Living on less than half of the federal poverty level is considered “deep poverty.” That describes 53% of impoverished Chicagoans.

Living on less than half of the federal poverty level is considered “deep poverty.” That describes 53% of impoverished Chicagoans.

  • Rentlar
    61·
    1 year ago

    I’m trying but I fail to see how you are stringing these very disconnected ideas together. First, how do any of these people get anywhere from Chicago on their own, when they hardly have a penny in savings to their name. Second, what the hell would these people do in Morocco, do you really expect them to get the same $19US a day in a country where they can’t speak the national language? They’d all go to become an actor to star in Moroccan films as the token American or something? Or they magically receive the same amount of money begging, or hoping their EBT card works? Or they all get remote jobs that they do without access to internet or a device to access the internet?

    I don’t know where to start with the gangs part of the comment, it is entirely irrelevant. Addressing gang violence without improving cost of living doesn’t do much at all for the situation of the deeply improvished.

    • A_A@lemmy.world
      31·
      1 year ago

      You are absolutely right on the short term and I was not thinking about this, but rather along societal changes … maybe over more than one generation.
      I guess you see it now and I don’t have to elaborate (?).

      • Rentlar
        2·
        1 year ago

        I’ll appreciate that a strategy of spreading people out across the world could have some merit in the long term.

        I hope you can also recognize that in the meantime if we don’t address barriers to mobility, affordability and living then we can’t really be in a situation to effectively implement long term ideas like this.

        • A_A@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 year ago

          First, how do any of these people get anywhere from Chicago on their own (…)

          and

          I’ll appreciate that a strategy of spreading people out across the world could have some merit in the long term.

          What I think is that societies and people can (and will) change. And for this, exile is not necessary. I hope no one is forced to go into exile.

          (more on this here)

          ideally, (i think) people should be free to go live in whatever country they want. Unfortunately, people in rich countries sees this as a big problem most of the time. But this is another debate all together and it’s not what I tried to say here at first.


          What I try to say is this very simple idea : it is not only the amount of money like $7000 per year (or whatever amount) that makes people rich or poor but rather :
          1- this amount and
          2- how they live (as a society).
          For example, in some countries, Morocco for instance, (maybe we can find other examples) people live not so bad with quite a low amount of money.

          Now ; the USA is a very violent country compared to many western countries (like in Europe). And, inside USA, Chicago is a very violent city compared to many order cities in that country. This way of life (you are with me here, right ?) makes people poorer with the same amount of money.

          Please don’t tell me my explanation is still confusing.