New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has an unconventional program for ending poverty: incentives.
Bloomberg says that after years of fighting poverty, the government has little to show for its efforts. Now it’s time to try something new. Why not offer incentives to poor people to do things that can benefit them, such as attend school, get a library card or go to the doctor?
Bloomberg points to the incentives the government already offers to the rich. For instance, there are subsidies to farmers to stop planting corn or energy companies to drill — or not drill — in certain places.
“You can argue that a lot of the things Congress subsidizes, people should do anyway,” he says. “But the truth … is, when you have a bonus, you tend to work harder and do more.”
Bloomberg, a billionaire, says New York City will try the incentives as an experiment using private money, including some of his own.
There’s nothing wrong with people using their own money to help out less advantaged people. It’s not unconventional; it’s charity. But using public funds (read involuntary contributions aka taxes), and let’s be honest, that’s where this is going, to reward people for doing what they should be doing in the first place is idiotic.
If the money being spent on the incentives to the poor is taken from taxes, what does that say about the incentives on those being taxed to pay for the poors double incentives?
I don’t believe their is a problem if he privately funds it. But it should be happening in the first place. What does it say about society when, you have to be rewarded to do something, everyone else does, and should be doing in the first place. They are getting incentives, for failing to live up
to society, then complying to live up to it. On the other hand maybe, sadly thats what it is going to take to make people more ambitious. If
there parents or teachers can’t do it. Then I think Michael Blooomberg should be welcomed as an educator of the poor.
The incentives will do nothing to alleviate poverty. If it’s incentives the poor in NY need then they already have plenty. Don’t they want to have fancy cars? Good dinner? A big house? The poor have already given up hope. The only way to alleviate poverty for them is to put them in a collective commune and force them to work. You need to apply a degree of force to those people.
Charity is something for nothing. This would be something for something.
Bloomberg said that he wanted to try it out as a private experiment to see if it works. Only if it works would he go public with it.
Is “should” working? Bloomberg is trying to use a model of the way things work in successful businesses, for corporations, for the rich, etc.
Who is everybody? It says that society is messed up which apparently it is. Again, is saying “should” working?
How do you know? Chrystal ball?
Apparently not enough.
Why would they give up hope if they have enough incentives? Aren’t you contradicting yourself? Maybe the incentives that are there for some are out of reach for others. Maybe if rewards were there for civically responsible behavior, such behavior would increase.
Right the problem is always with “those people.” It’s never you and it’s certainly not me.
I think it has a chance to work for the better in the long run. It won’t be obvious, but in a few years, there may be a few less homeless people on the streets.