Can you provide a link to a conclusion like that by any such economist? One who doesn't believe that cities should ever use any taxpayer resources to encourage economic development unless this development is in poor areas and who thinks there aren't ever any positive effects of this? I'd like to see an example of this.
Some unfinished business from the last post:
" Since when is the suggestion of a $50,000 an hour minimum wage not hyperbole? Definition of hyperbole: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally."
Nobody had made a suggestion of a $50,000 an hour minimum wage. All I did was state, I assume correctly, that it was unlikely that you would support such a thing in order to illustrate that even the most aggressive advocates for a much higher minimum wage believe that there is a point when it causes much more negative effects than positive ones. We had reached a point, as often happens with minimum wage discussions, where there was a conflation of discussing whether "raising the minimum wage" was a good idea and whether raising the minimum wage to a particular level was a good idea. So I was trying to focus the conversation by reminding you that the merits to the question change based on the level of the increase.
"I believe that entrepreneurs in the suburbs need to be supported."
I'm perplexed by what you mean by that statement in the context in which you made it. Are you suggesting that you want to punish suburban drug users who come to the city to make their purchases in order to support drug dealers in the suburbs? Seriously? That can't possibly be what you meant.
"The report notes that 'notwithstanding the Citys recent efforts to address the broad problems within the Chicago Police Department, it is not likely to be successful in doing so without a consent decree with independent monitoring.'"
And the reason for that is because the political forces, pushed mainly by people who ironically consider themselves "progressives", have made sure that all the government units in the city and state are mostly controlled by their employees rather than by policymakers. The unions have all the power. If they don't get what they want, they'll punish the politicians who don't give them what they want. So basically, any type of significant reform is going to have to be forced by the federal government. Hopefully Sessions won't get in the way of this. This, by the way, isn't the case in the south. We've seen that when bad conduct by police officers occurs there, they usually are fired pretty quickly. That's consistently been my observation on news reports of police misconduct in the south vs. more blue states. Obviously, it's the difference in attitude towards unions that is responsible for that difference. The south is usually inferior in terms of criminal justice issues, but this is an exception.
" I wouldn't be surprised if RedEye eventually kills the print edition and goes digital-only."
Is that fun? Making obvious predictions that have at least an 80% chance of occurring and then not even saying "I think" but rather "I wouldn't be surprised if"? Let me try. I wouldn't be surprised if the Cleveland Browns fail to make the playoffs again next year. I wouldn't be surprised if Donald Trump doesn't always get his way with everything he wants to do when he is President. I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of tax or fee increase happens again in Chicago. I guess I don't get as much out of this as you do.
"You have repeatedly suggested that the best way to help those living in blighted communities is to use TIFs to fund projects in wealthy communities rather than to raise the minimum wage, which you claim would actually harm those living in blighted communities."
I don't understand what that is supposed to mean. The way you phrase that sentence is ridiculous, especially for an English teacher. I certainly have never said said that using TIFs to fund projects in wealthy communities is "the best way to help those living in blighted communities". All I've said is using some government funds such as TIFs to encourage those projects can be worthwhile in boosting economic growth in the city and if they are they will help everyone who lives in the city, including those who live in blighted areas. And I believe the benefits to this far outweigh the costs. You and Joravsky and others of the ironically self-identified "progressive" advocates for a hands-off government involvement in economic development believe that the use of TIFs in middle and upper income areas is a negative for the city that hurts the poorest residents. I believe it is, in contrast, a positive that helps them. That doesn't mean I think it is "the best way to help" them, as if no other government policies have an even more positive effect that it. I believe it is one of numerous policies that would have a positive impact on reducing poverty and allowing people to succeed in life. And I don't recall ever contrasting TIFs with minimum wage increases or even discussing them both at the same time, which is kind of what your sentence implies. The two things have about as little to do with each other as any two city policies can.
"I am claiming that raising the minimum wage would benefit those living in blighted communities more effectively than giving millions of dollars of TIFs for projects in wealthy communities,"
That's pretty much a non-sequitur. It's like mentioning that watching a good movie is a better idea that confirming Jeff Sessions for Attorney General. The two things have nothing to do with each other. Raising the minimum wage doesn't even directly involve raising any tax dollars, though it does affect tax revenue in the long run (whether its positive or negative depends on your view of whether the increase will be positive or negative for the economy) and does increase costs for everybody.
"which would allow us to redirect those TIFs to programs that directly impact the lives of those living in blighted communities, which is what TIFs were originally supposed to do. "
Well, the original intent of TIFs were to encourage economic development (not programs, directly) in blighted communities. Like many things in life, sometimes people realize that the benefits to something go beyond what was thought when it was first conceived. Wikipedia, for example, was first conceived as just a user-generated farming mechanism that might provide useful suggestions for an editor-driven encyclopedia. Eventually, people realized that some of the strongest benefits of encouraging economic development would be in non-blighted areas, where the tax revenue and job growth would be a lot higher. The tax revenue that TIFs create, through economic development, is used dis-proportionally for people who live in poorer areas. Lower income people make use of city (and other local government) services disproportionately compared to higher income people. Around 85% of CPS students, for example, come from low income families. And the jobs that are created by these economic development projects, both directly and indirectly, are taken by people from all income levels. There have been TIF funds used in blighted areas. TIF funds were just used in Englewood, for example, for the development that included a new Whole Foods. But policymakers have rightly not limited these funds to struggling neighborhoods because they realize the potential for the most increased tax revenue and increased jobs is in areas that are not blighted.
"IFs are tax dollars, IAC, which is what I wrote: ' . . . why would I give millions of tax dollars to an already profitable corporation. . . .' You simply misread the sentence."
We had been discussing the minimum wage and you changed the subject to TIFs.
"Definition of hyperbole: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally. You're really making this too easy."
What I said was not exaggerated and it was meant to be taken literally. What I said was " Certainly, there's a level in which even you would think would be too high. For example, I doubt you'd support a $50,000 an hour minimum wage." Nothing about that is exaggerated. You would not support a $50,000 an hour minimum wage. I chose an example that was high enough (I hope much more than high enough) that I didn't have to worry about whether my statement was correct. That's not an exaggeration and it isn't hyperbole.
"Yes, I do"
That's an astonishing statement. Why do you believe that drug users from the suburbs should be treated with a tough on crime approach while those who live in the city, or at least the poorest neighborhoods in the city, should be treated less harshly? Do you think that every one of these suburban drug buyers come from incredibly rich families and won't be subject to the negative effects that certain drugs cause? Do you really think there aren't also suburban young people whose lives are ruined at a young age by one or two bad decisions and/or poor treatment from their families or their community? If so, this is kind of an argument for eliminating the residency requirement for city and CPS employees because it illustrates that it may be causing a lack of familiarity with those that live outside the city.
" Here's the biggest difference: Black people are subjected to state violence and white people usually are not. "
All black people? Absolutely every single one? It really is not OK to make generalizations of entire races, regardless of which race it is or whether one believes they are making a generalization that makes them look positive or negative. If someone made a negative generalization with the same phrasing of "Black people are..." the same people who think your phrase here is perfectly fine would find it very prejudiced. I'll give an actual example that occurred recently. A poll asked Trump supporters and Hillary Clinton supporters whether they believed that "black people are more violent that whites". I believe the results were that 49% of Trump supporters and 37% of Clinton supporters expressed agreement with this. Many people interpreted a "yes" answer to be a racist belief that blacks, by nature, are more violent than whites. If one believes this is how they were answering the question how do you think they'd interpret the phrase "black people are subjected to state violence"? A lot of people believed that those who answered yes in that poll were expressing a racist belief in large part because they were showing agreement with such a generalized statement (though I would argue that requires a problematic assumption that people were interpreting the question in the same way). It really is long past time that people should have learned to avoid using generalized statements about entire groups of people. And I think if we were to look at the statistics we'd find that the majority of African Americans are never subjected to any violence by police or other authorities at all. It no doubt would be a higher rate than whites, but still well below the majority. So it wouldn't even have been correct if you'd inserted the word "most".
I won't waste time responding to anything else in the article. I agree with the post by Deviantbehavior.
"You know you've made the better argument when your opposition attempts to change the focus of the argument."
I think that's generally true. And it's ironic that you mention that because in this specific instance I was responding to an instance where you, in fact, changed the focus of the argument. After I pointed out problems with your specific minimum wage suggestion you responded by talking about tax breaks. Then when I asked what you were referring to you accused me of changing the focus of the argument.
"You also know you've made the better argument when your opposition resorts to hyperbole."
I wasn't using hyperbole. I was using an extreme example to highlight the fact that all sides agree that there is a point at which the minimum wage gets too high. All sides also really agree as to the reasons that raising a minimum wage too high becomes detrimental. They just disagree as to what level this is.
"Equality. If having convenient access to health-care is good for the (mostly white) wealthy, then it should be good for the (mostly black and brown) poor."
I'm really perplexed by your focus on this. Of all the complaints I've heard people state about health care I don't think that living thirty minutes away from a doctors office instead of fifteen minutes away or twenty minutes away instead of five minutes away is one that comes up very much. That's true with people of all income levels. The distance from health care availability is an issue that exists in rural areas of the country. But it's not a real problem in city and suburban areas.
"Come on. When I suggested we throw the legal book at those coming into blighted neighborhoods to buy narcotics, you knew I was talking about (mostly white) suburbanites. That's why your initial reaction was so uncharacteristically measured and humane."
Well, you did use the word "white". But OK, I'll rephrase what I asked in my last post based on your clarification. Let me get this straight. You believe that drug users should be treated differently based on where they live? Suburban drug users should be given harsh penalties, just for using, while inner-city users shouldn't? That seems to be what you are implying. This is really a shocking statement.
All Comments »