Thoughts on government relocation program

We've seen refugees be relocated to different areas of the country. Some in rather large numbers.
Why can't we do that for our citizens?

We always talk about problems of poverty, homelessness ect. What about a solution?

What if the government had a relocation program.
Imagine a place like California where people are really struggling and rent is very high.
What if there was a program that moved those people to states that need workers and have lower cost housing. Wouldn't
that help balance things out? Some of these states offer much better wages too. Overall it could significantly improve the life for some people.
I think a lot of people just don't realize this because they have never moved. They truly don't know what is out there and other possibilities.

Of course it would cost money, but wouldn't this be a better solution than just letting these people stew in a vicious cycle.
It would be 100% voluntary.
We keep hearing the argument that it is too expensive for people to move and that's why they can't get better opportunities.
Imagine if the government granted moves every 5 years.

Being a military kid I truly believe some people just have a bad fit with certain places. If you are stuck there maybe there is no hope.
Sometimes moving is really the new beginning everyone needs.

Let's take Colorado Springs for example, a quick search shows 8K jobs open. Housing is very costly there too.
If the government relocated some people to Milwaukee there 24K jobs and some very affordable housing.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Looks like some states offer some incentives

www.cnbc.com...

And certain cities and states across the country — from the tip of the Northeast to the Southwest — are happy to appeal to young people and families by offering financial incentives for moving.

I think we need to go a step further and help with the initial move.

a reply to: JAGStorm

This would need to be done a the state level otherwise people will scream that the Fed's are overstepping their authority.
Then you have the problem of why cant you help the people who are already in said states.
Now if we had a new hi-way infrastructure bill, it could be implemented like the old WPA of the 30's or the old jobs core programs.

Homeless people are causing trouble in Austin.
The problem is going to be corrected one way or another.
I wish for the best and expect the worst.
www.texastribune.org...

originally posted by: Homefree
Homeless people are causing trouble in Austin.
The problem is going to be corrected one way or another.
I wish for the best and expect the worst.
www.texastribune.org...

I'm thinking this relocation would be used to prevent homelessness, not necessarily treat it. If we just move homeless from one area to another it is just kicking the ball.

If we get to vulnerable people, the working poor, before they get to that point, maybe it can prevent some of it.

What Austin is doing seems very similar to Florida. They move the homeless away from the rich and touristy areas. It is still there and it is not being helped. Out of sight out of mind.

Just imagine the problems with the electoral college it would cause if a bunch of Liberal Californians were moved to the middle of Montana.

Their votes would count the same. And we can't have that.

originally posted by: Homefree
Homeless people are causing trouble in Austin.
The problem is going to be corrected one way or another.
I wish for the best and expect the worst.
www.texastribune.org...

Austin is BLUE baby! That means they will resist any effort to clean up that place until it turns into New San Francisco.

Then those liberals who are sick of the filth and crazy will move to new areas of the country and create new pockets of BLUE to ruin.


Blue Plague.... when it spreads to your area, get ready for crap to go downhill.

No. It would make it difficult to know for certain which areas to avoid. Where is Compton? Oh some of it was moved over there, some there, a few dashes in that area.

originally posted by: FlyinHeadlock
No. It would make it difficult to know for certain which areas to avoid. Where is Compton? Oh some of it was moved over there, some there, a few dashes in that area.

Actually I think it would help areas like that.

I think of the South side of Chicago.
It has been massively changing for the last decade. Many areas gentrified.

This relocation could have the same effect. Relocation would not be moving people from San Francisco to Compton.
It would be moving Compton & San Francisco people to Milwaukee, or Minnesota, etc....

My guess is that bums will still be bums. People that are working poor could take advantage of this. Maybe even some lower middle class.

a reply to: JON666

Now if we had a new hi-way infrastructure bill, it could be implemented like the old WPA of the 30's or the old jobs core programs.

That's interesting, i'll have to look that up.

Nothing wrong with poverty. There was a topic on this a few weeks ago. Is someone living in a run down trailer park or home driving an old Corolla really living in poverty. Why would they need to be relocated if they have a home, water, electricity, plumbing, food. That to me is not poverty at all. Who decides what constitutes as poverty. Is someone with a nice home and car living paycheck to paycheck living in poverty. Should not they be re-located so they live within their means.

originally posted by: FlyinHeadlock
Nothing wrong with poverty. There was a topic on this a few weeks ago. Is someone living in a run down trailer park or home driving an old Corolla really living in poverty. Why would they need to be relocated if they have a home, water, electricity, plumbing, food. That to me is not poverty at all. Who decides what constitutes as poverty. Is someone with a nice home and car living paycheck to paycheck living in poverty. Should not they be re-located so they live within their means.

Again, this would be 100% voluntary. This isn't about the government coming in and just relocating people based on perceived wealth.

This is about people, let's say someone that works as a delivery driver. They live in California or Colorado and are barely making it. They want to move but can't because they are living paycheck to paycheck. If there was a program to move and if they wanted to, they could move to Milwaukee and drive there. Their housing costs would be 1/5 of California. It's a win win situation. Milwaukee get's workers it needs, California gets less crowded.

Of course that is a very simplistic scenario.

If that person stayed in California and housing prices kept going up, eventually they would need 2 jobs or might even become homeless. They would be depressed and start doing drugs or need prescriptions for back pain and get addicted etc...

a reply to: JAGStorm

But you are giving something to someone who did not earn it. If they want to move and start over why not take out a loan or save their money for a couple years. Why should I have to pay to improve their circumstances since it will involve tax dollars.

When I was poor I said to myself, self, I do not like being poor. Let us do something about it. I constantly searched for better circumstances, created those circumstances and eventually pushed way out of it. No handouts or pity. Just hard work, making sacrifices. Granted, some are physically and mentally incapable of doing this but, the vast majority are indeed not. They could do it. That's why I say no. They will never appreciate anything in life if they think they are entitled to it.

originally posted by: FlyinHeadlock
a reply to: JAGStorm

But you are giving something to someone who did not earn it.

We can give people something they didn't earn once, or we can give it to them for the rest of their lives. I prefer #1
The fact it social programs will not go away. People have become addicted to them.
I think it is time to think of created ways to help prevent it in the first place.

I think it's perfect how it is currently. A society should not have to absorb all the misfortunes of every single person, especially when most of it is their own creation.

It creates an environment where nobody is ever held accountable for their actions. All is forgiven. Taxpayers have a heart of gold and love you. Yeah, well not this one. I'm not paying for it. I grew up poor. So what. It's not a death sentence.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
We've seen refugees be relocated to different areas of the country. Some in rather large numbers.
Why can't we do that for our citizens?

We always talk about problems of poverty, homelessness ect. What about a solution?

What if the government had a relocation program.

I actually think this is an excellent idea, with one exception. It should be run/managed/executed by private organizations, who are allowed to take donations from people/companies that are treated as tax credits (not a tax 'deduction', a full blown tax 'credit') for the one donating.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I could also see companies sponsoring charters. Let's say Coca Cola pays for a bus from the West to Midwest, or North to South etc.