Comment 27924

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted December 17, 2008 at 21:18:54

Mr.Meister, like I said in my previous posts, having people starve on the streets of Hamilton is probably not a great way to increase property values, nor does it add to the wealth of the city as a whole.

Since I am recommending basing politicians earnings on creating wealth, it stands to reason that we would not have large amounts of people out of work, since this would decrease the potential earnings of city managers. For the people who find themselves unemployed for any number of reasons, I believe that private citizens, if not the government, would find it quite beneficial to the reputation of the city and therefore their property values, to set up temporary social supports. This could mean direct cash payments, or it could mean shelters that provide safe accommodation and nutritious meals.

If politicians did choose not to spend money on the poor, but left them to die on the street, there would be nothing stopping the 500,000 residents of Hamilton from picking up the slack. Assuming that politicians had been successful in bringing high paying jobs back to town, this would be far easier to do than it is currently. The way it stands today, we are so focused on helping the poor, we fail to focus on the real problem that causes poverty, namely a lack of economic output. You can only cut a pie in so many pieces before all you're left with is crumbs.

By rewarding politicians for creating real wealth, the problem of poverty would die not from direct attacks, but simply because you remove its cause, a stagnant economy.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools