Not being born poor most closely correlates to success in life.



Children not born in poverty do far better in all measures in life.



An enlightened program aimed at providing a basic income would promote and foster The Absence of Poverty.



Does Tim have any ideas there?

The jargon of school reformers, and Burgess is one of them, masks the poverty that stifles student achievement. See https://seattleducation2010.wordpress.co…

People are poor not because they don't have money. People are poor because they don't know how to make money. The old story of teach a man to fish...

Here's a thought, let's eliminate the recent minimum wage increase. 28% of kids drop out of high school in Seattle. The unemployment rate for these people is 54%. If they can't get a job at nine dollars, they certainly can't get a job at $15. They have no experience, no skills, and little education. They are doomed for poverty. This is not fair. Let's help them get a job, any job, and even at low pay so they can develop some skills, some work experience and gradually move up. Working is the best way to get out of poverty. Plus, it helps people have self-esteem.

If Burgess is so concerned about the children, why didn't he ensure there was more money in the city budget this year for homeless families?

Burgess is simply mouthing the mantra of corporate education reform something his financial backers are pushing, see The Proposition 1B “Preschool for All” Wheel of Fortune: Same players, new game
http://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com….

I'm sorry to see the Stranger simply print what is basically his brand of propaganda.

Will the Stranger also endorse him when he runs for mayor or other elected position? That's ultimately what he's aiming for.

All this brain science stuff is nice and all, but Baby Einstein isn't how the US created a large white middle class in the 20th century. All they did was pay white men more money, and kazam! Like magic, they became middle class. Their kids suddenly grew up well and became educated. No complicated theory or techniques involved. Nobody had to tell them to start reading highbrow books to their toddlers.

It bears repeating. Poor people stop being poor when you stop paying them poverty wages. All that other stuff white people like follows naturally once you have a decent income.

Mr. Burgess needs to tread lightly when spending other people’s money. As we have seen with Professor Jonathan Gruber, politicians and the academic industrial complex have a way of getting rich while wrapping themselves in the “eliminating poverty” flag. Once objective reviews are done demonstrating ineffectiveness it’s too late; the taxpayer spigot is never turned off. One must assume he is taking his cue from “Head Start”. A major part of “the war on poverty”, 180 billion dollars later it remains: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/3…

Tim please put your effort into making city government more effective & efficient, not taxing the middle class out of the city.

Burgess is a joke. Systemic poverty, racism, abuse by the police and legal system. "I feel you pain. Just wait for a generation for my 'reforms' to take hold." This empty suit must be booted.

@2. Federal expenditures on "means-tested" programs (meaning you have to demonstrate you are in poverty or within spitting distance of poverty - e.g. 200% of the poverty level) are about $960 billion per year. Divide that by the number of households in poverty in the U.S. and you get about $64,400 per year, per household, that could be cash-granted to them. It is about $30k per individual ($24k if you exclude Medicaid). But we divide it up into over 100 programs ranging from Food Stamps, to Section 8 Housing, to Medicaid, to Pell Grants (a very tiny proportion of the $64,000 figure), etc., etc., etc. Each has their own set of rules, own set of applications, own set of bureaucrats to evaluate eligibility, evaluate participant compliance with program rules (or things states, cities, or counties that the money passes through, have to verify from participants), and dictate program participant choices (e.g. "Do that and you will lose your benefit"). So the money is there, we are just overly paternalistic and/or bureaucratic about it.

You think if we just "block granted" the money to the individuals they could make a go of it? Do you think those born into these households would be in poverty at birth? I think not. Is that amount of money too much or too little per household? If you think it inappropriate, what do you think the number ought to be? What strings must go with it? Do you think that would disincentivize the households investing in education, job training, and work (assuming they are not too disabled?)

@10 Ok let's give it a whirl turn the picture around.

The earned income tax credit.... a subsidy to businesses that don't pay a living wage. Paid out on the back end to workers who have already gone into debt because they didn't get the wage as they went. The interest carries forward.

Food stamps, CHIPS, Medicaid, Housing subsides, educational subsides, chasing all that down is a part time job.

Then there is the added burden of no paid time off or sick leave.

So yeah I'd be willing to take a deep look at some version of a direct payment schedule particularly if it came linked to mandated wage and work leave minimums. History has long taught that mankind advances when it rises above living at the subsistence level.

Ah subsistence yeah there is the rub. What is subsistence in a post industrial nation that is essentially King Of The World.

@11, You apparently read different history and make different empirical observations than I do. Mankind advances? The nature of humans and humanity does not change. We become technologically more advanced, yes. But we don't fight fewer wars, have more justice, etc. The arc of human history, as King put it, does not bend toward justice. War, peace, more war, repeat. Justice, injustice, justice, repeat. Corruption, altruism, corruption, repeat. Racism, tribalism, classism are a constant.

Should we fight those things where we find them? Yes. But the fight never ends because the self-centered human nature does not change. Individual human beings are about their own gratification, first and foremost.

We need to be humble enough to acknowledge the ultimate answer does not come from within humanity but from without.