I mostly agree with you, but there's something to be said for keeping the poverty away from city centres, which is some of the most economically productive land per unit area. American poverty seems to congregate in cities, presumably because the cities can afford it, but that seems precisely the wrong perspective.
My hunch is that poverty concentrates in urban areas for the same reasons economic activity does: there are certain economies of scale that are enabled by population density. If you push poor people to rural areas, you’re also pushing them away from the aspects that make their life easier, like access to public transportation, grocery stores, social services, jobs etc. So we’re at the same place where we make being poor harder for the aim of making being rich easier. I think if we assume the economy serves society rather than the other way around, we come to a different conclusion.
FWIW, I don’t want this to come across as a dichotomy, but instead about where the appropriate balance point is.
I always thought this way until I listened to Mayor Brainerd talk about how cities invest in poverty which results in an expansion of poverty, which manifests as low tax income and increased expenses, which limits the city's ability to invest in growth.
I’m not saying that’s wrong, and that discussion happens elsewhere too. My main issue (also brought up by other commenters) is that this strategy can only work when there are relative disparities in wealth. When you say "expansion in poverty" I'm assuming you mean it attracts the poor to the city (ie moves them), and not that it actually creates more poor individuals. (If that's an incorrect interpretation, please correct me). If that's true, every city cannot “divest in poverty” because it’s just moving problem rather than fixing it. It’s a shortsighted, hyper-localized, and some would say selfish strategy because it pushes the problem somewhere else to be fixed.
We’ve all probably worked on teams where a member wasn’t pulling their weight to solve problems. At the myopic individual level, that’s a great strategy because it maximizes their rewards while minimizing their cost. But that can’t be applied globally because at some point someone in the team has to actually start solving problems. We can’t all be the team free loader and a lot of social structures and game theory is about avoiding the tipping point where there are too many free loaders and not enough people solving problems.
It would be like a city having a lot of veterans returning from war and struggling to transition to civilian life. IMO, the solution shouldn't be "remove all veterans services and make it harder for veterans to live here so they take their problems elsewhere." Superficially, and locally, that "solves" the veteran problem, but globally it probably makes things worse. That's not really the type of society I would advocate for.
All I’m saying is I prefer politicians and policies that focus on actually solving root problems. There are many people who are quite fine ignoring those problems as long as it doesn’t affect them, and their policies reflect that. They’re just not the horse that I want to back with my vote, even if it would be materially better for me.
> when you say "expansion in poverty" I'm assuming you mean it attracts the poor to the city (ie moves them), and not that it actually creates more poor individuals
Both of these can be true. A larger available labor market of less skilled workers lowers wages.
