Money flows uphill in Dallas, Texas.
No news flash there.
It is the reality in every major American city.
Dallas has a long history of handing over public funds to undergird and benefit economic development that, for the most part, benefit a segment of our community that is already quite well off.
Examples abound from our past and our present. Stadiums, upscale marketplaces and hotels, infrastructure improvements and transportation access--again and again my hometown has directed enormous amounts of public capital uphill toward already existing networks of wealth and affluence.
No doubt, many of these projects have delivered some benefit to persons "below."
Jobs have been created; tax revenues--though often limited or set aside completely for years by the terms of the various development deals--have grown; tourism, sports culture and recreation have all expanded as a result of such public policy decisions.
By comparison though, investment at the bottom in communities of great disadvantage has been miniscule.
Furthermore, whenever there has been the slightest movement toward creating advantage for such neighborhoods, resistance always arises, follow through is lackluster and political posturing takes over.
Recently, after making a presentation about how investment "at the bottom" makes a bigger difference by far for the entire community than investment and tax incentives awarded to those "at the top," a former City Council member and well-known community leader approached me with a point to make.
"Larry, it doesn't have to be either/or. It can be both/and. Investments at the top make a huge difference!" she told me with rising emotion.
She went on to reference a recent real estate deal downtown that resulted in a huge event center development and what she claimed amounted to over $7 million in new tax revenue annually.
I tried to keep my cool--something that is getting harder and harder as I observe life among the poor in Dallas and across the nation.
I pointed out that I had been in Dallas for most of my life (since 1953) and that I had observed the "either" for so long that I felt it was time for an extended dose of the "or." I suggested that equivalent amounts of investment and economic incentives provided for developers who were interested in improving life in inner city neighborhoods could produce much greater return to our public coffers, but that we never make those investments.
Of course, she didn't agree. I didn't back down. She found me perturbing and insolent, I expect as I pressed my argument against the foolishness and fallacies of our "supply-side" or "trickle-down" economic practices.
Dallas suffers from a grave lack of political and moral will. Often our deficiency expresses itself as simple greed.
The Dallas story spotlights the problem with current public policy in our country. Not everything is about individual choice and responsibility. Countless public decisions that affect how a city does business produce very negative results for those who need new opportunity the most.
It's the system.
It needs to be changed for the benefit of everyone in Dallas.
Announcement from Duke Memorial UMC
1 week ago
5 comments:
Larry, I've seen what you are talking about in the 30+ years I've lived around Dallas. Is the situation similar in Richardson? Wait a minute. I can't believe I ask such a stupid question. Seriously, do public funds come to Richardson? How how can I can I find out how they are being spent?
Edd Eason
Edd, good to see you here! Thanks for joining the conversation.
The equivalent for Richardson could be determined by finding out what the City Council there has given up to attract business development, etc. as opposed to what they have done to incentivize developments that benefit lower income families and the developers who cater to those needs. It is a bit different in Richardson since the council there has not used incentives or tax abatements to build stadiiums or upscale hotels--at least not that I am aware of. The other difference is the fact that Richardson does not have a large population of very low-income persons at or well below poverty level.
Good questions to ask. I would be inerested to know what you find out. I have always thought that a church like yours could do good work by building affordable housing for the community. Would the city help you with that????
Much of what you say is right, so why do you encourage a government that steals from its citizenry? Taking what belongs to one person and giving it to Jerry Jones or Larry James is theft. Maximizing freedom would help everyone but it would help the poor the most because the poor are always hurt the most when freedom is limited.
Jeremy-
Raising the minimum wage is like shutting down third world sweat shops, it provides a moment of self satisfaction to the benefactor at the expense of the supposed beneficiary. Poor people in Guatemala want jobs. Rules mandating paying a “prevailing wage” do the same thing. I hope they will be waved for the Katrina cleanup. Why should a lower skilled carpenter be considered worthless according to gov regulations just because he’s not up to the higher “prevailing wage” standard? Don’t be afraid of “the man” taking unfair advantage, he ain’t that powerful.
It’s not my goal to have people eat smarter, or stop smoking or drinking, or exercising more. I would want to encourage, never discourage good choices but those choices belong to the people who make them.
I know(as a volunteer) that the guys in prison that owned their mistakes and accepted their circumstances, got better. The ones that held onto reasons and resentments were held back.
ps What is the minimum food budget for a single guy? $/week
c hand, thanks for replying. I have two questions:
1. I don't really follow your argument about why it's bad to raise minimum wage. If I may, could I ask again - do you think we should even have a minimum wage in the first place? why/why not?
2. It sounds like you are describing taxes as theft. So, if it cannot tax, how can government afford to operate? or should we not have a government, and allow rule to fall to individuals?
Thanks! I look forward to your reply.
p.s. Minimum food budget for a single guy? According to the "Official USDA Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home at Four Levels," the minimum food weekly budget for a male 20-50 years old is $33.50 on the "thrifty plan," $43.20 on the "low-cost plan," $53.90 on the "moderate plan" and $65.70 on the "liberal plan." These are based on that person living with a family of four. If the person is single and living alone, these costs need to be increased by 20% (since they cannot achieve economy of scale). In other words: $40.20, $51.84, $64.68 or $78.84 respectively.
hope that helps!
Jeremy-
Can you name people who would have their wages reduced 50-80 cents/hr if the min wage disappeared? The min wage is another way for polititians to take credit for something while doing nothing or at least very little. The unfair advantage mean employers would take is vastly overstated. The unseen harm keeping a min wage does is widespread.
Here's what Dr. Williams says.
http://www.townhall.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=minimum+wage&ps=25
The idea that minimum wage legislation is an anti-poverty tool is simply sheer nonsense. Were it an anti-poverty weapon, we might save loads of foreign aid expenditures simply by advising legislators in the world's poorest countries, such as Haiti, Bangladesh and Ethiopia, to legislate higher minimum wages. Even applied to the United States, there's little evidence suggesting that increases in the minimum wage help the poor. Plus, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 2.2 percent of working adults earn the minimum wage.
The crucial question for any policy is not what are its intentions but what are its effects? One of its effects is readily seen by putting yourself in the place of an employer and asking: If I must pay $6.25 or $7.25 an hour to whomever I hire, does it make sense for me to hire a worker whose skills enable him to produce only $4.00 worth of value per hour? Most employers would view doing so as a losing economic proposition. Thus, one effect of minimum wages is that of discriminating against the employment of low-skilled workers.
For the most part, teenagers dominate the low-skilled worker category. They lack the maturity, skills and experience of adults. Black teenagers not only share those characteristics, but they are additionally burdened by grossly fraudulent education, making them even lower skilled.
Post a Comment