President Trump

[AdmiralMotti89]

My point was that suggesting plans for any alternative, whether a specific alternative quintile distribution or something much more vague, opens up the plans for an alternative to examination of unintended consequences.

That is hogwash. Does the current system work? If yes, then stop. If no, then try something else. So do you believe the current system works?

I do think that there are some laws that could be added to make society better, and plenty that could be removed to make society better. There is also a good chance that the best possible society will fall short of the ideal society, and efforts to bring about the ideal society will have unintended ((net) negative) consequences. But given the equivocation in your last post to which I responded, I'm not interested in engaging beyond that with a very undefined term of "work(s)".

I can say what I want though. I want more people to consistently have enough to eat, to have a place to sleep, to have clothes to wear, to have school supplies (and probably a few other things, but I think that illustrates it well enough). I don't think efforts to reduce income inequality (especially ones with goals and means that aren't even broadly defined) are going to have the consequences those calling for such things think will happen. Higher tax rates supposedly equaling higher tax revenues is one such outcome that doesn't seem to match intent like many insist.

When you are rich, you get more chances.

For sure. One thing I do think would help the non-rich in this regard is easing of licensing requirements. Hair braiding needing a cosmetology license in many places is a good example. The less the government is involved in saying who is allowed to to what, the less those who seek to take advantage of the government's control of such things will be able to do so. Less of a system means less of a system to exploit into raising barriers for those whom trying to take advantage of new opportunities is the most risky and least feasible. (If anyone wants to intentionally misinterpret that and claim I think a guy named Mort who operates in the back of his Model T should be doing brain surgery, have at it.)

[rhendon]

Rome is a great example of income disparity causing a decline and eventual collapse of society. Rome relied on slaves, IE people who made nothing to do the grunt of the work for society to live. When that number got smaller, it affected the ability of the civilization to stay around.

It relied on the rich to pay for everything. When that got to be too burdensome, the rich fled and went elsewhere. Now with no money to pay for things, it affected the civilization to pay for things.

I don't think the rich should pay for everything. But with such high income disparity, they have to. Because no one else can. What happens when the bill for our national debt becomes do? Should we expect the rich to pay for it and not flee? What happens when they flee?

The best thing going for us is our poor are not going to flee. The countries around us (outside of Canada) are worse. So people still flee here. But that won't stop the rich from fleeing at some point when the bill is due. So then everything falls on the poor which have no cash to pay to live much less government spending.

With a much more even income disparity, then the rich don't pay for everything. The middle class help and even the poor can help some more. But because of the income disparity growth, we've essentially weeded out the middle class. So who is going to help pay for things during these times but only the people with money, IE the rich?

[AdmiralMotti89]

Rome is a great example of income disparity causing a decline and eventual collapse of society.

Not really a case of "the poor rising up and toppling the government," but it's close enough I guess.

What you're describing in the rest of your post sounds somewhat similar to argument #2 that I found here, if your original source was something else I'd be interested in reading that too.

It sounds like the chief economic problems were overspending, overtaxation, and inflation, combined with a legally enforced class system that exacerbated a labor shortage and didn't allow market forces to respond. With (slavery) laws that didn't prevent adjusting to the labor needs as they developed, how might things have been different? I think "Rome is a great example of income disparity contributing to a decline and eventual collapse of society" would be a more accurate statement, and I'm not convinced the causes leading to that disparity weren't more important than the disparity itself.

I think you do have a point that wealth concentration can have a negative effect if those in whom it is concentrated leave (and having wealth makes it easier to leave). And that's not just tax revenue that's lost, that's wealth creation too. That's an interesting problem, complicated by the ability of people to move to countries with lower taxes. But that being a liability in need of consideration rests on the existence of a huge national debt, which is a problem regardless of who has the wealth, as it keeps rising in proportion to GDP (so whether 1 person has all the wealth or everyone has the same amount of wealth, the absolute amount of wealth is becoming less and less able to cover the debt). And since it's been shown that increased tax rates can hardly be counted on to increase revenues, what solution can there be other than increasing wealth and/or reducing expenditures? It seems quite likely that government spending can exceed what the economy can bear, and that exactly what it means to pay for "everything" might require a redefinition of "everything."

Anyways, assuming income inequality is a problem (and putting aside, if possible, that it might be more accurate to describe as a symptom rather than a problem in and of itself), what should be done about it (if you feel like suggesting anything as it seems we are drifting further and further from the "trickle-down economics" idea)? I think easing licensing requirements as I mentioned up above might be a good place to start, as well as reducing debt monetization. Removing legal barriers that make it burdensome to attempt to create wealth won't only help those with the least wealth, but generate more overall.

[Gergall]

Anyways, assuming income inequality is a problem (and putting aside, if possible, that it might be more accurate to describe as a symptom rather than a problem in and of itself), what should be done about it (if you feel like suggesting anything as it seems we are drifting further and further from the "trickle-down economics" idea)? I think easing licensing requirements as I mentioned up above might be a good place to start, as well as reducing debt monitization. Removing legal barriers that make it burdensome to attempt to create wealth won't only help those with the least wealth, but generate more overall.

Can you please explain more about why easing licensing requirements would reduce income inequality? Are you saying that this benefits the poor more than the wealthy?

I've never thought of poor people as being held down by licensing requirements but I am willing to hear you out.

[rhendon]

My original source was years and years of reading about Rome and the collapse and trying to understand how a society that was basically the entire known world would so easily and quickly collapse. That is a decent article about things though.

And since it's been shown that increased tax rates can hardly be counted on to increase revenues, what solution can there be other than increasing wealth and/or reducing expenditures? It seems quite likely that government spending can exceed what the economy can bear, and that exactly what it means to pay for "everything" might require a redefinition of "everything."

I don't think you need to increase taxes to pay for everything. You just need to spend it correctly. Education is a great example. If spent properly on education, it should give everyone ample opportunity to succeed in life. Our schools aren't created equally and thus feed into the income disparity. Higher initial wealth translates to higher initial education. Higher education = higher paying job and the circle is back to the start for next generation. If we changed that to where higher initial wealth has no bearing on the quality of education or lower it tremendously, then that helps break that cycle.

Healthcare is another example. Higher initial wealth = better healthcare. So those that have the wealth can live longer than those without it. For example, Magic Johnson has lived with HIV for a lot longer than most would have. He has had it for 26ish years and got it at a time when those contracting it had an average length of about 10 years before succumbing to aids.

But you can also look around as well. Almost every public program is nicer, cleaner, better in the rich areas than they are in the poor areas. Better teachers, books, libraries, community centers, etc.

As far as what this has to do with trickle-down economics, well when they cut the taxes for the elite on the promise it would end up in the hands of the common man, then that is just adding fuel to the fire. All it does is add to the income disparity that exists in this country. We've shown for 20+ years that reducing taxes to the rich does not boost the economy. Reducing taxes to businesses did not equate to higher incomes or bonuses. We've also shown that reducing taxes to the middle-class or lower does boost the economy. They are more likely to spend it and thus more money is put out into the economy. Closing the income disparity gap that has consistently grown since the time Reagan took office and the trickle down economics was born (it was the first time it was put in writing and it has stuck with him over the years) should be something we do. Instead Trump just added to it with his tax cuts.

[AdmiralMotti89]

Anyways, assuming income inequality is a problem (and putting aside, if possible, that it might be more accurate to describe as a symptom rather than a problem in and of itself), what should be done about it (if you feel like suggesting anything as it seems we are drifting further and further from the "trickle-down economics" idea)? I think easing licensing requirements as I mentioned up above might be a good place to start, as well as reducing debt monitization. Removing legal barriers that make it burdensome to attempt to create wealth won't only help those with the least wealth, but generate more overall.

Can you please explain more about why easing licensing requirements would reduce income inequality? Are you saying that this benefits the poor more than the wealthy?

I've never thought of poor people as being held down by licensing requirements but I am willing to hear you out.

Here's an example of someone wanting to start a hair-braiding business but not being able to due to not being able to complete the two years of coursework and pay $16k in tuition. Of course such requirements wouldn't be so burdensome for a wealthier person. Requirements that are easy to meet online are suddenly burdensome when you have poor/limited internet access and have to do them in person (with increased cost) and complete them not on your own time but at scheduled times in the middle of the workday, and reliable transportation isn't a given either, especially in rural areas.

Nebraska recently made hair braiding an exception to cosmetology licensing requirements, a (baby) step forward IMO.

If the government gets out of (or lessens its power in or requirements for) declaring who is allowed to enter industries like that, those people already established in the industries will have less success in using government to raise barriers.

[rhendon]

The other thing they could do because some things should maintain licensing (cosmetology I just don't have enough insight into to comment on) is use high school for this. High school in our world is a waste. Kids don't come out ready for the real world. They don't always have an idea of what to do. Its just go to college for 4 more years of school and some debt with the promise of a high paying job after. That job likely won't happen depending on your degree. We could easily turn the last 2 years of high school into some sort of trade school concept along with the core requirements. That way we are producing kids that are more prepared for the real world and could pass some of those licensing requirements right away. We will always need people to do those jobs and the ability to come out of high school prepared to do so has value.

[AdmiralMotti89]

I don't think you need to increase taxes to pay for everything. You just need to spend it correctly. Education is a great example. If spent properly on education, it should give everyone ample opportunity to succeed in life. Our schools aren't created equally and thus feed into the income disparity. Higher initial wealth translates to higher initial education. Higher education = higher paying job and the circle is back to the start for next generation. If we changed that to where higher initial wealth has no bearing on the quality of education or lower it tremendously, then that helps break that cycle.

I'd be slow getting to it with my schedule getting pretty busy for a couple weeks, starting Sunday (end of the vacation my overlords have graciously granted me), but I was serious about joining an education thread if you wanted to copy this there. A lot to talk about if you feel like it.

As for not needing to increase taxes, does that mean you are for cuts in some programs?

Healthcare is another example. Higher initial wealth = better healthcare. So those that have the wealth can live longer than those without it. For example, Magic Johnson has lived with HIV for a lot longer than most would have. He has had it for 26ish years and got it at a time when those contracting it had an average length of about 10 years before succumbing to aids.

But you can also look around as well. Almost every public program is nicer, cleaner, better in the rich areas than they are in the poor areas. Better teachers, books, libraries, community centers, etc.

Sounds like those areas could be helped by generating more wealth to tax to pay for those public programs. Perhaps by starting with easing licensing requirements that disproportionately burden the poor?

As far as what this has to do with trickle-down economics, well when they cut the taxes for the elite on the promise it would end up in the hands of the common man, then that is just adding fuel to the fire. All it does is add to the income disparity that exists in this country. We've shown for 20+ years that reducing taxes to the rich does not boost the economy. Reducing taxes to businesses did not equate to higher incomes or bonuses. We've also shown that reducing taxes to the middle-class or lower does boost the economy. They are more likely to spend it and thus more money is put out into the economy. Closing the income disparity gap that has consistently grown since the time Reagan took office and the trickle down economics was born (it was the first time it was put in writing and it has stuck with him over the years) should be something we do. Instead Trump just added to it with his tax cuts.

The assertion that the middle class spend and the rich don't is intriguing, and it'd be interesting to see why.

But to get to what I bolded of yours, which to me is the heart of this discussion:

I'm going to post this passage again because it is eminently applicable again.

Implicit in the approach of both academic and media critics of what
they call “tax cuts for the rich” and a “trickle-down theory” is a zero-sum
conception of the economy, where the benefits of some come at
the expense of others. That those with such a zero-sum conception of the
economy often show little or no interest in the factors affecting
the creation of wealth— as distinguished from their preoccupation with
its distribution— is consistent with their vision, however inconsistent it
is with the views of others who are focussed on the growth of the
economy, as emphasized by both Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald
Reagan, for example.

To have wealth to distribute or be distributed, whether it's distributed unequally or equally, you have to have wealth in the first place. Regardless of how much relative wealth matters, absolute wealth matters more. So whatever as-yet-undescribed actions we're going to take to close the wealth disparity gap, let's be cautious of the effects they might have on absolute wealth.

[rhendon]

As for not needing to increase taxes, does that mean you are for cuts in some programs?

Yes. I think we spend way too much on military spending. I think we have a ton of waste and zero accountability in spending tax payer money. You can sort of see that with the now former EPA chief and the current HUD chief. The lack of care designed in spending of tax payer funds on furniture is amazing. I've also worked in state gov (University of Texas at Austin) and every year come end of budget, depts would waste a ton because if they didn't spend it, it would get taken away. There was no incentive to not spend your yearly budget.

Sounds like those areas could be helped by generating more wealth to tax to pay for those public programs. Perhaps by starting with easing licensing requirements that disproportionately burden the poor?

Not sure how that would help with a library or community center. This is just spending money equally rather than favoring one vs the other. It also means more of a centralized budget rather than so much for local budgets. For example, the state of Texas does property tax for school budgets (for most part). School areas get to keep most of their tax with some going into a state fund. So in the Austin area, we've had the rich move out of the AISD and go into their own outside to better control where their money is spent. If the state collected everything and divided it evenly, then this wouldn't be a problem. If we didn't have 1100 school districts this would also help.

So no taxes need to be raised here. Its about better use of the funds (eliminating hundreds of districts to lessen the administrative overstaff) and spreading it out evenly.

The assertion that the middle class spend and the rich don't is intriguing, and it'd be interesting to see why.

Middle class usually live paycheck to paycheck and don't save as much. More money in, just means more money going out.

To have wealth to distribute or be distributed, whether it's distributed unequally or equally, you have to have wealth in the first place. Regardless of how much relative wealth matters, absolute wealth matters more. So whatever as-yet-undescribed actions we're going to take to close the wealth disparity gap, let's be cautious of the effects they might have on absolute wealth.

I see what you are talking about now. I'm not arguing for creation of wealth. The wealth is there. Its already been created. It was created long before the 1980s too. I'm talking specifically about how since the 1980s, the income diversity has grown to where it is today. So our policies have basically consolidated that wealth into fewer hands than we did 30 years ago. The question becomes why and I've stated I believe it is the policy of cutting taxes for the elite and business as Republicans have done every decade.

[AdmiralMotti89]

To have wealth to distribute or be distributed, whether it's distributed unequally or equally, you have to have wealth in the first place. Regardless of how much relative wealth matters, absolute wealth matters more. So whatever as-yet-undescribed actions we're going to take to close the wealth disparity gap, let's be cautious of the effects they might have on absolute wealth.

I see what you are talking about now. I'm not arguing for creation of wealth. The wealth is there. Its already been created. It was created long before the 1980s too. I'm talking specifically about how since the 1980s, the income diversity has grown to where it is today. So our policies have basically consolidated that wealth into fewer hands than we did 30 years ago. The question becomes why and I've stated I believe it is the policy of cutting taxes for the elite and business as Republicans have done every decade.

I had a question about community centers but I forgot it when I got to this paragraph. The problem this above view misses is that when you assume that a country is overflowing with wealth, and then make immense efforts to redistribute it, you find that over the long term you remove incentives that drive creation (or perpetuation of creation, since it is consumed), and the wealth you have shrinks. If you are so concerned about distribution that you ignore production, you'll find eventually there isn't enough produced to distribute.

It also seems to be the case that you don't seem to focus too much about increasing revenue or how wealth is created, it's almost more like you see tax policy as a means of slowing down the ability of the wealthy to accrue more relative wealth. That seems pretty backwards to me. Wouldn't the focus be better placed on removing barriers that prevent the poor from accruing wealth, or even just focusing on a tax policy that somehow helps the poor accrue wealth? I'm asking myself if it is unfair to characterize your idea of tax policy as slowing down the rich so the poor can catch up, that there is so much wealth already that reducing absolute wealth isn't much of a problem if it also reduces the wealth disparity. But if that is anywhere close to what you are saying, that is a dangerous game, because the former might reduce a lot faster than the latter does when you actually start trying to do something about it. Income inequality is an easy target because it just seems so unfair, but there are other measures that should take priority, perhaps food security for example. Sure the relationship is interactive, but if efforts at reducing inequality also reduce food security perhaps our priorities would be mixed up?

[rhendon]

But I'm not arguing for equal distribution of all wealth. I'm just arguing for something closer to the 1980s than today. Something closer to Europe than the US. Did we have less incentive during those times? I don't think so.

I'm also not advocating taxing the rich more either. I'm just noting that since we started pushing that focus for the last 30 years based on the promise that it would trickle down and the graphs Joe posted show that it hasn't.

[AdmiralMotti89]

But I'm not arguing for equal distribution of all wealth. I'm just arguing for something closer to the 1980s than today. Something closer to Europe than the US. Did we have less incentive during those times? I don't think so.

I'm also not advocating taxing the rich more either. I'm just noting that since we started pushing that focus for the last 30 years based on the promise that it would trickle down and the graphs Joe posted show that it hasn't.

I didn't say you were arguing for equal (as in 20/20/20/20/20 quintiles), My point was that in that effort to make things closer to 1980, there might be unintended consequences. Of course, absent actual (even general) policy proposals, it's hard to look at them and examine potential side effects and how that would actually impact incentives (and I think your look at incentives is pretty narrow, I recommend reading about how assortative mating also impact inequality). I am not exactly sure what you are proposing to actually DO when you say "Closing the income disparity gap... should be something we do." I think you're losing sight of what should be a bigger priority. You make a good point that in the case of government collecting from us to pay the national debt, the rich leaving and placing the burden on the poor is why inequality matters. But outside of that hypothetical, shouldn't we be focused first on whether the poor can get enough wealth to cover basic needs, rather than the multiplier we use in comparing wealth? Hypothetically, which society is better, one where the poorest have all their basic needs, and the richest have 1000x their wealth, or a society where the poorest struggle to meet their basic needs, and the richest have 100x their wealth? Obviously I'm not saying that you can't both reduce inequality and ensure the poorest have enough. But the priority you place is going to impact your actions.

You keep referring to a "promise" that was made. As Sowell points out, there is a disconnect between what economists who support lower tax rates argue and what politicians who argue against what they call "trickle down economics" say about the concept. I'm not saying no proponents of lower rates have made that promise, I'm asking what exactly the promises were that you are referring to.

[Gergall]

Can you please explain more about why easing licensing requirements would reduce income inequality? Are you saying that this benefits the poor more than the wealthy?

I've never thought of poor people as being held down by licensing requirements but I am willing to hear you out.

Here's an example of someone wanting to start a hair-braiding business but not being able to due to not being able to complete the two years of coursework and pay $16k in tuition. Of course such requirements wouldn't be so burdensome for a wealthier person. Requirements that are easy to meet online are suddenly burdensome when you have poor/limited internet access and have to do them in person (with increased cost) and complete them not on your own time but at scheduled times in the middle of the workday, and reliable transportation isn't a given either, especially in rural areas.

Nebraska recently made hair braiding an exception to cosmetology licensing requirements, a (baby) step forward IMO.

If the government gets out of (or lessens its power in or requirements for) declaring who is allowed to enter industries like that, those people already established in the industries will have less success in using government to raise barriers.

Would you have an example (hypothetical example is fine, doesn't need to be a link to a news story) that is more "for the masses" e.g. the workers? Don't get me wrong it's definitely a start if some poor people can start businesses.

[AdmiralMotti89]

Can you please explain more about why easing licensing requirements would reduce income inequality? Are you saying that this benefits the poor more than the wealthy?

I've never thought of poor people as being held down by licensing requirements but I am willing to hear you out.

Here's an example of someone wanting to start a hair-braiding business but not being able to due to not being able to complete the two years of coursework and pay $16k in tuition. Of course such requirements wouldn't be so burdensome for a wealthier person. Requirements that are easy to meet online are suddenly burdensome when you have poor/limited internet access and have to do them in person (with increased cost) and complete them not on your own time but at scheduled times in the middle of the workday, and reliable transportation isn't a given either, especially in rural areas.

Nebraska recently made hair braiding an exception to cosmetology licensing requirements, a (baby) step forward IMO.

If the government gets out of (or lessens its power in or requirements for) declaring who is allowed to enter industries like that, those people already established in the industries will have less success in using government to raise barriers.

Would you have an example (hypothetical example is fine, doesn't need to be a link to a news story) that is more "for the masses" e.g. the workers? Don't get me wrong it's definitely a start if some poor people can start businesses.

Could you be more specific as to an example of exactly what you mean? I am guessing that you aren't referring to an example of licensing requirements regarding workers who aren't looking to start a business since that wouldn't really seem to apply? If you just mean an example government restriction in general, maybe something will come to mind if I let it marinate on the road tomorrow, nothing at the moment though.

In any case, it's worth pointing out that licensing requirement don't just prevent people from starting brick and mortar stores, which of course not everyone will do. It also hampers even small ventures for extra income, as the hair braiding example shown.

[Gergall]

You had a suggestion for addressing income inequality, which is to reduce licensing restrictions.

I hoped that your suggestion would be something to benefit poor people in general but it sounds like it's only for the poor people who are starting businesses.

Were you saying most poor people should be starting businesses? Or were you saying "I have an idea. It will only help 1% of the poor, but it's a start." ? Or something else entirely?

[AdmiralMotti89]

I generally buy into the argument that if you can get a little wealth, you can get a little more. And if you can get get a little more, you can get a little more than a a little more. But if you have none at all, it's darn hard to get even a little.

I did say licensing requirements were a start but I'm not sure where the suggestion is coming from that it would only help 1% of the poor (As soon as I see 1% I imagine Bernie's voice). Of course the benefits of income generating ventures (whether or not that ends up being a "business" as in having a physical location) aren't restricted only to the initiator. Maybe it is only 1%, I am just not sure why that number was chosen.

But anyways a quick and dirty list of topics, change in which may help those who have no wealth get a little, and those who have a little to get a little more. Some of these may be pretty controversial, and some may have unintended consequences, but I'd be surprised if everyone didn't find a handful that they would have negative opinions about how the situation has been handled till now. I'm pretty sure I included enough info for each for a google search if anything is of interest.

suspension of driver's licenses for unpaid tickets
debt monetization (increasing inflation)
charter schools (probably going to get assassinated just for mentioning it)
squeezing out food trucks/carts
lobbyist-influenced fed dietary guidelines
efforts to rein in money-managing (often "cryptocurency") apps that have lower fees than payday lender
soda tax (kinda silly, but pros and cons I suppose)
bacon wrapped hot dogs in LA (seriously)
Elvis Summers and homes for the homeless

[Gergall]

I did say licensing requirements were a start but I'm not sure where the suggestion is coming from that it would only help 1% of the poor (As soon as I see 1% I imagine Bernie's voice). Of course the benefits of income generating ventures (whether or not that ends up being a "business" as in having a physical location) aren't restricted only to the initiator. Maybe it is only 1%, I am just not sure why that number was chosen.

I thought I was being generous in offering that perhaps as much as 1% of people below the poverty line are would-be entrepreneurs but are being held back by licensing requirements.

Of course the benefits of income generating ventures (whether or not that ends up being a "business" as in having a physical location) aren't restricted only to the initiator.

Is this basically "give businesses money and it will trickle down"? Giving business money can take the form of handouts, tax cuts, regulation cuts.
Is there a reason to believe that this would reduce income inequality though? Typically we see is businesses not passing much of these windfalls down to workers, so income inequality doesn't appear to be addressed IMO.

[Apollyon]

suspension of driver's licenses for unpaid tickets

I'd prefer to see better public transportation infrastructure so that we need fewer cars. Especially because they are generally a liability (they cost a bunch of money to buy and use, depreciate, and become money sinks at the end of their life). A nice side benefit is that traffic congestion goes down as we no longer spend space for 4 people to move 1.

charter schools (probably going to get assassinated just for mentioning it)

What would charter schools do?

squeezing out food trucks/carts

I've seen more food trucks in the past 5 years than the 10 before that. What am I missing?

lobbyist-influenced fed dietary guidelines

Sure? Grains are inexpensive sources of calories, as long as they are used to supplement proper nutrition. I agree that the guidelines are bad (and process around them is also bad).

efforts to rein in money-managing (often "cryptocurency") apps that have lower fees than payday lender

I'd like to see an actual overhaul of our financial system (electronic currency/payments, removal of the penny) over trying to go after cryptocurrencies. I'd also love to see anti-usury laws applied to payday lenders.

Elvis Summers and homes for the homeless

I'd prefer to see decent apartments as the plan. Trying to create cheap homes for the homeless is good, but there's a point at which the marginal cost drops far enough that it's cheaper to build en masse.

For example, donating cash to a food bank vs going to the grocery store and buying a bunch of canned goods for that food bank. The food bank can buy a truckload of local fruits and veggies from farms (or a truckload of frozen/canned goods at wholesale prices), vs paying retail.

[AdmiralMotti89]

As I said, a lot of these have controversy, but I think everyone could agree "oh yeah, (at least) a few of those could be made better.

I thought I was being generous in offering that perhaps as much as 1% of people below the poverty line are would-be entrepreneurs but are being held back by licensing requirements.

On what do you base such assumed generosity?

I think it's pretty surprising to see the number of sole proprietorships and partnerships that exist. About 3 million people make at or below the minimum wage, for example, and there are 7.4 million partnerships and S corporations and 23 million sole proprietorships. Not the cleanest statistics, but I would guess quite different from what a lot might expect.

As for charter schools, that's a huge issue I'd be happy to address in the long term, though it's going to be awhile before I can go into the detail I'd like to. Suffice it to say, inner city public schools are improving too slowly (if at all) for such improvement to matter much to those who have to deal with them in the NOW.

As for businesses, Gustavo Arellano has some interesting points about the importance of restaurants for newly developing immigrant communities.

[vhstapes]

I did say licensing requirements were a start but I'm not sure where the suggestion is coming from that it would only help 1% of the poor (As soon as I see 1% I imagine Bernie's voice). Of course the benefits of income generating ventures (whether or not that ends up being a "business" as in having a physical location) aren't restricted only to the initiator. Maybe it is only 1%, I am just not sure why that number was chosen.

I thought I was being generous in offering that perhaps as much as 1% of people below the poverty line are would-be entrepreneurs but are being held back by licensing requirements.

Lol, you were.