New York City is moving migrants out of shelters and offering them plane tickets to anywhere in the world.
Here’s one approach to discourage migrants from settling in New York City: Give them a free, one-way plane ticket out of town.
Mayor Eric Adams is ramping up efforts to fly migrants to the destination of their choice, figuring it’s cheaper than sheltering them for months on end. And he’s simultaneously warning that those opting to stay in New York may be in for a winter of sleeping outside with shelters full.
“When you are out of room, that means you’re out of room,” Adams told reporters Tuesday. “Every year, my relatives show up for Thanksgiving, and they want to all sleep at my house. There’s no more room. That’s where we are right now.”
This is going to sound crazy. But what if we like… Reduce our military spending budget by just 2% and use that money to build infrastructure/new towns. Those towns will need a workforce…
You know. 2% less on the military budget.
China has tried that and they have ghost cities.
There is nothing preventing people from buying a large piece of land in the hope of becoming a town. They can build infrastructure, and that’s all fine. Yes, it will require people to run.
But who wants to move there? There’s nothing there for entertainment. There’s no family and friends there. Unless a lucrative company builds an HQ there, there aren’t really good decent jobs. So either 1) they have to promote remote work or 2) They have to be close enough to an area with lots of existing jobs. Otherwise, most people are going to have to commute if they don’t work for the local municipality.
How do you propose to solve the desirability problem?
You just focused on the dumbest part of his proposal. We won’t be literally China if we reinvest money in people, infrastructure and housing.
Other than reduce the military budget by 2%, that was his entire proposal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt-Pa5s5zZI
This is called a strawman argument.
I’m going to need you to explain that a little better as I don’t get it. But the thing is (now that I’m on a computer and can type more), whether or not we take the funding from the military (of which I have no objection to), his solution makes no sense.
Let’s say we have 2% of the military funding (and actually not from the military, in case there are people who are opposed), his proposal still doesn’t stand. If you take that money, you need to put it somewhere worthwhile. That’s all I’m trying to say. The first part is inconsequential because it doesn’t actually affect the solution.
The original point was that we as a country have resources. Resources can be reallocated.
If you don’t believe that resources can help or resolve and issue like homelessness or the growth in costs for housing… Well then you’d have to explain why.
What you chose to do instead, was focus in on the idea of building “new” “town” which you understood to be some harebrained scheme to take cheap land in the middle of no where, build a “town” there and then shuttle all the poor people there. Even if the commenter literally wanted that, it’s still a strawman argument as you are taking the weakest version of the idea that resources can help solve the problem, and instead fixating on a bunch of ghost towns that are never going to be built anyways.
I guess you read into it more than I did. I took it literally at face value.
There is nothing wrong with allocating or re-allocating our resources to help issues in the country. I don’t think this point is contested. But what is the best use of those resources such that we can accomplish the goal of mitigating housing prices skyrocketing more or homelessness?