Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Low education and teenage births certainly contribute to poverty, but they're by no means the sole cause... growing up in an affluent family and dropping out of high school/having kids as a teenager isn't going to confine you to poverty the same way it will if you grow up in a different environment.
Sure, because you're family, if willing, can bail you out. All the more reason that a stable family is one that will avoid poverty.
Quote:
Cultural factors matter but you can't ignore the basic environmental (crime, worse schools, less external motivation and encouragement to "succeed") and economic (parents don't have as much money to support you on your endeavors, lack of transportation, generally fewer jobs around, etc.) factors as well.
That list exemplifies what I am talking about. Crime, less motivation, etc are examples of bad culture. Bad culture means no accountability, no personal responsibility. Schools are bad because the students don't care and do not strive and their parents, if they have any, do not motivate them. Culture again. Its certainly not a lack of money.
This sounds sort of uncharacteristic, given the other typings of you that have previously been read by me. Are you maybe a little more "left" economically than I took you for, or do you believe most of these things should be provided through the private sector alone?
Ideally these needs could all be met through private charities. However, there is obviously still a lot of need out there, and there are some areas that are either very isolated (think rural poverty) or in a high crime area (ghetto, inner city) were private charities may be afraid for their safety and may tend to ignore for a "safer" poor area. These are places I feel could use the assistance of government to fill in the gaps and provide people with basic necessities.
My only concern is that I would never want the government program to expand more than necessary, basically doubling up or overlapping in areas where adequate private charities already operate at a capacity that meets the needs of the area. Only in places where there is not adequate private charities.
A bureaucracy that addresses poverty should also address children not receiving support from both parents. Women should be limited to the assistance they can receive if they have not already petitioned for child support resources from the father. The aid bureaucracy would ideally be set up to assist a single parent in achieving this goal. This would reinforce the "accountability" ethic aspect of addressing the social/cultural patterns of poverty over successive generations.
My only concern is that I would never want the government program to expand more than necessary, basically doubling up or overlapping in areas where adequate private charities already operate at a capacity that meets the needs of the area. Only in places where there is not adequate private charities.
I think you would agree that the private charitable sector is not anywhere close to meeting the entire actual need present in society.
"That list exemplifies what I am talking about. Crime, less motivation, etc are examples of bad culture. Bad culture means no accountability, no personal responsibility. Schools are bad because the students don't care and do not strive and their parents, if they have any, do not motivate them. Culture again. Its certainly not a lack of money."
(From Moth)
Crime committed against you = lack of money on your part once the crime is committed, and lack of money on the criminal's part that gave him the economic motivation to make you the victim
Underperforming schools = inner city/rural schools generally spend less per student than suburban, affluent types because their tax bases are smaller... you seem eagerly willing to blame everything on those who experience the ill effects. "Students not wanting to learn," "parents not caring..." do you know all of these people? What about underpaid teachers, dilapidated classrooms and oversized classes? If the problem is simply "students not wanting to learn" then why are well-off parents afraid to send their kids to schools with lower average test scores? You know, since the student himself and his parent are the only real factors of influence?
Less motivation isn't entirely cultural, either. If you're surrounded by squalor then it's probably going to be difficult to imagine living in a different type of environment, and making that your goal, just as it's difficult for me to imagine living in a slum or a mansion, or finding a way to "rise above" my middle class upbringing to become ridiculously wealthy. That factor has less to do with the actions and "culture" of the surrounding community than it does with the living conditions that are witnessed and experienced.
Once again, I'm not saying that culture isn't a big factor, I'm just saying you're oversimplifying, seemingly attributing conditions entirely to a lack of "personal responsibility" for the sake of maintaining ideological purity. Personal responsibility is a factor, but I liked the Chris Rock joke about the poor C student who goes on to be a janitor and the rich C student who goes on to be president. It's complicated. Why oversimplify?
How should the goverment adress it, if at all? Guaranteed minimum income for everybody? Time limits, work requirements for welfare, no welfare, public works, "just let the market do its job," etc.
What's your opinion? I did this earlier and gave the opposite of my opinion, which led to the discussing being stopped in its tracks.
The government should play a role in reducing poverty, but it should be a limited role. Yes to a minimum wage; yes to overtime pay after 40 hours a week; no to time limits (work as many hours as you feel capable of, if that's your desire and your employer doesn't mind paying the O.T.); no to welfare (ever been in a home where the resident was on welfare and noticed their cable TV's, DVD player, video game system set-up??). Unless someone is physically / mentally disabled they should be working. Single moms are no exception. I was raised in a single parent home (3 children) and we did just fine. Mom worked 2 and 3 jobs to support us and my grandmother helped out. We had good neighbors - mostly working class like we were and everyone took care of everyone else when necessary. I realize that today's families don't even know their neighbors but whose fault is that? Are we too busy watching TV or playing video games? Probably. There will always be people who don't care enough to do better for themselves or their children. The government can't regulate everything. But I do know that in America, you can do anything you want to; be who you want to be. Just ask Chris Gardner (the homeless man with a son who became a multi-millionaire because he chose to rise above his situation.)
I think you would agree that the private charitable sector is not anywhere close to meeting the entire actual need present in society.
No they aren't, which is why I'm not opposed to the government providing as well.
I spent 24 years in rural MS, and believe me, there is a lot of need in the isolated rural areas, and they are much harder to lay out a great plan because these people are not close to population centers.
I've also lived in Dallas for 6 years before moving to TN, and it was obvious that there were needs in the big city as well that was not being met.
I'm not heartless, lol, I do want anyone who has been put into bad situations by circumstance to have a chance at getting out. And those who are simply unable to provide much for themselve whether its due to lack of intelligence, or some type of mental disorder, they still deserve to eat and stay warm.
Less motivation isn't entirely cultural, either. If you're surrounded by squalor then it's probably going to be difficult to imagine living in a different type of environment, and making that your goal, just as it's difficult for me to imagine living in a slum or a mansion, or finding a way to "rise above" my middle class upbringing to become ridiculously wealthy. That factor has less to do with the actions and "culture" of the surrounding community than it does with the living conditions that are witnessed and experienced.
For many people, it's the complete opposite. They look around and see how they are living and set their mind to getting out of it......and they do. It's all about drive and determination. Some people have it and some people don't. Those that don't aren't entitled to my tax dollars for their support.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
