In this column, Paul Krugman refers to a study showing that children growing up in poverty experience a high level of stress hormones, which can prevent their brains from developing along a normal course. He suggests that this makes it very difficult for such children ever to escape poverty, and goes on to say that our nation has a moral obligation to make a war on poverty a central part of public policy. Go ahead–give it a read!
I’m not one normally to start Great Debates with just a link and a “discuss,” but I might do something like that this time. The column encapsulates a lot of the thoughts I’ve had about poverty, especially teaching in a classroom in which about a third of the kids are growing up in poverty, to the extent that we send food home with them on the weekends so that we’ll know there’s something to eat in their houses. These kids have an extremely hard time in school, despite all my (admittedly rookie) efforts to help them out; unless something remarkable happens, they’re going to continue to have a hard time in school until they leave the system one way or another. And they’re seven or eight years old: ther’s no possible way to blame them for these difficulties.
What do we do about it? Do we point to the rare exceptional child who’s able to escape, and conclude that therefore they all could escape if only they’d try? Do we give their parents massive subsidies, on a “trickle-down” theory? I don’t know, but I’d be interested in hearing other folks’ ideas.
I would like to see studies about if these findings carry over to people who are in cultures that are materially poor, but which don’t experience the same difficulties (working long hours in unstable jobs, living in high crime areas, being exposed to drugs, not having a place in the public sphere) that poor people in America experience. This quote really stood out:
To be poor in America today, even more than in the past, is to be an outcast in your own country.
I think this is the crux of the issue. It’s not simple poverty (which of course isn’t at the same level as the developing world) that is the problem, as much as the fact that poor people have no place in American society.
Which brings to mind an interesting question. If eliminating poverty is not possible, is it possible to eliminate the bad effects of poverty?
Wow. Paul Krugman takes the risky position that poverty is bad. He is sure going out on a limb here in opposing the “poverty is great for kids” school of thought that dominates our society. :rolleyes:
The question is not whether poverty is bad or if we should orient our public policy to help those in poverty, it’s how to shape that public policy. Both political parties are focused on helping those in poverty. Sure, Krugman seems to think the only way to help those in poverty is to punish the productive and tax and regulate those who actually create jobs in society, but that’s far from being the only method of “helping” those in poverty.
According to the article, it is neither rare nor exceptional to escape poverty. More than half do so.
So the basic premise of “children will die poor unless the government does something” is wrong.
Second, post hoc, ergo propter hoc is still a logical fallacy. Krugman points to being poor as the cause of this alleged neurological dysfunction. How does he know it’s poverty instead of, say, being in a female-headed household?
Third, Krugman wants a huge increase in government social spending. In other news, the sun rose in the east this morning.
As so many do, Krugman often seems to confuse correlation with causation. Since he’s an economist (and supposedly a very good one), that’s an amazingly stupid thing to do. Yes, children from poor families have problems that usuall plague them throughout life. But is it the poverty that causes these problems, or is it a third factor that causes both poverty and these problems?
I grew up among very poor people (and we didn’t have a lot more money than most). My wife currently works with the poor. It’s clear that many people who live in poverty (and most who stay in poverty for a long time) have a very different view about things than people in the middle and upper class. Their lack of long-term thinking and their entitlement mentality lead them to make decisions that others would not make. Just giving them money, as Krugman suggests, will do nothing to help remedy this. As Krugman points out, we have been giving the poor money for decades and that hasn’t changed much of anything (contrary to Krugman’s claims, government programs were not reduced after 1969 – many new ones were put in place or expanded). From what I can tell, being in poverty is not a monetary problem – it’s a cultural problem. But then the issue is how to change the culture of those who live in poverty. That’s a tough nut to crack.
I don’t even know where to start with this one. It’s just the way of thinking that some elitist middle-class person who has never known adversity would use to view the actions of poor people from the outside. Have you ever been so down you can’t see up anymore? If so, you would know that these attitudes are just as likely born from the experience of long-term poverty as they are a causation of it. If money only comes to you in sporadic windfalls instead of a reliably adequate source, of course you’re going to run through it like there’s no tomorrow - no point in saving it because you may never see another windfall to be able to make the first windfall count for anything. Why plan for the future when you don’t have one? And of course “entitlement mentality” - which translates to “using available social service resources” - prevails when the only relief you can get from your struggles is when someone from the outside helps you. If jobs are unavailable, or you are not privileged or intelligent enough to get a job above minimum wage (and even here in Oregon where minimum wage is $7.95, it is NOT a living wage) of course you’re going to go after the only other option available to you. The idea that poverty is caused by a mentality rather than a broken system which favors the already privileged, is an excuse formulated to encourage an “us and them” mentality and to simultaneously hoodwink you (the middle class) into thinking it could never happen to you. On the contrary, all it takes is a little tweak to the economy and you would be on the street too, and then you wouldn’t be blaming your own bad attitude for it.
I see all of this as connected with the export of manufacturing jobs. Somebody said it-these people have NO place in society. the fact is, if we are willing to export our jobs to China, then we will alwys have this type of poverty. that and the HUGE cost of living 9in American cities) is the big issue. Do the poor share in the blame? yes, but it is incredibly difficult to survive on a minumum wage job. Public hhousing? it has been tried-but you CANNOT evict the truly bad people, who make public housing uninhabitable.
I don’t know what solution there can be, other than trying to set up safe public housing (no drug addicts, no drug peddlers, no violent criminals).
As someone who grew up in an area full of poverty, I have a lot of first-hand knowledge of the situation. Your response seems to me to come from someone who feels some sort of middle-class guilt at not being poor or having any experience with it.
There are all kinds of poor people. Some people are temporarily down-and-out. Some have had a lot of bad luck and are in a bad situation because of it. Many others, however, have a mindset that doesn’t value work, doesn’t value education, thinks only of short-term gratification, and thinks the world owes them support. That type of thinking – which I saw plenty of growing up – ensures that this person will remain in poverty.
Yes, conceivably there could be some tragedy that would force me into poverty. But with my savings account, that makes it less likely. With my variety of insurance, that makes it less likely. Instead of blowing my mone on short-term gratification, I actually chose to plan for my long-term needs. But even if I was reduced to nothing, my desire to work and my skills would ensure that, while I may never become rich, I certainly would not need to rely on the government for support.
That’s a bunch of crap. If you’ve ever interacted with the homeless you know that they aren’t there because of an economic downturn. The long-term homeless are homeless because a variety of substance abuse problems, mental health issues, and the like.
While it is important not to minimize the role of mental illness and substance abuse in homelessness, the long-term homeless represent only a fraction of the total homeless population at any given time, the majority of whom are displaced because of economic circumstances. Anyone who has ever worked with the homeless knows that there are a lot of families (1/3 of the population), children, and even employed people living on the streets. The people you happen to interact with as you walk downtown aren’t representative of the whole. You should read a bit about this topic. You might find your perspective changed. Cite
I totally agree with this. I deal with poor people on a regular basis. A large percentage – but not all – has a set of skills/attitudes/values that will keep them poor. For example, a guy with a $35,000 per year job who drives a new Mercedes or BMW. Or taking a 2 percent hit every week on your paycheck because you use a check cashing center instead of a bank account.
And by the way, I have no problem with the idea that the government should do more to help poor people, if it’s done in an intelligent way.
Until a large segment of the population recognizes that poverty is significantly shaped by social forces, little will be done to help the poor. The Protestant ethic that forged this nation–the one which believes that God materially rewards the virtuous–attaches a personal-failing stigma to the poor which makes it easy to dismiss them as “bad people”.
The tragedy of this attitude is that–contrary to self-interested right-wing bloviation–social progams can and have made a difference in the poverty rate. Krugman cites how LBJ’s war on poverty had demonstrable results until Nixon was elected, and how Labour governments in Britain have succeeded in cutting poverty in the UK (as measured by US standards) in half over the past 10 years.
When I read Shodan’s dismissive summary of the above as “According to the article, it is neither rare nor exceptional to escape poverty. More than half do so,” I have to wonder if he/she realizes just what the poverty line is, or the fact that approximately 37 million Americans live below it. Does he/she think 18 million people are in this dire situation because of simple personal failing, because they just haven’t bothered to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” (or whatever the right-wing cliche is today)? And of those who did manage to escape poverty, is it more likely they became middle class, or part of the working poor?
Krugman is obviously using this study to advance the notion that maybe people aren’t poor because of some lack of virtue. It may be a stretch to attribute it to a medical condition, but if it get people to think about poverty as something other than"people who obviously aren’t willing to work hard enough," it’s OK by me.
There are 2 things going on here from my perspective. I taught 2 years as a High School teacher in a ‘poor’ area. Teachers there had part of their student loans paid off for teaching in an economically deprived area (Fed Govt program)
The conservatives are right. Giving them money is not very efficient. These people attitude/culture were vere ‘anti-intellectual/anti-education’. The best road out of poverty was shunned by them because it was stupid/nerdy/not worthwhile etc. It didn’t help that the visible part of the educational establishment were dirt poor themselves (teachers were paid crap) so they looked at what the teachers said (education is important) and saw how they lived (poor) and said ‘yea right’.
Liberals are right. Conservatives don’t seem to understand how hard it is to lift yourself out of a hole. It is very hard to lift yourself ‘out by pulling up on your own bootstraps’. These people have a culture that hurts them educationally and little/no role models to follow. These people need help, a rope/hand reaching down into their hole so they can grab on and lift themselves up.
If you don’t mind me asking, why were your parents poor when you grew up? Did you grow up in literal poverty, or were you just less fortunate than other people? What were he causes for this? Are your parent(s) doing better now?