No they would not end up their lives in a walled up ghetto. They would have been able to walk freely in and out of that ghetto, eventually moving out, because they would have been safe, which is the first rule of society. They would hopefully have not had a series of mother's creepy boyfriends in and out of their houses, crack houses next door, nasty teenagers scaring people into not using the elevators, which were also used as bathrooms, old ladies being afraid to leave their units to go grocery shopping etc. If you take care of the crime and violence, and part of that means providing separate housing for the more violent and abusive so they have a place to go, you automatically will make the experience of poverty more tolerable, because then poverty is a lack of goods, rather than a gauntlet that has to be run every day by the vulnerable. Goods can be provided. Resources will come into a place, jobs will come into a place where there is safety. It is a duty of government to provide it, and it is a duty of every citizen to accept it and not make conditions worse for others. mg