Keeping Poor People Poor
It's important to keep poor people as far away as possible from nasty green money. That motivation is the only logical conclusion to how a lot of people and government entities act.
John Goodman writes on his Health Policy Blog:
The cheapest form of housing is small, prefabricated homes for zero-lot developments. However, zoning regulations in most cities outlaw them -- an act that effectively doubles the price of the cheapest housing. There are also other expensive restrictions on new housing, such as forcing builders to build on bigger lots and mandating specific types of materials and construction methods. Regulations vary widely across the United States. In Houston, a less restrictive city, regulatory costs add about $13,200 to the price of an average home. In San Diego, a multitude of regulations add $240,000. These cost-increasing regulations have essentially priced many low-income residents out of the market for a private home, forcing them to turn to public housing instead.Then there is transportation. Did you know that people in the bottom fifth of income distribution take more taxicab rides than middle-income families? The reason: a lot of poor people don't own automobiles. Taxi fares are far higher than they need to be, however, because local governments tightly control entry into the taxi market. (Evidence: in New York City, a taxi medallion sold for a million dollars the other day.) There is no reason in principle why someone with a van couldn't pick up workers in a low-income neighborhood and transport them to a jobsite, charging each passenger a few bucks. The problem: Most cities make this activity against the law.
...In some parts of the country, walk-in clinics in shopping malls allow nurses to give flu shots, take temperatures, prescribe antibiotics and deliver other timely, inexpensive care. But even these innovative services are often saddled with burdensome regulations. For example, in Massachusetts, regulations for clinics have such cost-increasing requirements as a separate entrance for patients, minimum size requirements for exam rooms, and a separate reception desk. When low-income families find they cannot afford private care, what's the alternative? Community health centers and the emergency rooms of safety net hospitals. Yet these care sites often involve crowding and waiting, which limits access to care.
Child care is another basic service needed by many low-income families. In fact, low-income families spend about a third of their income on child care, as much as a typical middle-income family might spend on a home. In recent years, state and local governments have been making child care ever more costly, however. All manner of regulations are emerging, including the licensing of day care workers. Did you know that in most places, it's illegal for a neighbor down the street to oversee children from the neighborhood for pay? Again, what's the alternative? Low-income mothers must seriously consider abandoning the labor market altogether and rely solely on the welfare state.
Here's a task force report he links to, freeing entrepreneurs to provide essential services to the poor.
Much of this is pretty naive. A few points:
- Housing. No. As our lovely hostest has written many times, if you can't afford to own a house, then rent. Sure, there are plenty of useless regulations; on the other hand, zoning restrictions and building regulations do have a purpose. Bottom line: the myth that everyone ought to own a house is nonsense.
- Transportation. Yes, this is an excellent example of "crony capitalism", i.e., regulation put in place to protect existing companies, who then pay off the politicians. Cities really have no business intervening in the transportation market, beyond ensuring that all vehicles are street-worthy and all drivers are licensed.
- Health care. Maybe. The problem here is likely more on the federal level. Requirements for entrances, room sizes, and so forth are probably derived from ADA, EMTALA and other federal regulations. None of which are constitutional, since the federal government is not supposed to have jurisdiction over local businesses.
- Child care. Not really. If you can't afford kids, don't have them. If you can afford them, including any required child-care, go ahead. Apparently the families the author is discussion can afford child-care, and do so. What's the problem? Notice also the perfectly misleading sentence "low-income families spend about a third of their income on child care, as much as a typical middle-income family might spend on a home". Think about the math in that sentence.
That said, I think posters here will agree with one theme that runs through the article: get rid of needless regulations. The government has no business regulating private transactions, unless these are a potential threat to third parties. If I want to erect a house that will collapse at the first major windstorm, that most definitely *is* the business of the government (because third parties might be injured or killed). If I want to pay my neighbor to look after my kids, that is no one's business but ours. If I want to run an informal taxi service, charging people for taking them to work, again, none of the government's business.
a_random_guy at January 20, 2012 12:13 AM
The biggest way to stay poor is by having children.
Purplepen at January 20, 2012 4:01 AM
In Pennsylvania, "pro-life" groups are lobbying the state government to pass legislation that would impose building requirements on spaces in which abortions are performed, such that the spaces would have certain hospital-like features (larger hallways, large elevators, and more). The costs of the renovations would put the abortion providers out of practice.
Michelle at January 20, 2012 7:08 AM
Guys, you're missing one of the wildest features of our "free" society:
We convince the poor that it is noble and desirable to be poor.
ALL of the restrictions on income, from taxes to regulations about where a house may be built and how it can made - all of them make it tougher to get OUT of poverty.
Agencies are awarded public funding based on how many people are ADDED to their rolls.
This impetus has been so effective that voters want an articulate pauper for a candidate - who doesn't look too good.
Radwaste at January 20, 2012 11:46 AM
About the housing business...
Nobody will care for a house, however cheap or expensive, unless they, themseves have invested in it. You don't want to see what's happened to the wildly expensive homes built by the Extreme Home Makeover people.
Radwaste at January 20, 2012 11:48 AM
"If I want to pay my neighbor to look after my kids, that is no one's business but ours."
Your neighbor isn't in the Child Care business, then. If your kid drowns in their pool because they lost track of how many kids were on the premises (it never occured to you that they would be unable to count to 25 every minute of the day), you would then want a license for such places.
"If I want to run an informal taxi service, charging people for taking them to work, again, none of the government's business."
I paid $5 and you crippled me through negligence. Gee, I sue and get the wrecked van, right?
The other arrangement, for those who again are not in the business is called a "car pool". Or you could go "slugging".
You're looking at an environment that includes aggressive litigation and extensive blame-shifting apparatus, not just regulations.
Radwaste at January 20, 2012 12:11 PM
Michelle, people have died because emergency worker could get through the hallways to carry injured woman out. This is a 3rd party could die issue. Not having an embalming room is not in any way the same as having some safety regulation in place for EMS.
Now the houses. Yeah that is BS. If hubby and I could have bought one of those houses in the beginning of our marriage we would have been far better off now. And there are some people who could pay that off quick. You can bet banks are in on preventing them from being sold. If they can get you into a massive mortgage with a high/variable interest rate then they profit.
For the elderly those houses with a water well and a solar panel might well do them for the rest of their lives. You get get solar planet kits for 300ish. Would be better to have my mother in law in one of those attached to my yard than in a home home.. Or worse in my home.
JosephineMO7 at January 20, 2012 12:31 PM
"Michelle, people have died because emergency worker could"
Couldn't get through. Sorry..
JosephineMO7 at January 20, 2012 12:33 PM
That argument falls flat with me. The aggressive litigation comes out of the excessive regulations. How many lawsuits have you seen come out of the ADA. The counters at Chipotle are too high. The mirrors are placed 2 inches too high, and so on.
What about the EPA lawsuits? How many have been settled out of court? Erin Brockovich ring any bells?
I'm sure your industry has seen its share of frivolous lawsuits.
Class action lawsuits also boil my blood. I was basically brought into the class when Progressive was sued for using credit reports for evaluating premiums. What I got out of it was a free credit report after it you get a yearly free credit report because of government regulations. The lawyers got millions. Briggs & Stratton was sued for million was sued because they mislabeled their engines about 1 HP higher than they were. The class got $50-75 per depending on engine size. The lawyers got millions.
The problem is that the standard for "injury" has been lowered and the pile of regulations means that someone is always "wronged".
Jim P. at January 20, 2012 7:20 PM
Jim, I suggest that if you think that the regulations came first (before the idea of suing for a tort), you're mistaken, because regulations are established after a problem is seen in the spotlight.
And if your taxi service complies with those regulations, guess what? you will be protected against most lawsuits.
Radwaste at January 20, 2012 8:22 PM
So you would have some 17½ year old woman in Pittsburgh go to someone in a back alley with a coat hanger, no regulation, no sanitary or hygiene regulation because she can't afford the time and money to travel to NYC?
If you are realistic that standard gurneys are built to fit through the standard doorways that have been in place since the 1960's your argument starts breaking down already.
Then add in that short of the patient that is in distress being over about 300 pounds saying that the EMTs and the the clinic staff couldn't carry a patient on a backboard or walk them to a gurney in a hallway or even at the front door also needs help.
The next thing is how many times a patient needs to be transported to an ER directly from an abortion (or even a regular storefront) clinic is probably a very small statistic. Call it approximately 1.21 million abortions in 2008¹. So say 1% have something go wrong immediately. That is 12,100 botched abortions a year.
Say every single one of those are immediately obvious at the clinic. That means that there are about 47 botched abortions five days a week -- (12,100/(365-(2*52))). Lets call it 50 immediately botched abortions per day.
Call it at 1,026 abortion facilities¹ in the 50 states. So you have 19 clinics per state. So call it one (1) possible immediately emergent botched abortion at 1 abortion clinic of the 19 clinics in your state.
Now further break it down that the odds of there is no way to transport the patient from inside the clinic to the ambulance because they can't get a gurney to the patient or the patient to the gurney. I'd say this gets the statistics down into the 1 in 30-40 million odds. And that is doing my amateur stats.
What are the odds of a child having autism?
¹ -- I'm using the U.S. Abortion Statistics just so we can have an equal footing. I am not endorsing, condoning, deploring or otherwise saying the numbers are good or bad.
Jim P. at January 20, 2012 8:32 PM
Jim P. at January 20, 2012 9:03 PM
Leave a comment