But you are comparing apples to walnuts here. Remember that your own site earlier suggested that fully 7% of those born into the lowest income quintile dies in the highest. 7% of the population (even of only 20% of the whole population) is a far greater portion than those who become astronauts. And if we look just a little bit more realistically at those who rise out of poverty rather than those who rise all the way to the top, we find (again by your own site) that more than half do so. Given that fully half of all marriages fail (and I think I remember that being worse for poor people but I may be mistaken) you are not going to suggest that more than half of all poor people have all of the advantages you laid out, are you?
This seems unlikely to me. A person born into the bottom 20% of income households seems very unlikely indeed to have any sort of “startup capital”. And yet, fully 7% of them make it inot the highest earning quintile. Do you really think it is easy enough for poor people to generate startup capital that so many can make it so well? Remember that most bussiness schemes fail. So if 7% of any group makes a go of them, then many more had to have tried. Are you really suggesting that anything like 14% of poor people have some sort of “start up capital” capability?
Well, perhaps you mean something different than I do by “likely”. Perhaps you mean during childhood when you say “at least starting out”. But otherwise, I think the statistic you and I have been throwing at each other disprove this. If you are only 42% likely to move out of the lowest quintile when born there, I’m not sure you can call that “likely”. Maybe its just me, but I think a greater than 50/50 chance is necessary for “likely”.
Therein lies the problem of course. In order to move to D.C. we would require a reasonable sum of cash. As you can see, this would be something of a problem. Catch-22
Perusal of a DC newspaper or even the internet is bound to lead to job prospects as well as apartment prospects. Bus tickets are pretty cheap. Perhaps a week there would be enough to land a job and find an apartment? If you scrimped, how long would it take you to save up enough cash to live for a week at a subsistence level?
Once there and living you could begin looking for a more lucrative career.
Certainly not an easy decision to make. But not quite a catch 22 either.
First of all, I’m somewhat leery of the numbers-- I don’t have enough information about who these people are, how they got out of poverty, why they were there, or what their circumstances are.
I’d gander to say that people who are upwardly mobile are those with family and other resources-- people who don’t stay long in poverty because they weren’t acclimated to it.
When it comes to children who come out of the lowest quantille when they grow up, it could be that their parents were situationally poor-- that is, they came from a middle-class background and became poor due to injury, illness, job loss, etc, but still retained the core values and work ethics of their previous class. Though they themselves were unable to climb out of poverty, they gave their children the sociological tools and desire to do so. In this circumstance, extended family might be able to help out with getting a first car, tuition, etc. which wouldn’t be an option in families in which poverty is chronic.
Secondly, how are these children becoming wealthy once they grow up-- the seven percent, I mean? (And I don’t think that’s an enormous number.) It would be interesting to correlate the number of athletic and educational scholarships awarded to this class with this upward mobility.
The truly deprived are those who are not situationally poor, but chronically. They are the ones who do not have the social and material tools needed to get a good start in life. They are the ones for whom college is not realistic. They are the “surplus labor pool” who are laid off when the economy goes south. These are the ones who have very, very little realistic chance of bettering themselves. Their children’s chances are slightly better, but they still face enormous odds.
But, even for the situationally poor, life can be hard and bitter. Opprotunities can be lost-- lives brought to the brink of ruin. These people need public assistance just as much as the chronically poor, if not more. If caught in time, a family might be saved from the culture of poverty.
For the purposes of discussing public assistance, both groups must be considered the same. When it comes to their upward mobility chances, they are quite different.
I try to become less ignorant every day, my friend. Every day in which I learned nothing new is wasted.
In studying an issue such as poverty, all studies have problems no matter how carefully their researchers tried to control them. Poor people are not static figures-- which can be grouped and quantified. Each has a different situation, sometimes vastly. The data can be skewed by including people in groups when their circumstances don’t truly warrant it, even if they technically qualify. All of those variables make it extraordinarily difficult to truly determine something as intangible as how many real rags-to-riches stories that there are. Some people start out with more than others. Some have advantages others do not.
I’d gander to say that a good portion of that half that succeed are the situationally poor I discussed earlier.
I don’t know. They have to at least have the basics-- a car (or other transportation), business clothing, education, health care stable childcare, etc. in order to start in the working world. Those in of themselves are almost impossible expenses for a good portion of the poor.
Honestly, I don’t know how these people get started. Sports scholarships, possibly a short sports career. (What’s the minimum-- about $200,000 for professional athletes? I’m not talking stars.) Perhaps a loan to start up a business? Lottery winnings? Good old-fashioned hard work and penny-pinching? (But out of a $40,000 salary, you’d have to pinch pretty hard to become rich in your lifetime.)
People who just work a nine-to-five at a mill or office complex don’t generally become rich-- their salaries are usually dedicated to essentials. Something unusual has to happen to free up capital. They have to invent something, or own a business, win the lottery, have a wealthy relative die-- something.
Again, it depends on why you are there, I think. If your parents and grandparents were poor, chances are, you will be too, and that’s how you’ll stay. Again, I think most of this mobility comes from the situationally poor.
What I’m saying is that while the group as a whole may have a 50% chance, each individual does not. Part of the group is going to have better odds than the others. (Male whites will have better chances than black females, for instance.) Some are going to have resources others do not.
You say this a few times. But you are only asserting it. I don’t think you have anything but your own prejudice to back it up.
I would be very leary of using terms like that. Now who is saying that the poor do not have good work ethics or good values. I do not think you can make generalizations like this at all. There are lots of decent folk who for one reason or another are poor. Again, it is simply your assertion that the ones who are cronically poor are the lazy ones.
There are lots of reasons. I tried to look for a study I used in another thread long ago. It contained stories of just this sort of thing. People born into poverty who made it to millionare status. Thier methods ranged from raw luck to hard work and persaverence. If I recall correctly, the stories were weighted toward hard work. That is, hard work works much more often than luck. It was only a collection of anecdotes, however, not necessarily a representative sample.
On another note,
That’s fine. But then you have to include a disclaimer like this when you quote statistics about how many people are poor. If having an income below the poverty line is not sufficient, then you should not say that everyone who has such an income is in this state.
But then how would you measure these people. Remember that the population is not isolated. Immigration is happening at huge rates. When you look at the poverty rate one year, again 10 years later, the fact that it has not moved tells you nothing about how many people were able to better themselves. I’m sorry, but once again, you are merely asserting that these people even exist. (I’m really not doubting that there are chronically poor. But we need to get the idea more rigorously defined if we are going to discover how bad it really is.)
Well, a pretty good argument can be made that public assistence could hinder this process as much as help it.
Perhaps. But then we need to have a way to quantify which is which.
Quite.
But does not this same fact mean that large government programs have the same difficulties?
Quite. But you might consider that this is not true. Some of those who rise out of poverty were generationally poor until they moved to America, for instance. We come to an impass of assertions at this point.
No, they don’t. Read the story of Carnegie. He had none of that when he arrived in this country. He simply worked his way up.
And this is not true either. Cheap suits (suits, mind you not simply decent work cloths) are very easy to get in almost all cities in the country. Much practical education can be aquired on the job. Cars are only necessary in some situations. Health care is only necessary if you get sick, and childcare is also only necessary if you have children.
I can’t remember where I read it, but the best predictors of poverty are finishing highschool, waiting to get married until past 20, and waiting to have children until after that. The number I remember are something like 80% of those who achieve these things do not end up poor. 80% of those who fail in one or more of them will end up poor.
No, it is much lower than that. You are thinking of those who make it into a major league team. The rate that poor people make it into such positions is far less than 7% I’d wager.
No, you wouldn’t I survived quite well with quite a bit less. And as my skills increased, I was able to get better and better jobs. None of my get rich schemes have worked out, but it is certainly possible to join the top 20% of wage earners that way. In 2001 the top income quintile cutoff was only $59000.
Now, formulate it this way and I can agree. Most people born into poverty do not make it rich. But enough do that the situation is not nearly as dire as you seem to want it. Climbing mount everest and becoming astronauts are simply not apt metaphors.
Given the average debt load, I’d say simply living debt free would be unusual enough. Simply saving a small proportion of ones money for several years would do it.
Possibly, but the number do not bear you out. Those studies do include measures of how many people move from higher quintiles into lower ones. I think you are assuming a nuetral transfer, and I think you will be disapointed.
I can agree with this as well. Again, all I was trying to say was that moving from below the povery line to above is not as difficult as you were portraying. I was certainly not trying to say that it is common, easy, and most certinaly not a sure thing.
You seem to misunderstand my point. I’m not talking about people being rich. I’m talking about them not being poor. I’m simply saying that it’s pretty simple to do certain things and you won’t be living in poverty. I’m not saying it’s pretty simple to do certain things and end up like Bill Gates. The middle class life is pretty simple to achieve in the U.S. Millions of people do it all the time.
And it’s a fallacy to compare this to being an astronaut. One, there are only a limited number of flights that the government sends to space each year. There are no similar caps to how many people can be economically responsible. In fact, there are no caps on how many people can become rich, either. It’s not as if there is only a limited amount of wealth and if, say, Bill Gates has a certain amount then there is less for the rest of us. That’s simply not how the economy works.
[QUOTE=pervert]
You say this a few times. But you are only asserting it. I don’t think you have anything but your own prejudice to back it up.
No, no, that’s not what I meant at all. Perhaps “values” was the wrong word to use-- it has too many connotations to it.
What I meant was that there are certain lifestyle choices which come from the middle class. As an example, it has been shown that the poor often buy products in small amounts, paying more than necessary. (Like buying a one or two-use bottle of detergent at a convenience store rather than a giant economy-sized bottle.) They do this for a couple of reasons. Firstly, paying out two dollars leaves more cash in their pocket now than paying eight dollars for a larger size. Secondly, the poor often shop at convenience stores because they tend to be closer to their homes. Thirdly, they were never taught to buy in bulk, so it may not even occur to them to buy more than they need at the moment to save for later.
Likewise with food. The poor often tend to buy the ingredients for one meal, or a pre-packaged meal rather than bulk ingredients for a week of meals. They were never taught how to stretch a food dollar by making casseroles or stews and freezing the leftovers (well, they may not have the containers, come to think of it.) Nor were many of them taught about good nutrition.
In most middle-class homes, these things are taught to children. They watch mom, who clips coupons, shops around for bargains, buys in bulk, and plans meals in advance to stretch the food budget. They learn to compare price per ounce and other tactics which save money.
Again, effieciency and thrift are not something instunctual-- they must be taught. In the middle class, where shoppers have a little extra money to invest immediately to see long-term benefits, this is a “value” that is commonly practiced.
Though, of course, there are poor people who manage to do these things, on a whole, poor often don’t feel they have the option of thrift.
I’m distressed that you’d think I would say such a thing. It is completely opposite to my viewpoint.
In some cases, yes, but on a whole, I feel that helping people is better than ignoring their plight, even if there is a small chance they may find themselves becoming dependant on that help.
Of course. There is no way to make welfare perfect. There is no way to make any large-scale government program able to deal with all contingencies. But just because there are problems, abuses, and other bad sides does not mean the entire program is bad. Any government program is open to abuse. But the sins of the few should not be visited on the honest majority.
They may be cheap, but they stll require an intitial cash outlay which is difficult on some.
If you can get a job having had no training. Considering that the job market is getting more competitive with skilled workers being laid off, it would be even more difficult for someone with no skills to be more appealing to an employer than someone with experience.
Most situations, I would say. Only large cities are serviced by subways and the like. Buslines run in most towns, but what if you don’t live in town?
No, it’s not. Preventive healthcare is just as important. People should have a checkup at least once a year, if only so that conditions which may become serious may be caught earlier-- possibly being less expensive to treat in early stages. You also need dentistry. A cleaning at least once a year prevents tooth problems. People also need to see optometrists.
Fair enough. My problem is that I get very irritated when it comes to this issue, because I can safely bet that someone will come in and say people are poor just because they’re lazy. I tend to try to hammer home the point, and maybe I strike too hard on occasion.
Still, a small, mean, part of me wishes I had the magical power to take all of those people who say the poor are just lazy and make them poor themselves so they can show us how “easy” it is to leave poverty.
I appreciate you clarifying this. I really did not think you meant it the way I read it.
Can you show me how this might lead to poor buying decisions as they move up the income chain? My grandmother was very poor indeed, and if anything, she was much more frugal because of it. She actually experienced malnutrition levels of deprivation. As a result she canned and bought in bulk whenever she could. She used to make shopping lists which included 20 or so items each one included the store where it was to be bought. She had gone through the paper and found the cheapest source for various things.
I think you may have an overly romanticized view of how middle class life functions. It works this way in some homes, sure. But I think just as many poor people clip cupons as middle class ones. Just my opinion, though.
Again, in some homes, perhaps. But I really don’t think you have any evidence to back up this hypothoses.
What they feel is unknown to me entirely. When I was poor I felt I had no opion but to be thrifty. In fact many of my recent financial troubles stem from overcompensating for those times to a degree. I have found that forcing myself to be poor (living on a fixed allowance instead of directly out of my bank account) has helped greatly in allowing me to save more money.
Again, thanks for clearing that up. I thought I was mistaken about that paragraph.
But doesn’t this depend on the method of help? Teach a man to fish and all that?
Agreed. Just in the same was as the problems of a few should not justify the hobbling of the many. This line of reasoning really works both ways.
Yes, but not nearly the impossibility climbing of mount everest.
That depends on the particular job market. Don’t extrapolate the troubles of the IT job market due to the dot com bursting bubble to the economy as a whole.
Bikes are pretty cheap. I’ve known several people who comute cross town (Phoenix is a pretty bad town to try and use mass transit) on bikes. They all agree that it sucks. But they also all agree that it is physically possible.
See, this is where we part company in a serious way. I’m sorry, but “need” is a strong word to me. To me something that a person “needs” is something without which he will die. Not may die, not may spend more on medical care later, and certainly not be more comfortable with. I agree that regular medical care is a good idea. But when we are talking about needs and starvation in the streets, it simply does not rise to the same level of “need”.
But you should realize that many of those very people were in fact poor themselves and raised themselves out of it. Why would you discount their advice simply because it clashes with your own world view? I don’t mean accept it blindly, but at least look at it.
There are certainly problems of chronic poverty in the world. America is no exception. The only real question is what should we as a society do about it. You seem to feel (please correct me if I am wrong) that direct monetary transfers are the only way to handle it. I feel that this approach has far too great a chance of making the problem worse. If you go back to the studies we argued about earlier, you might notice that those complaining about lack oe economic mobility were in fact complaining about decreasing economic mobility. That is, they were noticing a decrease in the rates at which people move up the economic chain. If you look carefully, you might notice that this decrease coincides with increases in the welfare state. I haven’t done the math, so I’m not suggesting that any causal relationship has been proven. I’m only trying to suggest that you might want to examine your automatic rejection of other sorts of aid.
Mine, too. You may find this surprising, considering my position on this issue, but she, herself, was a rags-to-riches story. Her family’s income steadily increased as she raised her children to adulthood.
Even though her economical measures were no longer necessary, she made sure her children knew them and had strong work ethics. Now, my mother is in a similar position, but still cans vegetables from her garden. (And my grandmother still rinses out Ziploc bags to be re-used.)
As for the opposite being true-- that poor buying decisions would continue, why wouldn’t they? You don’t magically become frugal when you step into the middle class income bracket. (Again, these things must be taught.) I know quite a few folks in this position who always find themselves in a money pinch and can’t see why, though if they would economize, some of the pressure would be relieved.
Very few women know how to can these days-- it’s almost a dying art. Your grandmother (and mine) were taught by frugal parents how to do so. Today’s urban mother wouldn’t have a clue where to begin (or probably have money to invest in jars and pressure cookers).
But your grandmother’s mother probably taught her how to shop around, and how to make best use of her resources. She dedicated serious time and effort to it-- something that people seem to find difficult these days. Being frugal is hard work, which is why most people aren’t.
Coupon use is highest among middle-income shoppers. In fact, this study found that there was only a 0.078 probability that households earning less than $25K will use paper coupons.
Secondly, I direct you to a wonderful book called Rubbish! The Archaeology Of Garbage by William Rathje and Cullen Murphy. The University of Arizona’s Garbage Project has taught us a lot about purchasing habits by demographic. They found:
[quote]
Lower-income families consistently buy small-sized packages of everything from cereal to getergent; more affluent families consistently buy the “giant economy size.” No maker of house-brand or generic laundry detergent makes detergent available in a small, twenty-ounce container; some of the name-brand detergents do. These brand-name, twenty ounce detergent containers are, if found in garbage at rates well above average, a telltale sign of a low-income neighborhood. The same phenomenon is observable in discard rates of large and small cans of solid food. A Garbage Project study of large families in Tuscon during the worsening “stagflation” of the mid-1970s showed clearly that the affluent respond to hard times by increasing the amount of canned food they bought in large (bigger then 16 ounce) cans, while during the same period, the proportion of large cans in the garbage of the poor declined by almost 50 percent, and the proportion of smaller cans rose."
This article discusses some of the problems the poor face when trying to be economical with their food budget.
Here is something somewhat on point that I found interesting:
I think this is very similar to the idea of buying smaller products to keep cash on hand now. Poor families seem to feel themselves incapable of “investing” cash now for long-term benefit (i.e saving a few dollars over a month by buying the larger detergent bottle). In the above scenario, even though they knew they would get more money if they waited, they felt they couldn’t.
It’s also interesting to look at theSaving habits of the poor:
See above. It seems from the cites that the middle class is the most active in economizing-- coupon clipping, buying in bulk, shopping around, etc.
But you knew how to do it. You probably knew about buying products in bulk, how to store food, how to make your food stretch to multiple meals, etc.
I do think we need to teach them to fish in this case-- we need to have more classes on home economics for low income adults, but while they’re learning, we should give them fish as well.
I don’t agree that the many are hobbled. The majority of welfare recipients are off the rolls within two years.
This is not to say that they leave poverty once they’re off welfare-- just that their condition cannot be blamed on it.
I suppose not, Mr. Smarty Pants.
I wasn’t talking about the IT market. I know bugger-all about IT and the current job climate in that sector. I was referring to factory workers-- as an example, two people applying for a factory job: a recently laid-off worker who already knows how to operate a drill-press versus one who has never worked in a factory before. Which would an employer pick?
People in low income households are twice as likely to walk to work as other income groups. Because of the restrictions they have on reliable transportation, about 60% of their travel is within three miles. Low income families (according to this study) spend 15% of their income on travel expenses.
The report goes on to say that the average trip to work is in a private car (most likely that of a friend or relative) and that the average trip is between 18 and twenty minutes-- a distance which I believe would be unreasonable to bike or walk regularly, especially in areas with intemperate climates.
The results of their transportation program seem encouraging.
If medical conditions keep you from working regularly, it does.
I’ll supply you with an atecdote of my own: I knew a woman of very low income who had two serious medical problems. She had a bad back and a serious gynecological condition which needed surgery. These two conditions had her incapable of working at least half of the time, but she couldn’t afford to fix either. What employer would be so sympathetic as to allow a new employee to take half of every week off because of illness?
Because, most likely, they had dozens of advantages and don’t even realize it. (Nothing pisses me off more than people who don’t realize how lucky they are.) Their parents probably encouraged the right things, helped them get at least a little start, their skin may be white, they may be educated, they may not have the burdens of illness they cannot afford to treat or children who need daycare. They may be smarter than the average bear.
“If I can do it, anyone can,” is a deplorable attitude, in my opinion, because everyone’s circumstances are not identical. This lack of sympathy and blindness to others’ plights seems downright cold-hearted. It makes me as angry as some get in those threads on obesity when some people say that all fat people are fat because they’re lazy overeaters.
No, it’s not the only way-- hell, it’s probably not even the best ay, but the way things stand, we’re faced with few other realistic options.
There is no way to solve poverty completely. All we can do is try to lessen the suffering of those who are afflicted.
[quoteI’m only trying to suggest that you might want to examine your automatic rejection of other sorts of aid.[/QUOTE]
I’m certainly not rejecting any option, as long as it’s in supplement to cash benefits, which I feel are necessary until people can get on their feet.
What I support most are more transportation, child care, medical (including cosmetic treatment of teeth and tatoo removal) programs, and, most importantly, life education classes-- ones which teach the necessary social, job, and economic skills they lack. I would also support clothing vouchers.
The thing that always frustrates me is that the money for these programs is there, but it’s spent on idiotic programs which do no one any good, such as DARE and abstinance programs-- not to mention corporate welfare programs.
On a personal note, pervert, I believe this is the second or third time you and I have debated poverty. I’ve always enjoyed arguing with you. You make me work hard to try to prove my points, but in the process, I always learn something.
My appologies if I incorrectly move something out of that big quote block.
No, ubt you perhaps have to become frugal befor you get there. Again, the studies I linked to seemed to indicate that the movement from above the bottom income group to the bottom income group is quite a bit lower than the movement from the bottom to above it. That is, people who move out of poverty are not really lots more likely to move back into it.
Well, yes, but my experience has been that the people unable to pinch pennies have never been truly poor. Just my experience, though.
Just for the record (I agree with your main point) my grandmother was taught to can and cook by her mother because those skills were necessary for survival. On the farm a hundred years ago, you either canned food when it was picked, or you did not eat later when fresh food was unavailable. I would suggest that the skill was more common in times past precisely because it was needed.
I would also hint (or otherwise sugest much less strongly), that many of the habits we are discussing are not more common precisely because they are not “needed” anymore. There are not more frugal people today because frugality is not required for survival. It is simply too easy (compared to times past) to survive without those habits of frugality.
I doubt this pretty seriously. Where they came from there were very few choices about where to shop. You might avoid shopping for long periods of time in order to wait for a bargain, but you could not simply drive a few miles to a different store to get a better price on something. The solution (if I remember my family history correctly) was for people to be more independant of stores altogether. Many many many more things were made at home. And more things that this were repaired as long as humanly possible. Later in life, she used this general philosophy to guide her in her buying habits. But the lesson did not pass on very well. My cousin, who used to go shopping for her, would simply go to one store (saving money on gas and time and effort in her estimation) and then reimburse grandma the difference in the cost of the goods.
Quite. And as I hinted it is also not “needed”.
I’m certainly not rejecting any option, as long as it’s in supplement to cash benefits, which I feel are necessary until people can get on their feet.
What I support most are more transportation, child care, medical (including cosmetic treatment of teeth and tatoo removal) programs, and, most importantly, life education classes-- ones which teach the necessary social, job, and economic skills they lack. I would also support clothing vouchers.
The thing that always frustrates me is that the money for these programs is there, but it’s spent on idiotic programs which do no one any good, such as DARE and abstinance programs-- not to mention corporate welfare programs.
On a personal note, pervert, I believe this is the second or third time you and I have debated poverty. I’ve always enjoyed arguing with you. You make me work hard to try to prove my points, but in the process, I always learn something.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I can admit to a bit of over the top rhetoric since you did. But IMHO tax rates are pretty high. Much of that money is spent on social programs. Not welfare alone, certainly. I don’t know where you would put the line for the use of “hobble”, but 30% comes pretty close in my book.
But you see, I would make the argument that welfare’s inability to teach frugality, its utter avoidance of it, in fact, may very well contribute to the rate at which welfare recipients rise above poverty. Do you know what that rate is, BTW?
Walking such a distance regularly might be unreasonable. But the friend I mentioned (and in fact my uncle and cousin now that I recall) regularly did make such trips and longer. It is most assuredly doable.
Thanks very sincerely for that. I’ll drop the ribbing about it from now on.
[QUOTE]
If medical conditions keep you from working regularly, it does.[/QUTOE]But didn’t my original comment say this? I think the thing I said which started this particular sub thread was that medical costs are unnecessary unless you get sick. I was not trying to deny that some people do need medical care. Simply pointing out that most do not “need” it.
Just a couple points about these paragraphs. Just because a person had parents who encouraged frugality does not lessen the fact that her practice of it is her own achievement. It seems rude to suggest that such an achievement was “luck”.
I cannot understand at all how you feel the “If I can do it, anyone can” is deplorable. It sounds like good news to me. It also does not sound anything like a lack of sympathy. That may be apperent in other statements, but that statement alone simply sounds like a personal anecdote. And forgive me, but overweight people are overweight because they eat more calories than they burn up. I’m not sure how one can escape that math. But it seems unecessary to transfer any frustration on your part to a percieved slight by me because I believe that.
But I disagree with this altogether. We have lots of make work options, lots of “tough love” options, if you will, that might have a much better chance of teaching people the skills we both seem to agree will allow them to escape poverty. The only thing in our way IMHO is the attitude that the posession of these skill is inborn or aquired by luck. <see how I’v foune somethig else to needle you about>
I disagree with this also. Provided you don’t mean that poverty is not solved unless no one is ever poor ever again. I would rather see society structured so that only those who choose to be are poor. While I agree that we are not there yet, we are not nearly as far away as you might think.
But this common objection seems to give lie to your position that:
If we can come to an agreement that the primary way people get out of poverty is through thier own efforts (learning and practicing frugality, learning and practicing social skills, and learning and practicing good work ethics) then shouldn’t our efforts at reducing povery be directed at increasing these sorts of skill sets?
Keep in mind, I am not calling for or advocating the dismantling of the social safety net. I am not suggesting that we should let all of the poor sink or swim on their own. However, I am most definately questioning the ability of large government programs to address the problems as they exist on the ground. Such programs are excelent ways to throw money at said problems. But just as cutting the money off and letting poor people to their own devices is not a solution, neither is throwing money at them indiscriminately.
How would you feel, for instance, about tying welfare benifits or unemplyoment, possibly to grades in a life skills class? We come up with some home economics classes, allow those partaking of the social safety net to participate, and tie the length of benifits, or perhaps their size, to the grades the participants earn.
As a final note. Thank you very much for the cites you just gave. I find that people on your side of this argument are usually unwilling to do that. I appreciate it very much. I feel that when I can show good information from my side of the debate, you can do the same for yours, we have left a thread much more capable of fighting ignorance than otherwise.
I would note (just by way of constructive criticism) that the measurements taken were of static economic groups. That is, they measured the habits of poor people from time to time without noting whether or not they were looking at the same people. It may indeed be true that poor people buy less in bulk than middle class. However, it still may be true that those who buy in bulk are more likely to move out of the ranks of the impoverished.
This sentence stands out. These brand-name, twenty ounce detergent containers are, if found in garbage at rates well above average, a telltale sign of a low-income neighborhood. It seems to jive with the statistics I gave before that more than 50% of lower income people eventually move out of the lower income group. That is, it seems to indicate that the rate of brand-name twenty ounce detergent containers in poor areas is around the 50% rate. Perhaps I’m seeing a corelation which does not exist though.
You’re right, but the notion of paying attention to price is firmly established: waiting for a sale, trying to barter down the price, etc, as opposed to simply buying quickly out of convenience.
And you’re right, people don’t see the need for economy, simply because they were never taught its benefits. Saving twenty cents doesn’t seem to be worth the effort, but if people are shown how that adds up in the long run, it often changes their mind about bargain-hunting.
But welfare is not the main culprit. Relatively little of the budget is spent on direct cash payments to the poor-- far less than is wasted on programs which benefit corporations and the wealthy.
Even if welfare were completely eliminated tomorrrow, I have strong, serious doubts you would see your taxes go down a red cent. The money would simply be diverted to other uses.
No, I don’t know the rate, and I do agree that one of the serios flaws in the welfare program is the restrictions on saving and frugality. I think it’s utterly ridiculous, actually.
I knew a woman who was on welfare who cleaned houses for ten dollars an hour to try to make a little extra money. She only made about thirty or fourty dollars a week doing this, but it was a little extra cash which could pay for inceidental expenses. Her sister got angry at her one day, and in a fit of vindictiveness, called the welfare office and reported her. The woman had to stop working to keep her benefits. Over thirty dollars a week! She was, in essence, being punished for initiative and effort.
If left to her own devices, this woman could have eventually built up a cleaning business which would have helped her get off of welfare and into a relatively lucrative career. (I pay my housekeeper about twenty dollars an hour. That’s good money.)
I believe that welfare recipients should be encouraged to do this sort of thing. They could continue to recieve the same benefits until their earnings reached a certain level. I also think there should be a sort of 401K plan which would encourage saving.
But what about care which keeps you from getting sick? Or makes you presentable to an employer?
I disagree. I think everyone “needs” medical care. Hell, I take my dog to the vet once a year for a check-up and vaccines, whether or not she’s currently ill. I get my teeth cleaned once or twice year so they won’t rot out of my mouth by the time I’m forty. I get flu shots so I won’t be ill in the winter and miss work.
These things should not be skipped. Keeping yourself in good health is not only essential to keeping a job, but it helps keep illnesses from spreading to others and mutating into more serious sicknesses as they’re spread around. That’s why doctors urge parents to vaccinate children-- to keep other kids from getting sick with new strains of the illness.
I suppose, then, that all of us who manage to stay out of prison should be heartily congratulated for our achievements in following what our parents taught us about obeying the law.
Perhaps it comes from being married to a sociology teacher, but I believe parental “programming” plays a much larger role than you credit, especially in something as almost subconcious as how we look at home economy. Some people don’t even have to think about looking for a bargain-- it’s automatic after years of socialization. It becomes routine, almost like saying “thank you” after someone does you a service. You don’t have to remember to be polite-- it is just part of you because it was so deeply ingrained.
“If I can do it” . . . ignores completely that others are not eaxctly like *you.[i/] It ignores that others do not have your advantages, personality traits and strengths. It implies that failure to accomplish the same goal must, by definition, be a personal failing due to laziness or lack of effort because, after all, you’re stating that anyone can do it-- it’s easy!
I’ve read those threads, and I’ve seen people vehemently argue that being overweight can be glandular or due to a disability which makes excersize painful.
What I’m saying is that I deeply, deeply resent anyone every taking an issue and summing it up in a single, declarative sentance: “The cause of ____________ is __________.” Nothing on God’s green Earth is that simple. Everything has mutiple factors, facets, perspectives, problems, and angles. The reason it angers me so is because it seems to be deliberate ignorance.
I’ve debated with you before. I know for a fact that you’re not that simple-minded.
Tough Love can work on a personal level, but is scary, indeed, when expanded to a government program. Not eveyrone responds well to Tough Love. Sometimes, people react to it with bitter resentment and anti-social behaviors which can escalate into violence. There is no one-size-fits-all approach which will solve this issue.
We never will be there. Simply put, there are not enough jobs out there which will ensure everyone a comfortable standard of living. There will always be those who get the short end of the stick. Capitalism ensures that. We need a surplus labor pool. Philosophically, one could say that we need the poor. We need people who will work for minimum wage to keep product and service prices low.
Therein lies the catch: we need people whom we can pay very low wages so that we can buy cheap products, but this ensures that those people are barely going to be able to survive. Some organizations claim that you need to make quite a bit more per hour than minimum wage to have an actual “living wage”. (It varies from city to city-- for example, in Chicago, it’s about $15 an hour need to afford housing.)
Absolutely, but in addition to the benefits which they’re already recieving.
[quoteKeep in mind, I am not calling for or advocating the dismantling of the social safety net. I am not suggesting that we should let all of the poor sink or swim on their own. However, I am most definately questioning the ability of large government programs to address the problems as they exist on the ground. Such programs are excelent ways to throw money at said problems. But just as cutting the money off and letting poor people to their own devices is not a solution, neither is throwing money at them indiscriminately.[/quote]
If not the government, then who? I think the last time we debated this, you said that charity could take over. I went and found cites which proved that charity would have to increase several times its current rate to even supply minimal demand. After that, (if it was you-- I apologize if it was not) you said that if taxes were lower, perhaps people would donate more, so I got sites showing that donation rates were even lower before government programs were invented.
Even the stupid must eat. I’m not talking about the mentally disabled, but those who are just plain dumb-- of which there are a surprising amount.
Again, there are myraid reasons why people might not pass the classes-- lack of transportation to get to class, child care issues, domestic problems . . . the list goes on and on. I have no problem with insisting that people attend a certain number of classes, as long as great flexibility is given as to when they attend. However, I have a big problem with tying benefits to grades.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
You’re right, but the notion of paying attention to price is firmly established: waiting for a sale, trying to barter down the price, etc, as opposed to simply buying quickly out of convenience.
And you’re right, people don’t see the need for economy, simply because they were never taught its benefits. Saving twenty cents doesn’t seem to be worth the effort, but if people are shown how that adds up in the long run, it often changes their mind about bargain-hunting.
Correct enough. But I was talking more generally about social programs.
But those flaws may be inherent to direct monetary transfers. Allowing current transfers to continue until some other level of income is reached simply moves the bar. If you continue to recieve the same benifits until you can replace them, then you effectively halve your income by getting that last little bit of a raise. You still have an incentive not to earn more than a certain amount.
Compared to eating or sanitation? the preventitive medical care is at a lower priority.
Look. I agree that regular medical attention is a very good thing. But again, I use the word need in a very specific way. When I use it, I mean the highest possible priority. There are a lot of things which could be added to this. But they are certainly not “needs”.
Don’t you? Do you really think that a lifetime of obeying the law is nothing more than good fortune? Really?
That may explain it. I have never fully bought into the idea that people are programmable like Pavlov’s dogs. People definately behave habitually. To that extent there are similarities. But new information can allow people to take a direct role in their own habit formation. And so to quite a great extent, people’s actions are in fact their own responsibility.
Have you ever heard that there are only three reasons why people do things?
Either the social environment caused it;
the early childhood environment caused it;
Or your genetic environment caused it.
The first choice basically means everyone did it to you.
The second choice basically means that your parents did it to you.
The last one basically means that your grandparents did it to you.
Its a joke.
But it doesn’t. It is obviously a simplification. It does not ever mean literally every single human being born or unborn from the begining of time is exactly like me in every way possible. I’m afraid you may be projecting some motivations onto the users of such phrases.
It does not do this either. Just the opposite. If anything, it suggests which personality traits or strengths should be encouraged in order to accomplish the goal. At least as much as any anecdote could.
But this is nowhere in there at all. Seriously. I can’t see this at all.
Quite. Both reasons which make it difficult for certain individuals to burn more calories than they eat.
Well, I agree with you insofar as you are talking about oversimplifying issues. But it seems overly presumptuous to assume that such phrases are by themselves evidence of willful ignorance. If you encounter someone who is unable to examine an issue in more detail, maybe. But personal examples of rising from poverty are not by themselves that sort of attitude.
There are two senses in which we can use the word responsibility. It can certainly be used in place of “blame”. As in “He was criminally responsible for the robbery.” But it can also be used in an a sense which means opportunity. As in “He has complete responsibility for deciding to quit smoking.” When I use the word, I try very hard to always mean it in the second sense. It is the only sense which makes sense to me. Sorry.
You know what, after re reading what I wrote, I think maybe it sounded personally insulting or something? If so, I appologize. I did not mean it in any way like that. I only meant what I alluded to above. That accusing people of willful ignorance or a lack of compassion simply because they describe an anecdote about the successful conquering of a problem seems unfounded.
Quite. That has been my argument against government social programs before.
But where exactly? Do you mean that no one is ever poor even for a time? Or do you mean that the vast majority does not have to worry excessively about poverty? I just want to be sure we are talking about the same thing.
This is not fundamentally true. Very low emploment rates simply mean that at any one time a certain number of people are unemployed. It does not necessarily mean that large groups are unemployed over a long time.
But it doesn’t work that way. We do not have poor because we need poor, we have poor because there are those amongst us who (for one or several of many many reasons) do not earn more the poverty level. Characterizing the problem the other way implies that we as a society force people to remain poor. This is simply not true.
Again, what if those benifits are themselves keeping some people from learning the frugality we are talking about?
Yes, but I think I pointed out that those cites were also from a hundred years ago. I think I pointed out that you cannot look at those types of time differences, note the tax difference, and assume that other things would change in any sort of linear way. Notice again when I talk about the economic mobility rates which have changed over the last 100 years or so that I put in an excessive amount of ass covering language.
Quite. But they don’t necessarily need free trips to the vet.
This last sentence, IMHO is the exxence of the problem. If you expand it to mean that you are opposed to tying benifits to effort or results at least. I am not opposed to a social safety net. However, I would like to limit it in a couple ways. firstly I’d prefer a limitation on the liability side. That is some sort of formula to guarantee that it will not eat up larger and larger portions of the GDP. More to the point of this thread, however, I would like some more realistic limits on what benificiaries can expect. That is, I would like some more limits on what is considered a need. Anything beyond these very minimal requirements should have some form of value transfer (in both directions) attached to it. Not necessarily actually earning it. But at least putting some effort into the process.
By contrast, you are postulating that a person’s needs alone are some sort of entitlement. Additionally, you are willing to loosen the meaning of need to cover quite a bit. Even to the point, possibly, of the “comfortable life” standard.
Perhaps this needs another thread, but I think this is the essential difference between your world view and mine.
We’ve gone over many of these issues a couple times. I’m willing to continue if you want. But I propose that you chose a small number of issues which you think are the most important. Just indicate to me which issues you’d like further responses on, and I’ll consider whatever you say on the other issues to be the last word for this thread.
There will never be political support for eliminating Social Security, or Medicare, which IIRC, are the two biggest social program, expenditure wise. It’s the proverbial third rail. Nor can I see much support for eliminating Head Start, or the school lunch programs. People generally like these programs-- it’s only welfare which seems to get most folks’ hackles up.
But most people don’t want to be on welfare. Since most people leave it within two years or so, it would just be incentive for them to get off the dole more quickly.
No, I think it has nothing to do with fortune. I think it has to do with years of social programming by our parents and peers. Of course, a person must make their own decisions when they become adults, but our socialization is a huge factor in which choices we make. A child who is neglected and left to roam the streets at will has a large probablility of becoming a criminal. A child who is carefully nurtured by his parents, taught empathy, responsibility and ethics, will most likely turn out to be a productive, law abiding adult.
I agree that it’s ridiculous to blame one’s adult actions solely on your parents. After all, a person can learn from other sources and make informed decisions, it’s just that the likelihood of following in your parent’s footsteps is high. If your parents are racists, you’re more likely to be one yourself. If your parents have little respect for the law, chances are, neither will you. And if your parents are irresponsible with their money . . . well, you get the point.
I’m not saying that people are robots who cannot deviate from their programming. I’m just saying that we are deeply influenced by our upbringing.
The people who make those kinds of statements are often unwilling to examine issues in more detail-- or see details as being completely irrelevant.
I compare it to the Mc Donalds’ coffee lawsuit. A lot of people reacted with indignation to the idea that a person could sue because they were burned by spilling coffee on themselves. I heard this story repeated again and again when it was happening, in various tones of gleeful outrage. But when I pointed out that the suit had legal merit because the coffee was sold at unsafe temperatures and that McDonald’s had been cited repeatedly by the health department-- that the issue wasn’t that she’d spilled hot coffee on herself but that the product was in itself unsafe, they were almost sullen-- like I was ruining their fun. Several times, I heard those same people to whom I had spoken again telling the story, sans explanation, to others. (In essence, spreading a legal urban legend which had already been debunked.)
These are the same people to whom you could talk for hours about poverty, and at the end of it, have them flatly say, “They’re just poor because they’re lazy.” You don’t often see people who are educated about an issue making flat statements like that, and it’s relatively simple to either become educated about an issue or keep your mouth shut until you know enough to discuss it intelligently.
What I meant is that we will never be in a position where poverty is only restricted to those who “choose” it through laziness. There will always be people who are poor who don’t “deserve” it.
In a sense, we kind of do. We want cheap products and services. One of the ways companies keep their prices low is by paying their workers less.
Secondly, there simply are not enough high-paying jobs for everyone who wants one to have one.
Again, what if those benifits are themselves keeping some people from learning the frugality we are talking about?
Times may have changed, but people have not.
You know what would be neat? There should be a study of how much of Bush’s tax cut went to charity. I would bet the farm that the difference would be so small as to be almost negligible.
Not ideally, no. In a perfect world, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. However, I can see realistic problems with trying to measure an individual’s efforts against a set standard. Shit happens, as the t-shirts so eloquently put it. A class or test might be missed because the babysitter didn’t show, or the car broke down. A test may be failed because the person stayed up all night with that sick child, or is just a little slow-minded. Hell, what about the functionally illiterate?
I don’t forsee that as a problem. As a general rule, people are supportive of cutting welfare benefits, not increasing them. If there are some sort of budget crisis in the welfare system, politians will start talking about getting people “back to work” and cut the funding.
Welfare recipients are not living in the lap of luxury. Most barely get by. IIRC, a huge portion of their cash benefits (around 80%, IIRC, but I’ll have to look it up) go for housing and utilities. Some families report experiencing hunger toward the end of the month when the food stamps run low. They certainly don’t have lots of surplus cash lying around.
Some states already have these rules, such as the recipient having to attend college classes or search for jobs. I don’t really have a problem with this, but I understand the difficulties that some may have in fulfilling their obligations.
I’m not suggesting that we buy them a house in the suburbs with a swimming pool, if that’s what you mean. But I do think we should give them the means to have enough food, medical/dental care, and a warm place to sleep.
Ideally, I would like to see their transportation needs taken care of, perhaps assistance with getting/repairing cars. (For example, I wonder if cars which the state sells at impound auctions could instead be sold to welfare recipients. What would be even better is if they could “pay” for the car by doing things which better themselves, like taking classes.) I would like to see an increase in public transportation.
This is a wealthy country, and welfare is, budget-wise, one of the least of our concerns. I’m not advocating raising cash benefits-- merely supplementing them with training courses and helping to supply the tools to getting a good start.
If you’d like to respond, by all means, do. As I said, I’ve always enjoyed debating with you, even though we may have fundamental differences in opinion. If you’re getting weary of this, I’ll understand. I can be quite trying when I get all fired up about an issue.
No, not at all. I was trying to forestall myself from getting tiresom. Your not getting that way by any stretch of the imagination.
Right. But again, I’m not talking about elliminating any of them either.
I’m not sure at all how raising the amount one can earn before benifits are cut will do this. If you say that benifits will not be cut until the recipients income is equal to the benifits (that is he can replace them himself) you still have the situation where a benificiary earns half the benifits and is disencentivized from earning more. Free money is free money, after all.
But this seems to simply place the blame in other places. The nutured child had a better start, certainly, but his achievement (a law abiding life) is no less an achievement of his own. More importantly, however, this position seems too defeatist for my taste. Problems or obstacles which are not in my power are beyond my power. I cannot change who my parents were. I cannot change my childhood. I have no power over those things. I do, however, have immense power over the actions I take in the next few minutes.
Certainly. As I said, people often act habitually. But that’s not the same as saying they have no control over things.
And I agree entirely. I think we only differ on this point as to how much it implies “blame” on a person’s economic situation.
Well, I understand that is your experience. That’s fair enough.
You mean who work hard, are frugal and still wind up poor. I can agree with that. But what we can do IMHO is increase the opportunities for people to move from poor to not poor.
But no, we don’t. There is no element of force involved. And unless there is, there is no societal coercion for some people to remain poor. What we have is a need for low wage workers. This need gets filled by people willing to work for low wages. Remember that quite a few of these people are immigrants. People for whom working for what we consider low wages is a decided step up.
Its not like we have this lottery where we pick a few people every year to replace those poor who manage to move up the income ladder.
I’m not sure this is true. High paying jobs are high paying because that is the only way to attract the few people with the skills capable of handling them.
I have to disagree entirely. Back when the things occured you cited last time, there were people alive who had owned or been owned because of slavery. Remember what you said about peer socialization. Some things were simply more acceptable back then than they are today.
I did not find a good study. But several articles pointed out that around 12 billion of the tax cuts were in the form of an increase in the amount allowed as a deduction for charitable donations. That amounts to something like 10% of the total charitable donations.
If you go back and look carefully, I tried to convey the idea that only the “extra” benifits would be tied to performance in these sorts of things. The idea being that we support the truly indigent and we merely give a leg up to those temporarily poor.
Possibly, but other social spending is not so easily cut. As you pointed out yourself.
Please stop this. I never ever said any such thing as welfare recipients are living in the lap of luxury or that they have lots of surplus cash.
Ok, but what about making them group homes? One of the studies we discussed earlier suggested that the constant poverty rate is actually a sign of prosperity. What they suggested was that while we have the same number of poor households, we really have more poor people living on their own instead of with extended families.
Well, no, you are advocating paying them more as a minimum. But you also don’t seem willing to look at effort on the part of recipients for tool aquisition.
But there are a lot of people who’d rather not have the free money. Welfare still does carry a stigma with some. If you come from a family and peer group who have never been on welfare and who may also have negative opinions about the subject, you’re going to want to get on your feet as soon as possible.
What I’m proposing, I believe would allow for a gradual return to the workforce, allowing time to work out all of the problems which hold people back. I strongly doubt that most people would refuse a raise or a promotion if it would put them over their previous welfare income. I think most would prefer to be self-sufficient and on their way up the ladder.
I’m not proposing that a person be allowed to draw welfare benefits up to/equal to their wage forever, but be given a reasonable time (maybe even up to a couple of years). I believe that in combination with savings plans, home economics courses and job training, transportation and child care assistance, people would be able to become self-sufficient much more quickly.
I think my ideas have an added incentive that the current system does not: hope. These sorts of ideas are encouraging, I think. They’re a demonstration of faith in the recipient that they can do this if given the proper tools and assistance.
One complaint I have heard of current recipients is that there is a feeling of hoplessness, worthlessness and biterness that they get when they go in to talk to their case workers. Some report feelings of shame, like they’re begging from social workers who have nothing but disgust for them. I think that programs which give people a little boost might alleviate some of these feelings.
I don’t know if you’ve ever been depressed, but I’ll tell you, it saps the life out of you. You feel that the situation will never get any better, so what’s the use in trying? I don’t have anyt statistics, but I suspect that a lot of welfare recipients have a similar issue. It’s my opinion that a program which shows a light at the end of the tunnel may give them a renewed sense of eagerness to participate in their own betterment.
Of course, but you still have to accept that you were shaped and molded by your upbringing. Determination isn’t something instinctual, either, I believe. It’s something encouraged by your socializers. If they encourage you to strive to better yourself, chances are, you will. If your parents mock your efforts, your peers ride you for reading and the like, and everyone’s telling you that this is it, that your life can’t be anything different than this, it takes a very special kind of person to remain determined.
I have seen parents who are actually angry and insulted when their children say that they want to strive for something better. The parents take it as the child saying that their life isn’t good enough. If you kick a dog often enough, it will either bite you, or start to cower. Most people, faced with this sort of thing, cower.
I don’t believe I ever said they have no control-- I certainly didn’t mean it that way. I’m just saying that socialization is a powerful influence which cannot be discounted.
That would take a lot of restructuring, in my opinion. Education alone cannot solve the problem because of the limited number of high-paying jobs.
In Ohio in 1997, 324,805 people were competing for 80,482 low-skilled jobs.
In fact, it seems the problem is just as bad for high-paying jobs:
It may be a step up, but how are they supposed to eat? From this article, (which comes from an organization that seems hostile to immigration) immigrants are grossly taken advantage of in the workforce.
As much as I distrust this site for their obvious idealogical slant, if the paragraph above is true, I feel horror for the Mexicans trying to live on $3 an hour.
But there is a limited number of them which are needed, and it appears that colleges may be graduating them faster than the market can absorb them. This article, published in May, 2004 says:
And up until the 1960s, a black man could be killed for being “uppity.”
I don’t believe the amount of “meaness” has gone down in the world. We just have new directions to point it to.
I don’t know the exact cicumstances of those articles, but many of those people could have found themselves in my family’s shoes.
For the last seven years, my husband and I never deducted our charity donations on our taxes. When we calculated it from all angles, it didn’t pay us to itemize. Since the Bush tax cuts (but not necessarily because of them-- there were other factors) our situation has changed and we now itemize. Would this be considered an “increase” in giving?
I have reservations about this. First of all, the cost of acquiring the buildings might be pretty high, considering you can’t just buy any old building. There are code standards. Secondly, how is the environment controlled? Are there rules? Are they free to come and go as they please? Have overnight visitors? Curfews? Who cleans up? Who pays for the utilities? How is the cooking done? What about dietary restrictions such as food allergies? Do you bring your own furniture and linens? What about pets? How many poor people per building? Where do they store their stuff?
I can think of thousands of questions. The expense involved in equippng the homes and solving all of the problems which would crop up would be prohibitive. Nor do I see a benefit . . . and to tell you the truth, it smacks a bit of “correctional camp” for poor people.
Secondly, in my experience, the homes of the poor do tend to be group homes. It sometimes takes three or four adults contributing to the bills to make ends meet. Often family members and friends move in, contributing as they can, sometimes staying for extended periods of time.
That’s because of a cultural shift within the last hundred years or so. The “nuclear” family is a relatively new invention which started around the end of WWII. Before that, boys brought their wives home to live with mom and dad, and new brides could expect to move straight from their parents home into their in-laws’. The idea of a couple moving to the other side of town and setting up their own house seemed strange.
Today, we actually snicker when an adult male lives at home-- we think it’s almost a sign of mental illness.
I wonder how many poor families bow to this societal pressure to get their own home when it would actually be smarter to live with one set of parents or the other to pool incomes.
I’m not necessarily advocating a raise in cash payments. I’m advocating that they have access to more services, certainly, but that wouldn’t necessarily necessitate cash handouts. For example, bus passes could be issued to the recipients, medical cards, clothing vouchers-- that sort of thing. I wouldn’t have a problem raising the food stamp allotment, but that’s not actually cash
As for the efffort-- welfare recipients are already in somewhat of a sink-or-swim proposition. Isn’t there a total limit on benefits that you can recieve in a lifetime? They know the clock is ticking. We should make the tools available, but rely on the recipients themselves to take advantage of them.
Two reasons: Firstly, we don’t have the time or funds to be policing them, making sure they attend class. Secondly, there’s a lot of self-respect which comes out of being treated like an adult which I think these people need. Thirdly, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. You can even stick his head in the river until he drowns, but you cannot force him to swallow the water. I’m of the opinion that little good comes out of coersion.
And I guess I still have the faith of a wide-eyed innocent in human nature, despite what I’ve seen. I have faith that if you hold out a hand, most people will grasp it and pull themselves up.
But for those who don’t? I certainly don’t advocate throwing them to the wolves. I simply cannot tolerate the idea of people going hungry in this great country of ours. Even the laziest, most worthless bum should have food in his belly.
It’s not that great a burden financially. I know that it is, psychologically, for some, but therein lies a fundamental personality difference. I find it absolutely sickening that we give “welfare” to giant coprorations. I find it comforting and heartwarming that no one would go hungry or homeless.
You see, you say some people get off welfare and that makes it ok. I say some people get out of poverty and that makes it not as bad.
[QUOTE]
What I’m proposing, I believe would allow for a gradual return to the workforce, allowing time to work out all of the problems which hold people back. I strongly doubt that most people would refuse a raise or a promotion if it would put them over their previous welfare income. I think most would prefer to be self-sufficient and on their way up the ladder.But your information is counter to this. People are not willing to earn their own money unless it replaces or perhaps more than replaces the welfare check.
I disagree with this.
I have to disagree pretty stongly. The feeling of hopelessness comes for the fact that welfare is free money. It is treated as an entitlement. Offering more money especially, or even money for longer will make this part of welfare worse. MHO is that it is the unearned nature of welfare which places a stigma on it. For many, at least. Some people are able to overcome this stigma and become used to a welfare lifestyle.
Well, we don’t have to go there, but if it makes any difference, yes, I have.
I agree. But you have to begin to realize that more handouts don’t always look like a light. Or rather, they begin to look like a train. You can’t simply tell people that they are poor and therefore they are entitled to free money. Especially not if you want them to learn to be self sufficient. You have to give them some sort of way to earn the money. Some way so they can see concretely that hard work and effort pays off in the end. That’s the light you need to show them.
Quite. But it does not lessen the achievements of someone who puts that molding to good use.
Look at it this way. Imagine that we are going to set up a support group for poor people. We gather a group together, and I want to invite some people who were poor, but who are no longer. Are you really going to tell them to stay away? That the poor people we want to help should not listen to them because everybody is different?
But educaton about frugality could go a very long way indeed.
This bit from that article gives me trouble. * In 1995, after four years of solid growth, 266,101 workers in Ohio were still out of work and looking for jobs, and 129,346 of these job seekers - or 49 percent of the total number of unemployed workers - were qualified only for low-skilled occupations.* It seems that they are trying to leave the impression that the same 129,000 workers were out of work for those 4 years. But unemployment does not work that way. Even if we could capture a population and strictly control who comes and who goes it does not work that way. Unemployment (and poverty rates for that matter) are static measurements of certain groups at given times. That is, it is entirely possible for a population to have steady 5% unemployment over a 10 year period without anyone every being unemployed for more than a few months.
As I said, one of the reasons lower wage jobs are lower wage jobs is that the supply of low wage workers is so high.
Frankly, not very well. But then they are bettering themselves, are they not? You are the one saying that as they pass from far below poverty into poverty and eventually out of poverty they have nothing to teach us about how to deal with poverty.
Quite so. One of the nasty side effects of the minimum wage IMHO.
You should not. “It is better to rule in hell than be a slave in heaven.” It has a special meaning to our discussion. Specifically it means that $3 an hour earned can be better than $7 dollars an hour hand out. Expecially in terms of self esteem and the every important hope.
Yes, and that was 45 years ago. And even that was an imporvment to the system where he could be sold into perpetual servitude.
Well, if we point it at everyone who might have a valid idea…
No, that was not the point. I did not find a good study on the actual effects of the Bush tax cuts. The first link I gave did have some good numbers showing that tax rates don’t seem to influence charitable giving very much. But that income did. That is, the more people earn the more they give.
But all of those same reservations can be asked, and may be more complicated, if you simply give several poor people rent money.
Think about this carefully. What exactly would be the problem with this. Remember I’m absolutely not talking about rounding up people by force. I’m absolutely not talking about keeping anyone in by force. I’m really just talking about allowing a group of poor people to pool thier resources in a supervised way. Trying to come up with a way to provide the socialization you seem to think (and I tend to agree) is so vital.
The long term ones are. But I’m trying to describe some sort of supervision so that the skill necessary to move out of poverty could be aquired.
If you had a functioning group home where some people were moving out, others were moving in, and the majority were in some state in between, you’d have the perfect classroom IMHO to put someone looking to learn how to pull himself up our of poverty.
Yes, and for the poorest amongst us this was the practice much longer than the rest of society.
BTW, this was not such a new practice. In the middle ages in Europe it was common for a couple to have to wait until they could afford a home of thier own in order to marry. One of the reasons Europe recovered from the black plague so quickly was that the massive death toll simply made ready made houses more available. Couples could marry younger and thus had more children.
But you are. Aren’t you the one saying that the poor have such a tough time? Aren’t you the one saying that they go hungry sometimes?
I don’t understand the difference. Especially in the context of teaching someone frugality. If you remove the choice to overspend (and the consequences which is my complaint) you have removed the necessity to be frugal.
But this is just another way to say that you don’t want any consequences to bad choices.
But you don’t have to do anything like this. Tieing an increase in benifits to the grades in class would incentivize them to attend without your help.
I agree entirely. And adults do not have nannies cleaning up thier messes. I agree that we cannot let people starve in the streets, but you have to try and see that handouts themselves no matter how lovingly given are damaging to self esteem of the recipient.
Coercion is the one true evil. I have never in my life advocated it. (Ok, maybe a little, but only in response to the coercive tactics of others). It simply is not coercion to require someone to complete a basic home economics course with a passing grade in order to qualify for a longer period of free money. With, perhaps more time for a C, more for a B, and so on.
This is undoubtedly true. But not if that hand is grasping. Not if it is so hard to shake loose that it is itself a hinderance to progress.
Again, I don’t either. I hope I have been pretty clear about that.
But you are perfectly free to do whatever you want about this. The salvation army did not spring from whole cloth. Go start passing out $20s to as many homeless people as you can. Maybe include a little note about how you think they should spend it. See if the local homeless population is lower or larger in 6 months.
But the psychological difficulty is not amongst conservatives. The difficulty is as I described above. Free money has a stigma attached to it. There is nothing you can do to change this. Increasing the amount will make it worse. Increasing the free (without an exchange) services will make it worse also.
Well, just to defend that a bit, corporations sometimes get into trouble just like people. And corporations keep people off of the streets. Having said that, I would most heartily endorse any politician, spokesman or bill which sought to end all corporat welfare forever.
But this entirely depends on how they are not hungry or homeless. If you mean that they become self sufficient, that would warm my heart as well. But living off the dole is no way to live. Not for any period of time.
I tend to see this as somewhat of a pessimistic view of humanity.
Perhaps by a small minority. I believe that if the majority of welfare recipients had this viewpoint, we wouldn’t see people leaving the rolls as quickly as they do.
Some, yes. I stand by the idea, though, that these people are the minority.
I’m saying we’re offering them help, not just “free money.”
I don’t think that the majority of welfare recipients have trouble understanding this concept. Most (IIRC 60%) of welfare mothers have work experience.
However, it’s the experience of some that hard work and effort doesn’t pay off-- working like a dog for six or seven dollars an hour with few chances for advancement doesn’t really chime with The American Dream.
However, welfare can give them a chance to advance themselves by giving them opprotunities for training which can help them to get better jobs.
So if we help supplement their low income for a period of time, they can use that experience as a reference for a better job.
It depends on the way the lecture is presented. I know if I were listening to a lecturer who seemed to be implying that if they could do it, anyone could, and if I wasn’t successful, it was through personal failing, I’d be tempted to give them the finger. However, if that person were just giving tips, and encouraging the listeners, I think it could be highly beneficial.
I think we both agree on this.
For a person without savings or a familial safety net, being out of work for even a few months can be utterly devestating. Without means to pay the bills, everything can be lost.
I don’t think it really matters whether the workers were employed itermittantly or not. Steady employment is what pulls people from poverty. Anything less is basically just crumbs from the table. Living a life of uncertainty is psychologically draining.
Yeah, the surplus labor pool . . . I think I mentioned them.
Please explain further. Are you saying that the concept of a minimum wage is a bad thing? Why?
Hope doesn’t feed your family.
No, but we always have outlets for our “bad feelings” toward our fellow man. Each generation has a group which they feel is acceptable to despise. To a large extent, our generation has chosen the poor and the fat, which we feel is acceptable because we consider both a choice, and both are the consequences of a negative behavior trait–laziness.
We may not be killing people (if you wanna do that, you have to join the army) but we do make our prejudices known.
No, because with just giving them rent money, you’re treating them as adults, trusting them to make the proper choices.
The idea of “supervizing” them seems so infantalizing as to be shocking. They are not children who should be “watched over” to be sure they’re behaving.
How can you expect people to act as responsible adults if you treat them like naughty children? What sort of confidence in them does this show? How humiliating to have to report to a “dorm mother”!
The same can be said about an ordinary low-income neighborhood.
I’m a professional historian, and this is the first time I have ever heard of nuclear families in the Middle Ages. As I had always heard, it was generally extended families within one dwelling.
Now, marriage might be delayed until the man had a steady means of supporting his wife, i.e completeing an apprenticeship or buying a cow of his own, but I’d never heard of people waiting to wed simply because they didn’t have their own house.
Yes, the abandoned dwellings of the Plague victims were quickly occupied by those left behind. Some scholars have called this the beginnings of the “middle class”, in which people who wouldn’t normally own property–peasants and the like-- now had nice homes and property which helped them to become prosperous.
My new puppy pooped on the rug yesterday. I didn’t see her do it. Had I hit her when I found it, she would have had no idea why I was striking her because there was no immediate cause-and-effect. Likewise, many welfare recipients know money is gone at the end of the month, but they don’t really understand why. The consequences are only a lesson if one understands exactly where they went wrong. That’s why classes are necessary-- don’t “punish” them for their mistakes until they understand them.
Not until they understand those choices.
Oh! Wait! I think I get what you’re saying now . . you’re saying give them an extra $20 if they get a good grade on the test, right? Not taking away money if they get a “D”.
If that’s what you meant-- a system of rewards, I think it’s a great idea.
I agree entirely. And adults do not have nannies cleaning up thier messes. I agree that we cannot let people starve in the streets, but you have to try and see that handouts themselves no matter how lovingly given are damaging to self esteem of the recipient.
Now, this I see as coercion-- cutting off benefits if they don’t preform as well. I would totally support rewards, but not if the reward is continued sustianance.
Private charity cannot, and will not fully support those in need. The problem is simply too great.
Income may be linked to charitable giving, but I still do not agree that without taxation for social programming that the increase in charity would be enough to make up for it.
I’m just going to address a few points. Partly because I think they are central to the disagreement, and partly because I have work to do (don’t want to end up on the dole, after all).
But I see your viewpoint as the more pessimistic one. What you are saying is that people need more handouts. What I am saying is that they do not. That the vast majority of people are fully capable of making a living with their own effort. What they need from us more than anything else is encouragement and confidence that they indeed can make it.
No, you miss my point. The majority of people get off of welfare because of the stigma. The stigma is not because others might see welfare recipients as freeloaders. It is not because the case workers are not kind enough. It is certainly not because welfare is too stingy. The stigma is because the money is unearned. Everyone recognizes that welfare is meant for those who cannot make it on their own. Going to the welfare office for the first time, cashing that check every couple weeks, using those food stamps are all acts that I cannot make ends meet. That I am not good enough to provide for my family.
Of course they are. Most people have too much self esteem for that.
Yes, but the help is always in the form of money. When I suggested training or group homes, you found the least favorable way to describe them. What you seem to want is to give people things which they can exchange for goods and services, and you don’t seem interested at all in making those people put effort (beyond applying) for those things. I can not see the difference between this and free money.
These two paragraphs prove my point. Work experience is not the same thing as the experience of succeeding in life. I agree that working for minimum wage is not an easy way to experience the American Dream. The statistics I quoted earlier for people who move out of poverty had to look 10 years along before they found close to half of the people moving up. 10 years is a long time to be in the lowest income quintile. It can be very hard day to day experiencing the idea that 10 years down the road life might be better. It almost always seems easier to just have a bit of quick enjoyment now rather than wait.
Yes. It can also give them very tactile proof that they are not good enought to make it.
Indeed. It has several. You chose what seems to be the third among 6 principles. I like them all. I even like the one you chose when taken in context with the others. Here they are.
Keep work central. Work should be the primary goal of social policy. All those who can work should be helped to enter the labor market—and succeed in it. Macroeconomic policies that keep unemployment and inflation low are critical to the tight labor markets that make it easier to keep work at the center of social policy.
* Promote family-supporting work. It is not enough to help people find any job. The quality of early work experiences greatly influences later employment and earnings. ***Policy should reward efforts to help less-skilled individuals obtain and advance toward high-quality jobs*** that can support their families (i.e., jobs with good wages, benefits, training, and other opportunities for advancement).
* Invest in education and work skills. In the long run, opportunities for education and skill development are critical to the ability of those outside the labor market and those already employed to advance in work and career. Traditional policies that help people secure an initial job must be augmented with policies that make it easier for working Americans to improve their skills and prepare for better jobs. This will require new strategies, such as incentives for employers to provide and support training, ***education models for those already working that promote lifelong learning and innovative combinations of learning and earning*** as well as more effective partnerships among employers, unions, community-based organizations, and educational institutions.
* Encourage individuals to stay employed and advance. Employment policy should encourage and fund supports that can help disadvantaged people keep their jobs longer and build their human capital and work experience. Priorities include child care, transportation, employee assistance programs, health coverage, and other ways to help people cope with the challenges of sustained employment. In addition, federal and state governments should use tax and other policies to continue to find ways to reward work for low-wage individuals and families, including the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), earnings disregards for welfare recipients, and other ***work-linked income supports***.
* Encourage employers to hire, train, and support low-skill, low-wage workers. Employers often take financial and productivity risks when they hire less-skilled workers or invest in improving these workers' skills; frequently, they are unable to know in advance who will succeed on the job and who will stay long enough to justify the investment. ***Policymakers should encourage greater employer investment in their entry-level workforce through subsidies, incentives, and supports that make it less costly and easier for employers to take these risks.***
* Promote appropriate public and private-sector policies. New combinations of public and private-sector education, economic development, and workforce development policies are needed to help low-wage workers become more productive and help employers who hire them improve the quality of available jobs. Workforce and welfare policies should connect to economic development and employer-targeted policies, such as policies that address the employment needs of particular regions, labor markets, and industries/sectors. Such policies should also be better aligned with those that govern access to and financing of postsecondary education. *Public policy should continue to encourage local institutions that improve the market for education and training*** by connecting employers, labor, government, educational institutions, and community-based organizations for the benefit of local employers, workers, and job seekers.
I just bolded a couple phrases which seemed to echo some of the stuff I’ve been talking about.
*
No, not exactly. Just that it has some unpleasant side effects.
I think you’d be surprised at how much hope can feed your family. Hope is the difference between the energy to get up and try one more time and the despair to just forget it and go to sleep. Hope is the difference between going back to a low wage job one more day when all you want to do is pretend the world is an evil place without <blank>. Hope is even the difference between the courage to ask a friend, neighbor, or social worker for that needed extra bit and the fear that no one really cares anyway.
Yea, all in all, I’d say hope can feed your family. It fed mine once or twice.
No, you are not. Adults (ok, fully functioning adults) do not get their rent money simply because they need it. They have to earn it. This is not some new conspiracy against the poor. It is simply human curtesy. Giving them the money with no strings treats them like a child (or even worse as a failed adult). Not an adult.
How abotu changing the word surpervising to guided. I meant it only in the sense that responsible behavior should be encouraged over irresponsible behavior. That frugality should be encouraged over recklessness.
I really have no idea what you are talking about here. It seems to me that you are so caught up in the trappings of adulthood (fewer people and fewer people telling the adult what to do) that you have entirely missed the point (needing fewer and fewer people to help the adult get what he needs).
Many neighborhoods, certainly. I imagine that if we looked carefully, some neighborhoods graduate more people out of poverty than others. What many of them are missing is the community and “guidance” aspect of what I’m talking about.
Read “A Distant Mirror” by Barbara Tuchman. I don’t have my copy to hand or I’d tell you which chapter. It is entirely possible that I have overstated what I remember from that book.
Or a farm of his own?
Ok, I was going to skip this one, but you said it twice. Which one of us is being pessimistic? You are saying that welfare recipients actually do not know where their money goes? They get to the end of the month and wonder how come they have no money left? When I talked about self sufficiency, didn’t you say this?
I don’t think that the majority of welfare recipients have trouble understanding this concept. Most (IIRC 60%) of welfare mothers have work experience.
Yes. Exactly. Provide a way to earn extra benifits.
Some, yes. I stand by the idea, though, that these people are the minority.
And I see it as essential to make available the tools for them to succeed. After all, just because someone leaves welfare does not necessarily mean they left poverty. What I propose is helping people leave poverty, not just get off the rolls so we don’t have to pay for them.
No, you miss my point. The majority of people get off of welfare because of the stigma.
[/quote]
Statistics seem to indicate they leave welfare for jobs, not shame.
I do see your point, however. Most people want to be self-sufficient.
I am totallly against the concept of group homes, but I fully support training programs. I suggested more of them, remember?
Because I understand that one-size-fits-all requirements can really harm people. If the rules are that you must do A, B, and C before you can get your next check, there are always going to be people who have very legitimate reasons why they were unable to accomplish this. They might have done A and B, but something happened, and they didn’t complete C. Too bad.
Now, how’s that for encouragement? “Sorry, Mrs. Smith. You fell just a little bit short of the goals we set for you. Guess what? You’re fucked. Have a nice life. no, all of the work and effort you put in doesn’t count. That’s life.”
And I do understand this perspective. It’s hard to tell people living such grim, joyless lives that they can’t indulge in a little treat but must wait and hope for better things.
Frankly, that’s not the American way. We are encouraged (if not outright ordered!) by the media to spend now and pay later. We are taught to measure satisfaction in life by our posessions. Instant gratification is considered almost a right.
Yes. It can also give them very tactile proof that they are not good enought to
**
We both support these. The essential difference is that I say these things are a carrot, whereas you think there should be more stick.
I see your point. I think, though, that the “stick” method of tying assistance to preformance could add to hopelessness: “I tried as hard as I could, yet I still failed.”
Another fundamental difference in our thinking: I do not see accepting assistance as infantalizing. It takes a lot to admit when you need help, especially people with strong senses of pride.
You could change the word to “fairy godmother” and it still wouldn’t change the humiliating nature of telling these people they need to have someone babysit them-- that they’re too immature, reckless and spendthrift to be allowed to run their own lives, so we will run them for them. If they misbehave, do you stand them in the corner?
Personally, I’d rather starve than submit to that.
I’m saying that it’s humiliating, infantalizing and ridiculous for an adult to have to report to a “supervisor” on their daily activities.
I don’t know what you mean by “fewer and fewer people to help”.
Yes, I did, and I stand by it. (Hell, I know a lot of middle-class families who have the same problem.) They were never taught household economy. They need classes. They do NOT need someone hovering over their shoulders “supervising” them in their daily activities.
I have no problem with a program that lets them earn extra benefits. I do have a problem with tying all benefits to such a program, simply because there are some who will fail through no fault of their own.
They are, but that still doesn’t change the fact that they need help, and we should provide it.
Lissa, I think we are having a profound misunderstanding. I really don’t think I ever suggested anything like what you are hearing. I never ever once suggested that unless welfare recipients jumped through hoops A, B, and C we would simply allow them to starve. All I ever said was that we could tie additional benifits to performance in activities which we think would give them the skills they need to rise out of poverty.
I have taken some pains to reiterate again and again that I have no intention of disbanding the social safety net. I have admitted several times that there are people who need handouts and will not ever survive without them. And that I agree with the sentiment that we should help these people.
I have hinted a few times that I would draw the subsistence line below which we will not allow anyone to fall lower than you would. But I have consistently said that such a line should be drawn. What I have been hinting at is that if the line is drawn low enough (again, to prevent starvation and other forms of death amongst the truly indigent) then their might be enough money left over to offer as incentives to those who truly make progress towards independance. The point being not to punish those who do not make such progress, but to reward those who do. Again, all the while allowing for some minimal level of survival even amongst those who make no progress toward self sufficiency at all.
I have not fully fleshed out the ideas. I certainly have not offered any evidence to back up my theory. But I think it is somewhat inacurate to characterize them as sticks.
