Living on less than half of the federal poverty level is considered “deep poverty.” That describes 53% of impoverished Chicagoans.
For those wondering. The Illinois Policy Institute (IPI) who wrote this is a rabid libertarian/conservative think tank group. If you read through on this you’ll see their “solution” is that government just makes it difficult for able-bodied people to work.
To which I would say, “Yes government should make it difficult for able-bodied people to be coaxed into slave labor wages that while technically gets them above the poverty line, offers no economic mobility. The entire point is that all people should have the ability to not just work but to work towards something that personally affects them in a positive manner, not just grind out 300,000 widgets to allow some CEO buy a new yacht.”
Conservatives: Lazy welfare queens and druggies! They just don’t want to work! They chose to be this way! They should all be arrested and/or executed.
Progressives: throws money vaguely in that direction without direction Look we’re helping! We’re doing all we can.
Leftists: This is the fault of the capitalist system run by an ownership class!
Those of us who’ve been homeless or near homeless and those genuinely dedicated to helping the homeless: We need a comprehensive approach that takes all the challenges that cause homelessness into account and addresses them as a whole and in a meaningful way to create a long term sustainable solution.
Conservatives, Progressives, and Leftists to us: Shut the fuck up! What do you know about any of this? We’ll figure it out! Now shut the fuck up!
This is a weird take to me. One of the groups is not like the other two in your own example. It is obvious that there is a huge wealth gap driven by unregulated capitalism which is contributing to the problem, and multiple studies have shown that homeless people that receive free money (i.e. a universal basic income) use that money to stop being homeless.
Listen I don’t need you preaching this shit in my backyard kthxbye
Leftists are aware that homelessness is a feature of capitalism. Dismantling capitalism is how to fix your problem. With capitalism still in play, homelessness only increases.
So wait… progressives and leftists are people who have never been homeless or dedicated to helping the homeless?
So basically half the population below the age of 18… i wonder why
https://www.infoplease.com/us/census/illinois/chicago/demographic-statistics
“deep poverty is primarily concentrated among those who are able-bodied, of working age and their children”
I guess you might be able to eat on around $19 / day if you only bought the cheapest staples at the grocery store. Sounds very difficult, though.
Eating on $19 a day is absurdly simple. I feed an entire family very well on that.
Eating, transport, housing, medical, clothing, etc is the hard part.
I don’t really see the numbers here but they kinda make sense. Minimum wage single mom with two kids, yes that would be about $19 per day per person. Food stamps and WIC and housing assistance for the rest.
Pretty fucking miserable way to live.
I guess you might be able to eat on around $19 / day if you only bought the cheapest staples at the grocery store.
You are including far more.
That’s only eating. Now start to think about housing and all the other necessities.
Right. Most of those would not be possible.
Lentils, rice, bulk spice, butternut/acorn/spaghetti squash
Misery to survive, got it.
?
People like to eat a variety of food. Not just lentils and squash all the time. Maybe you’re fine with a boring palate. Most people like more than two or three flavors, some of them even sweet.
But I guess poor people don’t deserve that. Lentils for them every meal.
This assumes a number of things. One, that my one example is something that people should be eating all the time. Two that the ingredients i listed can only be prepared in a boring way. I’m sorry you lack the imagination or even an Indian cookbook.
How many ways do you think those four things can be prepared without any other ingredients or even spices?
Any other weird limitations you’d like to add to this weird scenario?
Does anyone else feel like this instance gets a disproportionate amount of news focused on Chicago?
Post something else, then.
Just out of curiosity have we posted about the dog leading their owner to a cat that was stuck down a well? I haven’t quite got the hang of searching here yet, but we could post about that if we haven’t already. Just saying.
Idk fam I’m not a mod. Post to your heart’s desire
This is about $7,000usd/year. Now look at Morocco and other such countries in here :
List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
What I mean here is : when you have a need you are the best person to find a solution.
Of course, this applies only in places where there is no war and Chicago is under some kind of a war.
Gangs in Chicago - Wikipedia
Chicago is considered the most gang-occupied city in the United States, with 150,000 gang-affiliated denizens, (…)Not sure why you even went to the effort to link this because it’s almost completely irrelevant. The cost of living in Chicago and Morocco are not even remotely the same so trying to make the point that people elsewhere in the world can survive off that much so people on Chicago should is nonsense. That’s assuming we’d even consider people in Morocco living on that much as having a decent quality of life.
Exactly, the cost of living is different …and there are reasons for that. it’s so obvious to me and yet you people don’t see it. Don’t bother you don’t have the right mindset.
Enlighten us because nothing in your comment bothered to go into any of the reasons so why even make it if you then don’t want to follow up.
Notice how in my previous answer I took the effort to highlight in which way I agreed with your point. Do the same and we can start to talk.
I’m trying but I fail to see how you are stringing these very disconnected ideas together. First, how do any of these people get anywhere from Chicago on their own, when they hardly have a penny in savings to their name. Second, what the hell would these people do in Morocco, do you really expect them to get the same $19US a day in a country where they can’t speak the national language? They’d all go to become an actor to star in Moroccan films as the token American or something? Or they magically receive the same amount of money begging, or hoping their EBT card works? Or they all get remote jobs that they do without access to internet or a device to access the internet?
I don’t know where to start with the gangs part of the comment, it is entirely irrelevant. Addressing gang violence without improving cost of living doesn’t do much at all for the situation of the deeply improvished.
You are absolutely right on the short term and I was not thinking about this, but rather along societal changes … maybe over more than one generation.
I guess you see it now and I don’t have to elaborate (?).I’ll appreciate that a strategy of spreading people out across the world could have some merit in the long term.
I hope you can also recognize that in the meantime if we don’t address barriers to mobility, affordability and living then we can’t really be in a situation to effectively implement long term ideas like this.
First, how do any of these people get anywhere from Chicago on their own (…)
and
I’ll appreciate that a strategy of spreading people out across the world could have some merit in the long term.
What I think is that societies and people can (and will) change. And for this, exile is not necessary. I hope no one is forced to go into exile.
(more on this here)
ideally, (i think) people should be free to go live in whatever country they want. Unfortunately, people in rich countries sees this as a big problem most of the time. But this is another debate all together and it’s not what I tried to say here at first.
What I try to say is this very simple idea : it is not only the amount of money like $7000 per year (or whatever amount) that makes people rich or poor but rather :
1- this amount and
2- how they live (as a society).
For example, in some countries, Morocco for instance, (maybe we can find other examples) people live not so bad with quite a low amount of money.Now ; the USA is a very violent country compared to many western countries (like in Europe). And, inside USA, Chicago is a very violent city compared to many order cities in that country. This way of life (you are with me here, right ?) makes people poorer with the same amount of money.
Please don’t tell me my explanation is still confusing.
Chicago is a very violent city compared to many order cities in that country.
Republicans just want you to think it is.
Can you please show me where Chicago is on this list?
https://realestate.usnews.com/places/rankings/most-dangerous-places
Chicago vs. worst ranking, based on
Yearly Crime Rates per 100,000 people
Violent crime, total : 17th worst in USA
Murder (&…) : 14th worstWhat’s more, all cities which are worse than Chicago are at least three times smaller. Meaning that for cities of at least 1 millon, Chicago is the very worst in the USA.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
How is it ranked in your ref. ?
Do you realize that cost of living is actually different by region?
see my other answer
belowabove.
I spend so much more than that to get to work :(
They are not poor people they just have less god’s enlightment… 🤞🙏
