Quote Originally Posted by Bham1982 View Post
Last I checked, public housing, affirmative action and minimum wages were strong positives for the poor and upwardly mobility, per basically every economist who has studied such issues. We barely have these things in the U.S., anyways, outside of places like NYC and SF [[which have some of the highest social mobility in the U.S.).

If you believe these things are inherently "bad" or part of a "liberal agenda" you might be a tad addicted to Faux News. The poor in Guatemala aren't exactly better off than the poor in Sweden.
Let's take these one at a time:

Public Housing:
For over 70 years, reputable economists have agreed that this social experiment has been a disaster to both the inner city and the poor they intend to help. According to some, more public housing units have actually been demolished than those built. I think Detroit is a perfect example of that. Reasons cited:
  1. They are an incubator to high crime
  2. High concentration of broken families without fathers
  3. Lack of maintenance
  4. Drives remaining private property prices in desirable or scares areas up [[NYC, SF and possibly Detroit)

The latest iteration of public housing is now moving towards an integration model where 20% "affordable living" mandates are sprinkled amongst more affluent market rate units.

Affirmative Action:
Despite the resentment of those qualifying or missing out on entrance into a course based on their own merit, institutions across the spectrum are forced to accommodate some that will either struggle to just keep up or fail out. The later seems to be the case. Thomas Sowell has spent his entire career on this subject.

Minimum Wage:
If you want to directly attack the poor and uneducated, mandate a minimum wage. It's the employers that it empowers, not the low level labor that's competing for a job. Think outsourcing, automation or closing up shop altogether.

I'm glad you brought up Sweden and I'm sure you can broaden your argument to all Scandinavian nations or even Western Europe. I'm also sure your argument is further reinforced when you read headlines stating that they are the "happiest countries". The problem is when you dig a little deeper. Not only do these nations suffer from the highest alcoholism, anti depressant consumption and even suicide rates, but their happiness is on a completely different scale to what Americans would perceive as being happy. Europeans and Scandinavians are not happy about high taxes to fund their social obligations, they are content with them. Offer up the option to those producing and saving to keep more of their earnings at the expense of those living off welfare, and you will soon realize that the free market economics America stills grasps would be the preferred route. It's only human nature.