Millionaire adopts town. Crime halved, graduation rates skyrocket

Stupid headline, this town didn't eliminate poverty, but I find it interesting to compare this "solution" to the one in the OP.

Too long to cut-n-paste the whole thing.

This City Eliminated Poverty, And Nearly Everyone Forgot About It

On a December afternoon, Frances Amy Richardson took a break from her quilting class to reflect on a groundbreaking experiment she took part in 40 years earlier.

“Well, that was quite a few years ago,” she said. “There was a lot of people that really benefitted from it.”

Between 1974 and 1979, residents of a small Manitoba city were selected to be subjects in a project that ensured basic annual incomes for everyone. For five years, monthly checks were delivered to the poorest residents of Dauphin, Manitoba –- no strings attached.

And for five years, poverty was completely eliminated.

The program was dubbed “Mincome” -- a neologism of “minimum income” -- and it was the first of its kind in North America. It stood out from similar American projects at the time because it didn’t shut out seniors and the disabled from qualification.

The project’s original intent was to evaluate if giving checks to the working poor, enough to top-up their incomes to a living wage, would kill people’s motivation to work. It didn’t.

But the Conservative government that took power provincially in 1977 -- and federally in 1979 -- had no interest in implementing the project more widely. Researchers were told to pack up the project’s records into 1,800 boxes and place them in storage.

A final report was never released.

Richardson is now 87 and still lives in Dauphin. She says only three or four of the city’s original Mincome recipients remain among the prairie community’s 8,251 residents.

During the program’s heyday in the mid-1970s, Richardson was a mother of six – three of her children lived at home.

To earn money, she ran a small salon out of her home called Fifth Avenue Beauty Chalet. Whatever cash she could make styling hair contributed one stream of the family’s income; her husband Gordon provided the other with his job at the local telephone company.

Her ailing mother also lived in the house at the time. She remembers Mincome researchers visiting the home regularly to calculate how much money the family was qualified for.

“We kept track of everything and somebody would come once a month,” she explained. “I kept track of what I made and they would pay the difference to what they figured that cost many people to live.”

Mincome provided the Richardsons with financial predictability and a sense of stability. There was always food on the table. The bills were paid. The kids stayed in school.

And when Gordon’s health took a turn for the worse mid-way through the pilot project, the family still made ends meet.

“It was a lot of good, but see, the Manitoba government and the federal government both went out of power that year and they ran out of money – so it was just dropped,” Richardson said.

“It was done.”

In five years, Mincome helped one thousand Dauphin families who fell below the poverty line earn a livable income. When the project ended, locals didn’t make a fuss because they knew the checks were temporary anyway.

“Some people thought it was like charity,” Richardson said about Mincome. “It wasn’t really charity, it was need.”

So in 1979, it was business as usual again. After Mincome folded, people tapped into their prairie work ethic and looked to make do however they could. The Richardson family went back to scraping by, the same way they had before the project began. The kids found jobs: one sold gas at the local garage, another landed entry-level work in insurance.

Richardson continued to bake bread and can her own preserves at home. It’s a cash-saving skill born out of hard times some food bank-dependent families have lost today, she suggested.

“I think if we had a Mincome where they were helped a little,” she added. “That might be better.”

Why Dauphin? How did a farming community play host to such a landmark social assistance program?

Good political timing didn’t hurt.

In 1969, the left-leaning provincial NDP led by Edward Schreyer swept into power for the first time. The transition injected new rural sensitivities and democratic socialist influences into politics.

On the federal level, Pierre Elliott Trudeau was prime minister. The two men worked swiftly to set up conditions for a basic income experiment.

In 1973, Manitoba and the federal government signed a cost-sharing agreement: 75 per cent of the $17-million budget would be paid for by the feds; the rest by the province.

The project rolled out the next year.

All Dauphinites were automatically considered for benefits. One-third of residents qualified for Mincome checks.

...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/30/city-eliminated-poverty-mincome_n_6392126.html
 
It has never occurred to poor people that they could help each other. Child care is big business. It seems to me like two women could make an agreement to share living space and work different days/shifts and care for each other's children. I work Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. You work Tuesday, Thursday Saturday. Or I work second or third shift, you work first. What happens at night? Kids sleep.

Actually a lot of poor people do that. One of the bizarre side effects is that everywhere there is a "home daycare" center, drug sentences get increased due to enhancements of being near a "school zone." And lots of times grandparents watch kids. But this millionaire did more than help pay for daycare. He also provided college scholarships which helped promote academic achievement. Pray tell how are poor people going to do that exactly?

Really, it's interesting to see the reactions to what to me seems a very straight forward story. This story has nothing to do with Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton (though I really think they would 100% be happy with this story and I believe those who say otherwise are being needlessly cynical), nor is this story about anybody asking you for a dime either through taxes or donations. One person found a way to make good with his money and he did. If there is a libertarian takeaway it's quit trying to take away money from rich people to give it to the government to give to programs to help poor people when there are rich people happy to help poor people on their own. Had the government spent this money I sincerely doubt they would have had anything like this result.
 
Last edited:
That's the outer appearances. Their inner world is, I am sure, very different. See my previous post on this. :)

I saw your previous post and I'm 100% certain that you have no idea of what their "inner world" is like. For one thing I doubt they are as evil and greedy as you believe them to be. For another thing, even if they are that evil and greedy, they can make just as much money advocating for affirmative action for all of these new high school graduates headed off to college and ultimately trying to get jobs as they can advocating for poor folks. In fact Jesse Jackson has already started such a push in Silicon Valley.
 
I saw your previous post and I'm 100% certain that you have no idea of what their "inner world" is like. For one thing I doubt they are as evil and greedy as you believe them to be. For another thing, even if they are that evil and greedy, they can make just as much money advocating for affirmative action for all of these new high school graduates headed off to college and ultimately trying to get jobs as they can advocating for poor folks. In fact Jesse Jackson has already started such a push in Silicon Valley.

Wait, let me get this strait here. You don't think those two are evil and greedy?
 
Wait, let me get this strait here. You don't think those two are evil and greedy?

Not to the extent you do. I don't think they are sitting around thinking "Man I hope people will stay poor so that we can make money off of them." Everyone is evil and greedy to some extent. But I have to ask, why this obsession with them to the point of invoking them in a discussio that has nothing to do with them?
 
Not to the extent you do. I don't think they are sitting around thinking "Man I hope people will stay poor so that we can make money off of them." Everyone is evil and greedy to some extent. But I have to ask, why this obsession with them to the point of invoking them in a discussio that has nothing to do with them?

I disagree 100%. They only thrive if their supporters are in poverty and hate. And it should be obvious why I invoked them. I think the comment I made makes sense if you're paying attention. As to your point they aren't any worse than Mitch McConnell and Jesse Benton? I don't disagree. They just have a different shtick.
 
I disagree 100%. They only thrive if their supporters are in poverty and hate. And it should be obvious why I invoked them. I think the comment I made makes sense if you're paying attention. As to your point they aren't any worse than Mitch McConnell and Jesse Benton? I don't disagree. They just have a different shtick.

1) You have a right to your opinion.

2) I paid attention your comment and 100% disagree with it.

/end discussion.

Edit: I will add one more thing. The incident people seem to hate Al Sharpton for the most is the Tawanda Brawley incident. How dare he think white cops in New York might do something like that. Well.....all I have to say to that is Eric Garner, Kelly Thomas (white and hispanic cop), Abner Louima and a whole host of other cases. I could see why someone might jump the gun and believe her, then not want to throw her under the bus later on. And for the record, I don't think Jesse Benton and Mitch McConnell are as evil as you believe Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to be either. I can't imagine any of those four men sitting around thinking "Man! I hope poor people don't start doing better in this country because then I won't be able to (fill-in-the-blank)."

And your comment that Sharpton and Jackson only thrive if their supporters are poor and hate is provable BS. I've already proven that. But I will explain it to you further. There is always something to exploit. Always something to be angry about. Is Doc Rivers poor? He's the black man that Donald Sterling hired to be the manager of the L.A. Clippers. He, and the entire L.A. Clipper franchise make more money each year than most of us dream of. Do you think they weren't pissed, and rightly so, when the focus of their remarkable season became some stupid racist comments by the team owner? Or how about all of the people justifiably angry that Eric Garner's killer didn't even get indicted? I'm not going with Mike Brown because that one is at least debatable. Until Jesus comes there will always be something to get angry about. And note I keep saying "get angry" as opposed to "hate." I don't believe most Jackson and Sharpton supporters "hate" anyone. I sure as hell didn't hate anyone when I supported them. I don't support them now because I don't think they are effective. But it was never about hate. Don't sit back and judge people you've never met and know little about. That's why this country is so screwed up. Blacks and liberals sit around thinking that white people who just can see injustice right in front of their face must be racist and white people sitting around thinking that black people always talking about injustice must be "full of hate." This kind of nonsense needs to stop.
 
Last edited:
You know I have enormous respect for the Civil Rights movement, and I believe we share the same goals. A very small portion, the specific portion that receives overwhelming funding from the Establishment Left, I believe was described by Booker T Washington in 1911

“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs – partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.” (My Larger Education p118)

I do believe that Sharpton and Jackson fall into Booker's category of "problem profiteers."

I do also believe that the vast majority of civil rights activists do not.
 
1) You have a right to your opinion.

2) I paid attention your comment and 100% disagree with it.

/end discussion.

Edit: I will add one more thing. The incident people seem to hate Al Sharpton for the most is the Tawanda Brawley incident. How dare he think white cops in New York might do something like that. Well.....all I have to say to that is Eric Garner, Kelly Thomas (white and hispanic cop), Abner Louima and a whole host of other cases. I could see why someone might jump the gun and believe her, then not want to throw her under the bus later on. And for the record, I don't think Jesse Benton and Mitch McConnell are as evil as you believe Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to be either. I can't imagine any of those four men sitting around thinking "Man! I hope poor people don't start doing better in this country because then I won't be able to (fill-in-the-blank)."

And your comment that Sharpton and Jackson only thrive if their supporters are poor and hate is provable BS. I've already proven that. But I will explain it to you further. There is always something to exploit. Always something to be angry about. Is Doc Rivers poor? He's the black man that Donald Sterling hired to be the manager of the L.A. Clippers. He, and the entire L.A. Clipper franchise make more money each year than most of us dream of. Do you think they weren't pissed, and rightly so, when the focus of their remarkable season became some stupid racist comments by the team owner? Or how about all of the people justifiably angry that Eric Garner's killer didn't even get indicted? I'm not going with Mike Brown because that one is at least debatable. Until Jesus comes there will always be something to get angry about. And note I keep saying "get angry" as opposed to "hate." I don't believe most Jackson and Sharpton supporters "hate" anyone. I sure as hell didn't hate anyone when I supported them. I don't support them now because I don't think they are effective. But it was never about hate. Don't sit back and judge people you've never met and know little about. That's why this country is so screwed up. Blacks and liberals sit around thinking that white people who just can see injustice right in front of their face must be racist and white people sitting around thinking that black people always talking about injustice must be "full of hate." This kind of nonsense needs to stop.

We are still where we left off. There isn't a single opportunity to get in front of a camera and exploit racial tension those two don't miss.
 
You know I have enormous respect for the Civil Rights movement, and I believe we share the same goals. A very small portion, the specific portion that receives overwhelming funding from the Establishment Left, I believe was described by Booker T Washington in 1911



I do believe that Sharpton and Jackson fall into Booker's category of "problem profiteers."

I do also believe that the vast majority of civil rights activists do not.

It's interesting to note that Booker T. Washington had things that he would say and publish for the "establishment right" that funded him that was different from what he was say behind closed doors to his own people. Did you know that at one point famed black leftist W.E.B. Dubois endorsed Booker T. Washington's infamous "Atlanta compromise" which was a tacit endorsement of segregation? Dubois knew Washington was playing his game just like he (Dubois) was playing his own. While I believe Jackson and Sharpton do profiteer of social activism, I do not believe they wish ill of their own community just so they can do that. I find that to be hyperbole. I don't think doctors and dentists are sitting around wishing ill health on people just so they can get rich either, though some in the natural health community think that. Only God can judge motives. The best man do is judge results. So far Sharpton and Jackson's results leave a lot to be desired. That said, I do find Julian Bond to be abysmally hateful, and I used to have respect for him.



That said, this is a classic. Jesse Jackson certainly hates Obama's nuts. :D

 
We are still where we left off. There isn't a single opportunity to get in front of a camera and exploit racial tension those two don't miss.

Well the missed the opportunity to get in front of the camera when the little girl got shop by police over a SWAT raid at the wrong house. In fact they've missed a lot of those opportunities unfortunately. They aren't driving racial tension. They pick up on the racial tension that bubbles to the surface. There are many better examples of police brutality against blacks and whites than Mike Brown, but Mike Brown got pushed to the surface because his thug friends started rioting soon after he was shot.
 
Well the missed the opportunity to get in front of the camera when the little girl got shop by police over a SWAT raid at the wrong house. In fact they've missed a lot of those opportunities unfortunately. They aren't driving racial tension. They pick up on the racial tension that bubbles to the surface. There are many better examples of police brutality against blacks and whites than Mike Brown, but Mike Brown got pushed to the surface because his thug friends started rioting soon after he was shot.

Don't you think those riots were media driven? Like they were planned from the beginning? The whole "gentle giant" thing and the timing of the release of some of the information about him?
 
Back
Top