly being born into a job for life sounds like life long slavery - why use humans at all - build a machine to do the job and get rid of people.
So you want to eliminate families, money, value, mothers, fathers, births - essentially eliminate humanity - did I miss anything ? What would be the point in living in such a society ? Why would any human care about what happened in that society ? Why would you care about that type of society ?
The libertarian view of automation, robotics and AI is that it can free us from the drudgery of work,.
I don't want a job for life.
I don't want a job at all.
Automation can set humanity free from work just like machines have always done. If humans can live free to pursue what they desire then machines will have accomplished their purpose. By the way that would also result in a resource based economy where money is irrelevant and production cost of everything will be reduced to the raw materials and energy required to manufacture it.
You really should read The Singularity is Near and How to create a mind !
@@yashpatel261 Wow, the algorithm deleted my response to you
@@yashpatel261 Your solution sounds like lifelong slavery, I don't want a job for life, I don't want any job at all.
@@yashpatel261 If you want to grow humans in machines why bother with the biology at all ? Whats the point ?
If machines are powerful enough to gestate humans then they should just replace humans.
A big issue that these Ivy League professors never seem to address is that the financial illiteracy rate in America is astoundingly high. When people don’t understand how basic taxes, contracts, or payment obligations work, then the odds of them bettering themselves and pulling themselves out of poverty are slim.
Poverty is not the mystery. Wealth is the mystery. Prior to 1820, more than 95% of all humans lived on less than the equivalent of $1.90 per day.
People outside of cities also grew their own food etc
@jonathanjones3126 The trick is growing enough food, enough to pay the rent on the land, enough to feed the whole family for the year, enough to produce fiber for clothes, enough to provide anything else the family needs. Productivity, even in rural areas, has often been insufficient for the above-mentioned needs. The equivalent of less than $1.90 per day for more than 95% of the human race includes those who farm. It is a fantasy to imagine farm life as always abundant. It often wasn't.
@joanhuffman2166 people often didn't live in abundance, winters got really low on food more often then not. Food got alot cheaper once nitrogen based fertilizers became cheap after world War 1
@jonathanjones3126 That doesn't mean they were able to grow enough. The figure of less than the equivalent of $1.90 per day applies to rural people, too. Rural poverty has been invisible throughout history. Have you forgotten about crop failure and famines?
@jonathanjones3126 Spring is, in fact, the lean time of year when food runs out. Nitrogen fertilizers are a 20th-century phenomenon. Poverty has been the lot of most of our human ancestors.
I mean, Desmond is right just not who. Poverty is a great way for the Government both local, state and Federal to launder money between Public Employee Unions and Politicians. No one is going to say no in cutting programs for the poor....yet no one is willing to check the books on how much money is exchanging hands.
LA there was such study, found out that only .10 cents on the dollar in poverty programs was going to help the poor...the rest went to new jobs for Public Sector works...who in turn made nice donations to local politicians.
Desmond wants the government to help but he's just too stupid to understand that government is the problem in majority if not all of these cases.
Poverty is the natural state that exists without work.
@stafusthat is a complete lie. You have spammed this idiocy all over the place and given zero evidence.
@@Craig121000in the US a full time job puts a person above the poverty line.
@@Craig121000They made bad choices then.
Culture.everything is about culture.
Why do east asia success while latin american a failure?
Why do some ethnic group success while other group trap in the cycle of poverty.?
Many poor people work
So Professor Desmond can't explain the persistence of poverty, but he'll still write a whole book trying to explain it anyway? That would be okay if he had the decency to admit that he wasn't sure that he had any good answers.
I wonder if he knows the truth? My suspicion is that most like him do in fact know that capitalism saved the world and socialism/communism led to figurative and literal graveyards.
I suspect that he also knows that he and those like him will have more power under a far left government and that this causes him to lie.
But I’d honestly love to know what he really believes.
Trouble is that he *won't* have more power under a far left government. There is no room in the new society for the revolutionaries who created it.
Yeah, they all think they will be on the top. Lol.
It's just hard to make generalizations, some people are poor because of circumstances outside of their control and need help, but some have just made terrible decisions in life and are suffering the consequences.
So he just dismisses single mothers as a contribution to poverty? Not having a father figure growing up is the single largest predictor of outcome later in life, greater than IQ, race, family income, or parent(s) education level, and by a significant margin. In fact, if you control for single parents, much of the disparity correlated with race disappears. Asians are one of the most successful demographics in the US, and 80-90% of them grow up with fathers. Only 20% of Black Americans grow up with fathers.
And the largest contributor to housing prices are zoning and similar restrictions on building. Lots of people want to live in cities, because that's where the jobs and businesses are, but it is literally illegal to build enough housing to fit those people, so property prices go up. Abusive landlords exist where supply of housing is artificially limited far below demand. Even dense cities full of tall buildings, like NYC, still have huge areas of low density, and San Francisco has incredibly high property prices, while limiting most residential area to 2 story buildings to preserve the "look" of the city. You can blame "greed" for zoning, but that ignores the fact it is only through government control of a market, not a free market just arbitrarily raising prices.
SF has some strips of single story houses. Astonishing in a city. They're nice but not museum pieces. Just allowing 3 or 4 stories on those streets would make a big difference.
Having both parents in the household is crucial for a child to have much chance of success when they grow up. The mother is necessary for nurturing the child, while the father is meant to provide the children with discipline and protection, not to mention to be the primary breadwinner. This was a critical ingredient in the rise of the African-American community from poverty and into the middle classes in between the days just prior to Jim Crow ending and the implementation of LBJ 's Great Society programs. Linden B Johnston's "Great Society" was the catalyst for the breakup of the black American family, as the welfare benefits encouraged single motherhood.
The only thing better than a two-parent household for the success of a child is an extended family. Extended families have several advantages over the traditional nuclear family, such as there being at least someone guiding and looking after the children at all times, and there being more support if needed. Having adult children and/or grandparents living under the same roof or nearby lends itself to saving money on child care and elder care.
Also, zoning stifles affordability in numerous ways. The paradigm of single-family zoning is very much against "missing-middle" housing. Missing-middle housing refers to types and densities of housing that are between large single-family houses on large yards and dense apartment complexes. More specifically, missing-middle typically denotes 2-8 dwelling units [although it can be up to 12] constructed on a lot that a single-family house would normally be built (such as two sets of semi-detached houses or a row of four townhomes on a quarter acre lot, a 3 or 4 storey apartment house with 12 units on a typical single-family lot, 6 tiny houses forming a pocket neighborhood, or 4 small detached houses on a standard lot). Not only can such missing-middle housing developments offer affordable housing, but some could cater to the growing percentage of the population experiencing intellectual and developmental disabilities as an alternative to group homes. One barrier to denser (or no) zoning is the relatively high concentration of NIMBYs in neighborhoods and on municipal zoning boards. NIMBYs, or the Not-In-My-BackYard types are people who diametrically oppose most changes to their communities, those suffering from NIMBYism are typically up in arms over the pettiest of changes to a neighborhood, such as a tiny house or two being put on a vacant lot, one of the homeowners operating a small relatively non intrusive business out of their houses, even a change in occupancy of one of the existing houses!
Phase out the national income tax and phase in a flat national sales tax on good and services and cut the size of the government by about 90%. Im talking wholesale shrinkage here, folks.
Awful idea. What would happen to all those bureaucrats who are here to help?
Imagine the business boom that would happen in this country if we did away with the income tax. Every company in the world with the capital to do so would domicile themselves here. That would be the ultimate jobs program.
Poverty is an effect, not a cause. Our success or failure in life is the result of the choices we make *_during_* our lifetime. A person can feel any way they choose about this fact, but they cannot escape it.
What makes people like Desmond wrong - that Capitalism has inherent flaws that are responsible for poverty - is the existence of the United States of America...a country that *_used to be_* the most Capitalist nation on earth. The US of A is the living refutation of Marxism. This is also an unescapable fact.
To regain the moral ground, Desmond and his brothers and sisters in spirit are trying to destroy the fact that Capitalism is about the freedom to choose. The freer a person (or group of people, whether you call them a community or a nation) is, the greater chance they have to flourish. Poverty is a problem free people solve for themselves. Some make the wrong choices, and they suffer as a result. Freedom gives them the opportunity to try again...until they succeed or give up.
Modern intellectuals believe "we" will never be free from poverty...and that we all share the guilt if only one person can't make ends meet. They're no different than the Dark Age priests and monks who preached "original sin" to keep the "flock" under control. This is the condition of the modern American humanities; they are preaching a doctrine that cost 100 million lives in the 20th century. The religion responsible for socialism, communism, fascism, etc., have been thoroughly proven neither true nor moral. Yet...creatures like Desmond cling to it. Why?
More importantly, why are Americans supporting it? 🤨
You answered your own question. Because it is a religion. They will lie, manipulate, disregard all reason and evidence…all kinds of nasty things to maintain their religious doctrine. It’s a cult and they do not reason.
First paragraph is disinformation. Liberal evil nonsense.
@@Pocket_Champs2023the only evil is from leftist socialists. There is no disinformation 🤡
Do you mean to say that an academic at an elite university may have no idea about economics? That's a shocker.
The UK penalised landlords with higher taxes and increasing legislation and is currently proposing laws to make it more difficult for landlords to evict. The result is an exodus of landlords and rents rising 30% or more in many desirable areas meaning only those with high incomes choosing to rent can afford them while the poor are pushed into the same deprived areas.
It's stunning to me, a guy with a six grade education how little people are educated about the potential finances in their life. I think that, young people were educated in school everything from what taxes are for and how to balance, your checkbook and the best way to stay out of poverty we would be a lot better off. When I say education, I'm saying that educating young people up through high school would be sufficient to make them understand how to stay out of poverty. Get a high school education, don't have children before you're married and for sure get a job while you're in school part time if you can and try to educate yourself about what you like to do best, and then pursue that.. I'm not trying to go to the moon here. I'm just trying to get people to the point where they understand for 99% of us it's not that hard.
I've thought that too, but it wouldn't do much unless the students and teachers actually took the classes seriously and paid attention in them. A lot of high schools used to have what they called independent living classes, where they covered things like how to buy a car and how to find an apartment, and I think they still do. And they had a lot of other stuff about this in health class too. But in my experience, the teachers just breezed through the material and didn't take it very seriously or really know what they were talking about. (This was like 20 years ago, but I think my experience is still relevant.) They had us play the stock market game, which was a website where you picked fake stocks. But to the teachers, it was just busy work - like "here, go play around with this pretend stock market website for 45 minutes and get out of my hair." I just randomly picked stock in a clothing company for some reason and didn't even keep track of it. Naturally, I didn't learn a damn thing. Their approach to financial education was akin to if a math teacher thought they could teach algebra by just passing out some textbooks and saying to the kids, "Here, these books explain what algebra is, read through them and see if you can figure out how to do some equations." And then they never test them on it at all but pride themselves for supposedly having taught them how to do it. They say they're teaching us about the stock market, but they were just paying lip service. What they need, is to be able to give specific advice. I want to hear, "You need to get a job that pays this specific amount of money. You need this specific amount of money to live on when you retire at ---age. In order to get that amount, you need to put away X amount of money every month in this SPECIFIC account with THIS SPECIFIC COMPANY, for this many years." That's what no one ever tells you. All I ever hear is, invest, invest, invest. But in WHAT SPECIFICALLY? That's what always drives me crazy about financial education, whether it be from a high school teacher or some financial guru on social media. If they have a financial education class in high schools, it has to have specific goals and standards for what exactly they want the students to be able to do and they need to be tested on this knowledge and not be allowed to graduate if they don't pass, just like reading and math. (Or at least they're supposed to do that, anyway.) Otherwise, you just get a bunch of lazy teachers patting themselves on the back for saying they're teaching this stuff, when in reality they're not doing anything.
@stafuslie! Quit spamming this nonsense everywhere
The universities are dead. Specifically the humanities. I want to go back and enroll just so I can counter their ridiculous arguments
The same folks that think every small business owner has a room full of cash somewhere....
THANK YOU REASONTV.
We pay impoverished teenaged single mothers more and more money based on how many new impoverished fatherless children she can birth in her life time. These children repeat the process. In US, one unemployable profligate girl in poverty can exponentially increase the number of people in poverty. There is no way a shrinking number of taxpayers can ever hope to keep up with these numbers much less afford to make each and every one of these EBT babies rich.
If you want to reduce poverty you first need to provide opportunities. Imagine if we didn’t have a minimum wage? Sure some people would be paid a $1 in hour, but there would be twenty employees getting on the job experience. Imagine if the government wasn’t able to attack small business? Sure some people might get shitty services and some businesses would fail, but the abundance of choice for consumers would be amazing.
If you want to reduce poverty, you need to change your behavior.
Opportunities exist but people are complacent in the behavior that’s kept them in poverty.
A handout from the government is easier than working 40 hour weeks.
You know why some Countries experience little to no poverty? Because the government doesn’t give out welfare.
@@russellh8702 All western countries have low poverty because of welfare. Without it you westerners would be at poverty levels seen in asia, latin america and africa.
If you want to eliminate poverty, you raise the minimum wage, strengthen unions, and increase support for the poor, while raising taxes on the rich and corporations. The Great Society cut poverty in half with a strong social safety net, and Biden's COVID bailout package reduced child poverty 50%, but only temporarily, because the GOP apparently wanted poor children to stay poor.
@@HealingLifeKwiklynope that is not how you lower poverty at all. Economically illiterate
@@yashpatel261wrong
By far the majority of people in the top 10% by wealth by age 60 were in the bottom 20% at age 20. These people did this by acquiring skills others would pay for and improving their skills through experience and working hard. They would have accepted handouts when they were available but didn't rely on them. The answer to poverty is, and and has been for long time, get a job, work hard and stay employed, get married have a family and stay married. The statistics support this. The truth here is nothing profound.
"By far the majority of people in the top 10% by wealth by age 60 were in the bottom 20% at age 20." That's simply not true: Very few people move from the bottom 20% to the top 20%, especially, in America, which has the very worst social mobility among wealthy nations.
Complicated certainly, and not easily addressed. But addressing it we must, accountability and transparency toward that end seems the answer. Politicians looking to get re-elected is not an answer.
I think the question is NOT why there is so much poverty in America but why I there so little?
Poverty makes it harder to deal with life's periodic shocks. Recently I lost my job and spent a few months unemployed. I had enough in savings that I could take the time to look for good opportunities. A poor person would have had to take whatever they could get, which probably would have been a substantial pay disparity. Instead of savings, probably they'd have to deal with usury and lose out even more since their new income would have to service these loans. There's a very real feedback loop that tends to keep poor people poor.
Give the guy a break; he's only a sociologist.
Remove the welcome mat for the 60 million here due to illegal entry and there'd be plenty of housing.
That alone wouldn't work.
Poverty persists because people grow up in around enviorments that promote them to lead a life of poverty and often criminality. If poverty were a simple issuse of lack of money then the government would have mostly elimnated it by now, but when was the last time the government stating taking steps to improve the quality of neighborhoods where generational poverty persists instead of throwing money at the issue. Providing fair oppturtinies and enviorments is the long term solutuion to reduce poverty.
@stafuslie! Go away paid shill
Poverty is a lack of good choices, not a lack of money.
@@RussellNelson Yes that too
There's no reason to think that an academic would have real world insight
Last year, the borough of Gettysburg changed waste collection companies, and everyone had to get new trash bins. Professors at Gettysburg College did not know how to buy a new trash bin!
The question is how do some people get so wealthy?
"The question is how do some people get so wealthy?" A combination of talent, hard work, luck, and rigging the economic system to give themselves a bigger and bigger portion of the pie.
@@HealingLifeKwikly almost all wealthy people got there by hard work...are there weasely poop heads that rig the system..yup...there are also idiots politicians that take the money to rig the system! No one gets wealthy receiving welfare checks, and bitching about.
Many if not most Professors live in a contrived bubble.
Actually, poverty does exist because some people will and wish it to. Our disagreement is who the people doing the W&W are: incumbent property owners have stymied greater supply to meet demand for going on two generations. Many people W&W that the war on drugs continue (again, practially two generations). The WOD creates most of the crime that turns inner city housing markets. Another way to say W&W: very bad policies have created unintended consequences. Those became entrenched because the political status quo W&W it to be so.
what makes them "bad" policies?
@@BrockJamesStory is this a trick question? A bad policy is one that does not solve a given problem. A very bad policy is one where the cure is worse than the disease. The WOD has not changed addiction numbers in over a half century. It cost over a trillions dollars, and is directly responsible for making the USA the most violent country in the developed world.
I have a grade 8 education and was a single parent with two kids, two dads.
I benefited from social services but hated being a lover in life.
I am worth a couple million now and I had to turn against my losing mentality many times over the years. I have a steely will and ferocious work ethic. I see the absence of self determination in the poor in general. It's a cop out and that's all there is to it. I think society has a maintenance free mentality which I called bullshit on year's ago.
I just got raped by a pedophile in grade 7 , lived with 2 parents hospitalized for mental illness and turned to drugs, etc.
Luckily it just takes grade 8 math and a will to succeed to overcome setbacks.
I challenge all in poverty to turn your back on your own situation ! Peace
Phase 1: make everything more expensive for landlords
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: cheap rent!
Hahahaha poverty because this is a very poor country. Yep . This is not a rich country at all, in fact the country owes a ton of money and will probably never pay it back. This is a poor country that just happens to be home to some of the world's wealthiest that's all but it is a very very broke country
There so many people opining with statistics who dont appear to have taken even two intro stats courses.
Aaron, I appreciate you!
Thomas Sowell's truism; 'there are no solutions, only tradeoffs'...
I would say crime and politics but that would be redundant
The author is the Greta Thunberg of poverty and housing.
This 'Professor' wouldn't have such a cushy job under actual Capitalism
Liked the video. This is the kind of a video I expect from Reason.
The price of moral progressivism is poverty.
@stafusno it is not. Quit spamming this lie
take RESPONSIBILITY
Why does anybody listen to him? I'll answer my own question by saying that he tells people what they want to hear.
If you want to be popular, tell people what they want to hear.
If you want to be helpful, tell people what they need to hear.
Are they talking absolute poverty or relative poverty? Absolute poverty is when you are the only family in your neighborhood who can't afford to buy a chicken to eat. Relative poverty is when you can't afford to eat at the same three-star restaurant as your neighbor. The former might raise a moral question about society. The latter is a personal problem that could be solved with a little introspection and self-improvement.
@stafuslie!
@@ExPwner proof
@@DrizzyB the burden of proof is on him
@CUTTER101 What about state employees? Are they cheap labor? Oh and where does the state get the money to pay them?
@Stafus You disregard relativity at your peril. Capitalism cannot function without cheap-er labor. It's the relative cost of labor that make enterprises profitable or not, not its absolute cost.
Poverty is a result of low intelligence. IQ is the single most predictor of success. Crime is a product of that poor intelligence (on the fringe, mind, but it has a huge impact if it is concentrated to a certain group). It is also why poverty is hereditary; it is not because because rich parents had money that their children are successful, but because they inherited their intelligence.
Finally an honest well informed review.
Blame government.
Blame politicians.
Blame bureaucrats.
But don't blame Capitalism.
Don't blame freedom.
Says the ignorant socialist/communist @stafus
@stafusno it isn’t. Quit spamming this blatant lie
@@ExPwner where evidence
@@DrizzyB where is the evidence for his claim? Learn how burden of proof works
Wild guess: everything
I like Tom Sowell's principle that poverty is a natural state, and so asking for its cause is backwards. Instead, ask what the causes of wealth are, and then investigate why some can't or won't create it for themselves.
All domiciles being constructed in California are required to include Granite countertops
The official poverty rate does not include all transfers and so does not measure how many people live in poverty. Studies that measure consumption show a rate less than 2% living in poverty.
A UBI Replacement for SNAP, TANF ect. And ending Ueclidian zoning would make poverty rate 0.
Having spent time in many foreign nations the poorest people n America live a very comfortable lifestyle compared to the rest of the world.
@stafusyou spent days on end spamming outright lies and commie bullshit
@@rrmackayit's laughable how much poor people I've known complain about their life condition when their fridge is full of food, they're watching cable TV while looking at their phone, they have a roof over their heads, a half decent car and their kids wear nicer clothes than I do.😅 All while working 30-40 hours a week at most and still getting govt benefits from every direction. They think if they don't have the best of everything, they're suffering. Except the very lowest income ppl, Americans have it quite good compared to the rest of the world...
Real estate appreciation...just what every single mother considers as she makes her way from shelter to shelter.
You know maybe, just maybe, the poor have responsibilities in their own lives and decisions making.
I just find it hilarious when we talk about poverty in America. we, in America,have no idea what poverty is.
Wealth creates poverty the same way wealthy parents risk ending up with spoiled children. In a wealthy country there is less risk for making foolish decisions because the individual reaps the rewards of living in an environment that wealth created. Ambulance service as an example.
Sounds a lot like Robert Reich. All those greedy companies.
Desmond calling actual answers anecdotal while parroting his own nonsense is hilarious.
I think his premise is flawed. He tries to answer the question, "Why is their so much poverty in this incredibly rich country?" What poverty? The government will give you $200 a month to spend on groceries and in any American city you can get fat on free food, housing is subsidized for the poor, education is free. If he wants to study poverty he should go to Africa. He's got his cause and effect backwards or maybe leftwards as well. Poverty doesn't have a cause, it's the default condition of humanity.
The reason there is so much poverty here is because there is so much fat that you can coast and still survive. If there wasn’t so much fat, that would end. It takes a complete ignoramus to starve to death in the United Stares because there are so many safety nets.
Winning the John Kenneth Galbraith Award for Economics is like winning the Pee Wee Herman Award for Basketball.
Also, it is incredible that ostensibly intelligent people actually think that banning evictions is a good idea. A property owner might as well sign the deed over to the tenant when they sign the lease.
Why is banning evictions a bad idea? Like so people stop renting to people what does it really matter?
@@BrockJamesStoryif you can’t understand the negative impacts on people who cannot afford a mortgage or the negative impacts on new housing supply then you haven’t thought of things or lack critical thinking capacity altogether.
@@ExPwner let me rephrase, why should anyone think banning evictions is a morally bad idea.
@@BrockJamesStorybecause it violates people’s rights and causes bad economic effects. Why would anyone think it to be a moral good? There is neither the principled nor consequentialist argument to be made here.
@@ExPwner I could see many reason why people would think it was morally good, because it may prevent some from being evicted.
Where do these rights come from?
Povertyism it is real. Just as I am a human being.More educated people with money aka power in the US, should be addressing these definitive facts. Some want other people to suffer. It's just the good,the bad,and the ugly. Living life.
High Property taxes are squeezing everyone out of their homes.
Much is explained by Intellectuals and society. By T. Sowell.
The answer is in Karl Marx book, but you will not read it, about political economy, the name is "Das Capital". There you can get up and close with explanation for all your "questions".
unintended consequences.....
It's a great idea! With the best of intentions!
I can already tell this video is gonna be so bonkers that im going to have to hand it to Desmond.
Done with America. Im living as a global digital nomad.
Has he heard of monetary policy? I'm no expert, but the cost and supply of wholesale credit seems germane to the real economy. Somehow.
Yeah it's important for that very reason to keep emotion based reasoning out of economics.
What would he know about capitalism and work??? He's never participated in either.
So it’s completely my subjective view, but a Google image search of Desmond reveals photos of someone who clearly takes himself too seriously.
Too many dismissals without counter-facts to back up claims. The snarky tone doesn't help either. I would advise a redo of this.
I wonder whether anyone knows that all government is in the price system
Let's all move to Cuba, where everyone is rich, fat, and happy.😊
4:41 this chart is crazy misleading
No it isn’t. Government spending on social programs has steadily went up over time. It is completely accurate.