My experience, growing up really poor in The Bronx, was that all of our parents worked. They just worked shitty jobs for little pay. I, myself, got working papers the minute I turned 14 and was legally able to do so.
But, like they say, anecdote is not data. Is it true that really poor kids’ parents don’t work and so they have no idea what it means to go to work? Where is Newt getting these facts from?
This may be more suited for GQ. I tossed a coin.
I don’t think it’s a controversial idea that poor people are less likely to be employed. I mean, that’s a pretty big reason why a lot of poor people are poor. The debatable bit is whether they’re poor and unemployed because there is no work to be had, or (not to put words in Newt’s mouth) because they’re all lazy or something.
The question isn’t whether or not poor people are less likely to be employed. The question is if poor children do not know how to work unless it is illegal.
And, as I said above, every one of me and my poor friends had a mom or a dad who worked and worked hard yet we were just as poor as any 20 year old on welfare with 4 kids.
Well, “really poor” kids (which is what he said) could be, by definition, in families on welfare. What he’s saying (I think) is that they don’t have role models who work regular jobs at regular hours. It’s probably arguably true, but it’s a pretty stupid thing to say without a lot more context than he gave it (or that is accessible on that audio clip). It’s also really stupid to paint with such a broad brush. However, it doesn’t speak to any innate flaw in the poor kids, but rather the environment they grow up in.
Anyway, I certainly don’t want to defend him because, like I said, this is really only true for certain definitions of “really poor” kids, and since he didn’t take the time to define what he meant (or that definition isn’t available on the audio clip) it just hangs out there like the big WTF that it is. And the whole “unless it’s illegal” part was even more stupid. Any poor person who is actually working is a drug dealer. :rolleyes:
Newt isn’t completely wrong. There are neighborhoods with extremely low employment rates, where everyone lives in government housing, everyone’s poor, and more dollars are exchanged through crime than honest trade. It seems like the proposal he was not-so-eloquently making is that kids growing up in that situation are doomed unless we can show them another way of life, for example by paying them for very low skilled work. It’s not a horrible idea, but it sounds too much like another “wouldn’t it be nice if…” proposal that’s calculated to be appealing to everyone in the country without actually needing a real plan with numbers and timetables and stuff.
I think Gingrich is scum, but having watched the whole clip, I would say he is taking a bad rap on this one.
His claim was not that poor kids had some inherent moral lack, but that they did not have experience seeing others work or working, themselves. His claim is over broad, but it is not without some basis in fact. (I would note that with the changes in U.S. labor with the reduction of manual jobs, the same can often be said of wealthier kids, as well).
Having made his claim, (exaggerated or not), he then actually went on to make a proposal to rectify the situation. He proposed giving these kids jobs and paying them.
Now, there are going to be objections and reservations about his proposal: are the kids going to be working below minimum wage, removing tasks from minimum wage workers who need it to get by? Are the jobs going to be nothing more than “make work” programs that will give the kids a feeling of entitlement that they deserve to be handed do nothing jobs and still get paid?
I don’t think that he has proposed a panacaea that will solve all sorts of problems, but he has put forth a point that can be discussed and he was not actually being disrepectful in the way that the headline on the news clip proposes.
I suspect that his words were ill-considered, but having watched the clip, again, I don’t think that that was his intent. I suspect that he meant that when poor kids see other kids with money, it is more often from illegal activities. Those could be drug dealing or theft or boosting stolen property.
Again, an exaggerated and ill-considered statement, but one that is not entirely baseless.
Why do you assume he’s using facts? He’s a conservative politican who wants to get support using populist tactics, right? Politicans stirring up the populist vote don’t care about facts, they make them up or twist them.
What I hear here in Germany - borne out by real observations - is that “poverty is inherited (through social conditioning, not genes)” - a lot of people are on welfare or unemployment in the 3rd generation.
It’s not that children don’t know how to work (child labour is illegal in Germany, so that statement would be meaningless). It’s that their parents and the parents of their classmates and their neighbours don’t have professions, like the Middle Class, but only jobs - low-skilled, low-paid, often temporarily or quickly fired.
These people have no dreams, no hopes, no idea of the future, their own talents or wishes. They see and know no better that you get some dumb job or otherwise welfare, and exist. It’s a sad waste of potential, because they started out with the same potential as middle-class kids, but because of enviroment discouraging them at every turn, they believe that they know nothing and can do nothing besides hang around, watch TV and work some low-level job.
The solution is of course not loosening child labour laws (as the farmers lobby does) but to offer multiple support to the children and parents to discover their talents, dreams, wishes and potential, and build that.
Which is a dumb idea. These kids usually lack belief and perspectives. What kind of work can a poorly educated 14-year old do that is not a McDonalds job - what he can get 2 years down the road when he finishes High School?
Or that is not a guided apprenticeship (learning a craft plus counseling) which is offered in Germany as integration for teens who fail school or finding a normal apprenticeship? (Sucess varies depending on how the programm is implemented).
And I say he’s full of shit. Even though I am now very middle class, not everyone in my family or my husband’s family has made it out of the projects. I don’t know what kind of urban cesspool he’s thinking of-- but poor people work. What really poor kids see is their parents killing themselves at menial, low paying jobs.
What kind of weird inner city living does the rest of the country think goes on? The South Bronx, where I grew up, has a 35% unemployment rate. That’s pretty goddamned high, wouldn’t you say? Would you also say that the 65% of the population that have jobs are invisible? That their children don’t know what going to work entails?
This country has a warped view of what it means to grow up poor and a The Wire/Homicide-Life In The Streets understanding of inner-city life.
Oh and I love how his solution to the really poor kids not knowing what it means to work because nobody they know has a job is to take away the menial, low paying jobs from the adults they know and give it to kids- part time, of course and at an even lower pay.
IIRC most people on welfare, assuming they are not disabled, go in and out of the work force over time, so their kids would have experience with them working.
If Newt weren’t an idiot, he might propose jobs for the parents, not the kids, which would both set a good example and get them out of poverty. And programs that would give kids someplace to go and say, study after school might be nice also.
A couple of thoughts on your post. First, those of us on disability are NOT ON WELFARE. I worked for 20+ years prior to becoming injured on the job. The Social Security Disability I receive is not welfare, but a benefit that I paid for taken from taxes placed on each and every dollar I earned. No different than an insurance policy. I apologize for getting my back up on this issue, but I cannot stand people thinking that those on SS disability are on welfare. We paid for that benefit.
Secondly, while I agree that the ultimate solution is jobs for the parents, what good exactly does “proposing jobs” by any politician do? Where are these jobs supposed to come from? The Government for the most part does not create jobs, the private sector does. I am not saying that those down don’t need to have a helping hand up, but what exactly are we to do?
As far as after school study programs, I couldn’t agree more that education is the main key in people getting out of poverty. The problem however, is that the children of quite a number of low income parents are not seeing an emphasis being placed on education from inside their own family. If it doesn’t start at home and isn’t encouraged by those at home I really think that there is nothing the Government can do to help. Kids of higher and upper middle class families do well in school because the parents place a high priority on education and they place an expectation on their children to do well in school. Families in the lower class need to place the same expectation on their children. Once the children know and understand the value of education things will start to change.
My wife is a teacher and I spend many hours as a volunteer at the school. I am amazed at the difference I see between children (regardless of race) of lower class families vs. upper middle and wealthy families. The difference is in their attitudes toward learning. The difference is in the parents direct involvement in their children’s school life. This is not to say that I don’t see slackers and losers (for lack of a better word) in the upper class kids, nor does it mean that I don’t see individuals from the lower class families that seem to be self motivated and on their way to the top. It is just a general observation.
I am not knocking lower class children or the adults. We should help as it benefits not only the individuals that receive help, but our country as a whole. But I truly believe that there is little that we can do if the mindset of the ones who need help doesn’t change.
And FWIW, on a personal note I didn’t complete college. I went and dropped out choosing instead to go into the workforce in a technical blue collar job. I did very well while in this job, but certainly would have done better had I completed college. Looking back and thinking about myself and the friends of mine who did go and complete college I saw something that was undeniable. My parents didn’t go to college and while they always encourage me to do well, they didn’t put much emphasis on a college education. I grew up thinking it really wasn’t that important. Looking back I can remember the friends that I had that got degrees and how their parents pushed the idea of college on them. It was expected that they would go and they did. A kid needs direction and sometimes a good shove in the right direction.
*Also, my use of the term class I guess could be interchangeable with the work income. I always hated the terms lower class, middle class, upper class. It always seemed to sound so derogatory or superior. But I really don’t know what other term to use.
“Those poor people need to help themselves before anyone else can help them” is not a particularly helpful observation to make. We are discussing what we as a society can do to improve the hopeless situation lots of people are in. We can’t force families to place a higher priority on education, but we can as a society provide incentives for educational achievement, for example.
So, until these children learn the value of a good education, let’s fire all the janitors except one and have the kids do the labor for real cheap. That’ll learn 'em!
There is nothing wrong with a “McDonald’s job” for any kid, rich or poor. The idea is to give the kid (and I would say every kid needs to learn this) the experience that you have to show up, and you have to have the discipline to show up every day. The actual job is less important than the life skills learned with having the responsibility of a job. But again, I think all kids (teenagers) can benefit from that.
I had a more or less shit job when I was 14. Most of my friends did, too. But it was nice to have spending money and it kept us off the streets during the day.
That isn’t exactly what I said. To clarify, I conceded that we as a society need to help those less fortunate. However it is my opinion that no matter how much we do to help change will not come unless change also comes from inside as well. We can do everything in our power to foster education BUT until the children receive support and encouragement from their family and communities as a whole I believe that the help we give won’t be enough to overcome the status quo.
I disagree and think that by pointing out the failures in the social network of those needing help is quite helpful. Would you disagree that a foundation set down by the families of children is necessary for them to succeed in life? Would you agree that a child would be more successful in school if they had the support of their parents concerning their education?
What is so terrible about saying to the lower class parents, “we would like to help you and your children build better lives but in order to do so WE NEED YOUR HELP AS WELL. Could you please become more involved in your child’s education. Contact their teachers and see what you can do to assist your child. Take the initiative and make sure that your child is doing their assignments and turning them in. Talk to your kids about how important an education is and explain to them that college can be and should be an option. Tell them that the way out of the situation that they are in is education. Make sure that they know that by doing the best they can and trying harder each day they can succeed in life.” My God, the horror in those words.
Once again, I agree that we need to help those in need. But we can’t help those who aren’t willing to help themselves. And you are correct that we can’t force families to place a higher priority on education. But if they don’t want to, isn’t that the same as someone denying help in the first place? If they don’t want to contribute to changing their circumstances I fail to see what we can possibly do to help them. The old saying is “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink”.
The most credible reading of the clip is that once again the unctuous Newt has trouble concealing a long-running contempt for the poor. Just this week, he basically lied about SNAP (formerly known as the food stamp program) as part of his usual act to demonize those who don’t have the courtesy to get rich like him.
News flash: Newt likes money a whole lot, and poor people represent for him a diversion of cash that could be going his way instead. I have no doubt his suggestion that poor kids work in schools–at lower wages, notice–is a way to reduce public spending on schools, freeing up more cash for him to spend at Tiffany’s.