How to Handle Poverty, Discussion! (wage, premium, Somali, how much)

[fishmonger]

Originally Posted by NewChaosTheory

No, but that should be it's primary concern.

Uggggh

I'm smart enough not to live there.

And smart enough not to be born there.

I never said bums were poor because they were stupid, I was primarily talking about those on welfare. Bums choose to have no income,

It's easy to get a job when you have no address or car and smell bad, I know. Like all those Vietnam vets with PTSD who "choose" to lose their jobs when they go crazy, right... I wasn't talking about homeless people, though.

Excellent point, my plan doesn't seem to leave much room for those under the age of 18. Perhaps there could be an exception of welfare for those under 18. Although that would just give motivation for the stupid people to procreate... more babies = more welfare checks... Any ideas?

Welfare for everyone who needs it so that the situation doesn't arise?

[fishmonger]

Originally Posted by Moth

Well then I guess people play the hand that they deal themselves. I hope I never grow so nonchalant about something as important as bringing a child into the world.

Nonchalant? I don't know where you got that. But have you considered that, maybe, many of the people who have children and can't support them THOUGHT that they would be able to when they decided to? That sometimes the pill doesn't work, the condom breaks, or the father runs away unexpectedly? Day-after "forecasting" is pretty easy.

You are putting words into my mouth again. I did not say they would stop being poor.

Yes you did:

"Poverty, in the USA at least, is generally a function of either a low level of education (high school dropouts) or a lack of family planning (teenagers having babies out of wedlock)."

They would, however, have a better chance of rectifying their situation without the added responsibility of children. And they would not condemn children to growing up in poverty. Cannot afford them, then do not have them. I cannot believe you or anyone would disagree with that.

I don't, I'm just saying you can't necessarily blame everyone who has kids they can't support for putting themselves in that situation when there's so many unforseen circumstances that can arise, such as the ones I named above.

As for evidence, I would think it obvious. Kids cost money. A lot of money. And if you don’t have much to begin with, you are going to have even less.

I wasn't asking for evidence of the obvious economic wisdom of not having kids as a teenager, I'm asking for evidence of your contention that everyone waiting to have kids and finishing high school would lift most or all of them out of poverty. You seem to be crafting some sort of straw man argument that I believe "personal responsibility" plays little or no role. I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's only part of the picture.

I have a better idea. Why don’t YOU provide some. Any evidence I post will be dismissed by you as some kind of corporate propaganda.

You made the original claim. I'll accept any evidence that you can find from a neutral source, (AKA not the "Americans United For Separation of School and State Organization," or the Cato Institute or whatever)

I went to a cruddy inner city school. I did what I could, took AP classes and went on to a decent college. Did the rich kids out in the burbs have more advantages? Sure they did. So what? Life is inherently unfair. Bill Gates is smarter and rich than me. I can handle it. Life is unfair. Eric Clapton is more talented than me. I can...you know the rest.

You don't think we should work to help life more fair? We'd better get rid of the judicial system and prohibit all lawsuits from now on. "Life isn't fair" is the ultimate cop-out argument.

There is something to that. Culture has historical roots and you have correctly identified them.

What I pointed out was rooted in INSTITUTIONS and LAW, not the "culture of poverty" that you blame everything on.

But there is a fine line between explanations and excuses. Are people going to cry forever about past abuse and then consequently self-destruct? I think you are condemning people to perpetual rot.

No. I'm not saying people can't rise above poverty on their own, I'm just saying it's HARDER and unreasonable to immediately blame the average person raised in such an environment for "not taking enough personal responsibility" if they fail to climb up the economic ladder to where you feel they should be.

No, I do not. I did not grow up with rich parents. I borrowed to go to college, and then repaid it. I then borrowed to earn a graduate degree and am still repaying it. Where there’s a will there’s a way. You see, I don’t see these people as permanent unfortunates condemned to play victim because it gives you a cause. They can do anything (within reason) that they want to if they get off the victimization train. It might help if you and others stopped fueling that train.

You keep bringing up this straw man of me believing that people are "confined to their fate," that nobody can escape poverty on their own if the cards are stacked against them. I've never said that. Once again, I'm just saying that IT'S HARDER, that it's irrational to place the blame entirely on people for something that's not their fault (even in cases where it may partially be), that there is such a thing as social and economic unfairness, that "the market" isn't a perfect arbiter of justice. You're the one who seems to see the poor in a generally negative light, accusing everyone who doesn't rise out of their situation like you did of "hitching the ride on the victimization train," as if everyone who grows up poor but doesn't become middle class is just some lazy, unmotivated bum who could be rich if he would just try. That's unrealistic and unrational and that's what I have an issue with. Okay? I've never said that the poor are "permanent unfortunates condemned to play victim," although it seems that you have mind reading abilities that allow you to see into their minds and know that's what they're thinking to themselves. Maybe it's not the case? Maybe sometimes people try but still fail? Maybe some people really have unfortunate, unlucky things happen to them that they can't climb out from under on their own? Do people have some type of inner omnipotence of which I'm not aware?

Another way of saying blame is embracing personal responsibility. Environmental factors is a nice euphemism for the very dysfunctional culture I am pointing out.

No it's not. I've pointed out numerous environmental factors that have nothing to do with culture.

Economic factors affect us all and can be circumvented with realistic expectations.

Yes THEY CAN with the right combination of skills, smarts, and drive, but not everyone has those (most middle-class raised people don't, either) that's not the issue, the issue is whether we should immediately blame someone if they fail to do so.

You talk about the poor as if they cannot accomplish anything. Just like on that other thread. I suspect...suspect that you do not have a very high opinion of certain sectors of our society. You do not like generalizations? Fine, what of the people who have done more or less what I have called for here and have indeed escaped poverty?

I talk about the poor as if factors in poverty make it harder for some people than it is for others, through no fault of their own. You talk about the poor as if all of their misfortune is entirely self made. I've never said "poor people can't accomplish anything." I never said that there wouldn't be a reduction in poverty if more people finished high school and didn't have kids unless they were in a commited relationship. Of course there would be. But I'm not naive enough to believe poverty would disappear, because the other factors would still remain. You could build a brain-enhancer machine and go through every ghetto and impoverished rural area of America, implanting everyone's mind with doctorate level knowledge of various fields of work and study, then magically whisk their kids away to Happy Fairyland Paradise, and there would still be poverty because there would be more people with the given skills willing to take the skilled jobs than there would be jobs available. A university's not going to hire 20,000 geologists.

[ParkTwain]

Poverty being a "cultural" problem is a cop-out by an elitist who can't get his hands dirty. I can't tell what this person means when he says 'culture'. I also showed him that 'culture' at least partially means 'system of education' (according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary), which in America is very much a government activity. But he still simply asserts with no stated basis that "government cannot affect culture."

Tautological or deeply confused, I can't tell which.

[ParkTwain]

Originally Posted by Moth

Cease acting as if its normal might be a start. Then stop subsidizing it. Or are you a high school dropout with 3 kids from 3 different partners?

How would the government accomplish this? Stop the sex behavior, somehow (good luck)? End welfare for unwed mothers, regardless of age and all other circumstances (good luck)? Enforce child support for all biological fathers, regardless of the mother's wishes? Please be specific, for a change.

I would say that you're very obviously blowing the smoke of a naive shut-in social conservative.

[fishmonger]

Martin Luther King, Jr. said it way better than I ever could

(His argument for the "Guaranteed Minimum Income," an idea strangely supported by some of the most Social-Darwinistic of Austrian-school libertarians):

"Up to recently we have proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils: lack of education restricting job opportunities; poor housing which stultified home life and suppressed initiative; fragile family relationships which distorted personality development. The logic of this approach suggested that each of these causes be attacked one by one. Hence a housing program to transform living conditions, improved educational facilities to furnish tools for better job opportunities, and family counseling to create better personal adjustments were designed. In combination these measures were intended to remove the causes of poverty.

While none of these remedies in itself is unsound, all have a fatal disadvantage. The programs have never proceeded on a coordinated basis or at a similar rate of development. Housing measures have fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies. They have been piecemeal and pygmy. Educational reforms have been even more sluggish and entangled in bureaucratic stalling and economy-dominated decisions. Family assistance stagnated in neglect and then suddenly was discovered to be the central issue on the basis of hasty and superficial studies. At no time has a total, coordinated and fully adequate program been conceived. As a consequence, fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.

In addition to the absence of coordination and sufficiency, the programs of the past all have another common failing—they are indirect. Each seeks to solve poverty by first solving something else.

I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective—the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.

Earlier in this century this proposal would have been greeted with ridicule and denunciation as destructive of initiative and responsibility. At that time economic status was considered the measure of the individual’s abilities and talents. In the simplistic thinking of that day the absence of worldly goods indicated a want of industrious habits and moral fiber.

We have come a long way in our understanding of human motivation and of the blind operation of our economic system. Now we realize that dislocations in the market operation of our economy and the prevalence of discimination thrust people into idleness and bind them in constant or frequent unemployment against their will. The poor are less often dismissed from our conscience today by being branded as inferior and incompetent. We also know that no matter how dynamically the economy develops and expands it does not eliminate all poverty.

We have come to the point where we must make the nonproducer a consumer or we will find ourselves drowning in a sea of consumer goods. We have so energetically mastered production that we now must give attention to distribution. Though there have been increases in purchasing power, they have lagged behind increases in production. Those at the lowest economic level, the poor white and Negro, the aged and chronically ill, are traditionally unorganized and therefore have little ability to force the necessary growth in their income. They stagnate or become even poorer in relation to the larger society.

The problem indicates that our emphasis must be two-fold. We must create full employment or we must create incomes. People must be made consumers by one method or the other. Once they are placed in this position, we need to be concerned that the potential of the individual is not wasted. New forms of work that enhance the social good will have to be devised for those for whom traditional jobs are not available.

In 1879 Henry George anticipated this state of affairs when he wrote, in Progress and Poverty:

“The fact is that the work which improves the condition of mankind, the work which extends knowledge and increases power and enriches literature, and elevates thought, is not done to secure a living. It is not the work of slaves, driven to their task either by the lash of a master or by animal necessities. It is the work of men who perform it for their own sake, and not that they may get more to eat or drink, or wear, or display. In a state of society where want is abolished, work of this sort could be enormously increased.”

We are likely to find that the problems of housing and education, instead of preceding the elimination of poverty, will themselves be affected if poverty is first abolished. The poor transformed into purchasers will do a great deal on their own to alter housing decay. Negroes, who have a double disability, will have a greater effect on discrimination when they have the additional weapon of cash to use in their struggle.

Beyond these advantages, a host of positive psychological changes inevitably will result from widespread economic security. The dignity of the individual will flourish when the decisions concerning his life and in his own hands, when he has the assurance that his income is stable and certain, and when he know that he has the means to seek self-improvement. Personal conflicts between husband, wife and children will diminish when the unjust measurement of human worth on a scale of dollars is eliminated.

Two conditions are indispensable if we are to ensure that the guaranteed income operates as a consistently progressive measure. First, it must be pegged to the median income of society, not the lowest levels of income. To guarantee an income at the floor would simply perpetuate welfare standards and freeze into the society poverty conditions. Second, the guaranteed income must be dynamic; it must automatically increase as the total social income grows. Were it permitted to remain static under growth conditions, the recipients would suffer a relative decline. If periodic reviews disclose that the whole national income has risen, then the guaranteed income would hgave to be adjusted upward by the same percentage. Without these safeguards a creeping retrogression would occur, nullifying the gains of security and stability.

This proposal is not a “civil rights” program, in the sense that that term is currently used. The program would benefit all the poor, including the two-thirds of them who are white. I hope that both Negro and white will act in coalition to effect this change, because their combined strength will be necessary to overcome the fierce opposition we must realistically anticipate.

Our nation’s adjustment to a new mode of thinking will be facilitated if we realize that for nearly forty years two groups in our society have already been enjoying a guaranteed income. Indeed, it is a symptom of our confused social values that these two groups turn out to be the richest and the poorest. The wealthy who own securities have always had an assured income; and their polar opposite, the relief client, has been guaranteed an income, however miniscule, through welfare benefits.

John Kenneth Galbraith has estimated that $20 billion a year would effect a guaranteed income, which he describes as “not much more than we will spend the next fiscal year to rescue freedom and democracy and religious liberty as these are defined by ‘experts’ in Vietnam.”

The contemporary tendency in our society is to base our distribution on scarcity, which has vanished, and to compress our abundance into the overfed mouths of the middle and upper classes until they gag with superfluity. If democracy is to have breadth of meaning, it is necessary to adjust this inequity. It is not only moral, but it is also intelligent. We are wasting and degrading human life by clinging to archaic thinking.

The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty."

King's proposal makes a lot of sense to me... I don't think there would necessarily be a large "disincentive to work" with basic living essentials guaranteed, as long as you don't lose the entitlement when you make more, which is what happens in the current system (where we force recipients into the workplace, then cut off their assistance when they start making too much), and it would remove the conservative-hated supposed phenomenon of women having children for economic advantage (I don't know how much this happens, but you know...) Buying it requires a somewhat un-American (I guess) philosophy, however, one that doesn't follow the "he who shall not work shall not eat," paradigm... personally I don't have a problem with converting that to "he who does not work shall not have nice luxuries." Wouldn't people be more willing to take more risks and search for better jobs, go to school to further themselves if they have a guarantee of basic survival if they fail? That seems to be the case in many countries in Europe, where the safety net's sturdier and income mobility levels are higher.

[bily4]

Can I suggest that not all poor are on welfare. A significant percentage work multiple jobs and are still poor. Not everyone is cut out for college and not everyone can be the Chief. We still need Indians. Now that our manufacturing base is disappearing offshore and yes it is really happening, options are disappearing for a living wage for the worker bees. And don't turn this into an illegal bashing party, the jobs they do would not support living wages either for the most part. And with health care and housing and costs of living going up quicker than salary increases, more middle class are sinking into this group every single year. I know people say the market adapts and new jobs are created and the American spirit will prevail. I'm not so convinced.

[TriMT7]

How to handle poverty? Make the tools for success easily attainable to people on the lower economic strata to move up.

What does this mean? Good PUBLIC SCHOOL infrastructure, continued and better subsidization of college, trade, and technical schools. As someone who came from a family with VERY little resources that went through graduate school on a combination of government grants, scholarships and student loans, and is STILL saddled with a ridiculous amount of student loans that will be paid by ME, and not my PARENTS, it amazes me that people still don't understand or recognize the concept of inherited position in life. How far could my $600/month student loan payment for the next 30 years go in investment for my retirement, or in a home, or in regular investments?

How much easier is it to "start out" when daddy owns the law firm, or mom and dad are footing the education bills? Those that inhabit the lower rungs of society don't necessarily want your sympathy, but would appreciate it if you could manage to refrain from spitting while you curse them as lazy, unmotivated, immoral, etc. After all, a rich girl could have three out of wedlock babies and have resources handed to her to take care of those kids while she attained her career, but god forbid a poor girl make a mistake that will ensure she's poverty stricken for decades to come.


Oh, and people who say, "eliminate welfare" are stuck in the 80s. We're in the era of post-welfare reform. There is a cap on the amount of time welfare recipients can stay on the dole, so to speak. One can no longer make a "living" out of welfare.

[Miborn]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

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.

The problem with that is sometimes they day they do not know who the father is.

[SuzyQ123]

If you work 40 hrs a week and need some food stamps to help make it or need a medical card for your 1 child then fine. But why in the world would you think the goverment should pay for you to have a few kids and you not have to work.

I have 1 child that is all I can afford. I work 40 hrs a week to provide for my child. We don't have alot but we make it ON OUR OWN. My neighbor has 3 kids under 5. She gets WIC, Food Stamps, Medical Card, Free Rent, Free Utilities, and she sells Avon on the side. She lives is a better home than I do, she drives a nicer car than I do, her kids eat better than mine, and have better health insurance thatn mine, and in the winter she can keep her house warmer than mine.

Does any of that sound fair. I would love to have another baby but I can't afford it right now. But she gets to have 3???? Paid for by MY taxes and she doesn't have a job. Do you know what it feels like to know if I was another welfare case we would be living better.

If you need so help, fine but you have to work at least 40 hours a week to get any help. If there is no job then you have to volenteer 40 hours a week doing something.

[Moth]

Nonchalant? I don't know where you got that. But have you considered that, maybe, many of the people who have children and can't support them THOUGHT that they would be able to when they decided to? That sometimes the pill doesn't work, the condom breaks, or the father runs away unexpectedly? Day-after "forecasting" is pretty easy.

Of course you can find cases like those. And sure, some people hit a run of bad luck. The local plant closes, the prime breadwinner dies unexpectedly. I am not talking about such instances. I am talking about a perverse (perverse as in bad) culture seen in both the inner city and rural areas that is largely characterized by a disdain for education as well as a chaotic family structure, or rather a lack of structure. Such culture brings about social pathology. That is simply undeniable. Education and stable families have benefits which need no defense from me. And do you really believe the legions of unwed mothers throughout the inner city are the result of broken condoms? That is very difficult to take seriously.

You don't think we should work to help life more fair? We'd better get rid of the judicial system and prohibit all lawsuits from now on. "Life isn't fair" is the ultimate cop-out argument.

Well, I think we should always get rid of things like segregation, caste systems, fixed class systems, apartheid, etc. But if once again pointing out the obvious, that there is simply a stark and inherent difference between people like Bill Gates, Paul McCartney, Peyton Manning, Buckminster Fuller and people like YOU, constitutes a cop out in your world, well you are insatiable.

Yes THEY CAN with the right combination of skills, smarts, and drive, but not everyone has those (most middle-class raised people don't, either) that's not the issue, the issue is whether we should immediately blame someone if they fail to do so.

Well if someone ignores school his entire life, cannot read by age 16, fathers 4 children by 4 different women and then finds himself largely removed from the norms of society, just whose fault is it? Yours? Mine? The Masons?

You made the original claim. I'll accept any evidence that you can find from a neutral source, (AKA not the "Americans United For Separation of School and State Organization," or the Cato Institute or whatever)

I cited the late, esteemed and very liberal Senator Daniel P. Monynihan's report (The Negro Family: The Case for National Action [1965]) to support a point. As I knew you would, you ignored it. Now you want more evidence, but only evidence that you deem acceptable. All things considered, why would I waste my time?

You're the one who seems to see the poor in a generally negative light, accusing everyone who doesn't rise out of their situation like you did of "hitching the ride on the victimization train," as if everyone who grows up poor but doesn't become middle class is just some lazy, unmotivated bum who could be rich if he would just try. That's unrealistic and unrational and that's what I have an issue with. Okay?

Mr Fishmonger, this is the USA, not Somalia or Afghanistan. That's real poverty and starvation. There is loads of opportunity here for at least a modest, stable life if someone makes half an effort. No, the streets are not paved with gold and not everyone becomes Donald Trump (thankfully). But for crying out loud, anyone who takes education seriously, sets goals and more or less plays by the rules can achieve a modest and decent standard of living.

Are there always going to be some hardcore exceptions who can't just because they can't? Sure. And yes, I have no problem with the government providing for them to some extent. But come on, they were never the focus of this discussion. We are talking about the modern day American dystopia of able bodied men embracing a culture, yes a culture, of self destruction. Why don't you find some of them and regale them with some of your quasi-Marxist piffle. I cannot believe they will be unreceptive and fail to hail you as a messiah.

I am done. Enjoy the last word(s),