Daniel, you’re only a rookie on your first day on the job. Only a third in poverty? Count your blessings.
As I have pointed out a couple of times, most of the time “we” don’t have to do anything that we aren’t already doing - most poor people don’t stay poor in the US.
Fair enough. You might want to begin by re-examining the assumption that there is something that the government can or should do to address the situation. That’s part of the problem - the automatic assumption that government is the only answer.
Keep in mind that “our nation” does not necessarily mean “our government”. And we need to be careful not to make the problem worse for those who are already being responsible, and rising out of poverty on their own.
That having been said, I would recommend addressing one of the major contributors to chronic poverty - unwed parenting. Fathers who abandon their children should be ostracized and publicly denigrated in the media. Women who get pregnant without being married should be made to feel that they have made a stupid decision. Treat it like smoking - marginalize the behavior, make it inconvenient. publicize the negative effects. Stigmatize divorce based on reasons other than abuse, adultery or substance abuse.
If it’s worth devoting a tremendous amount of energy to solving the problem, then let’s be serious about it - actually try to change things, not just write a check and forget about it.
Regards,
Shodan
double post
You have to be careful about such statistics based on income. Even most people from wealthy families go through times (e.g., college) when their income is low. Certainly, if you compare my grad student days to how I am doing now, I would be one of those people who moved at least 2 quintiles. However, I don’t really consider myself to ever have been poor…or even close to poor. Income alone is really not a very good measure of wealth or poverty at least until one is well into the adult years.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
And the correlation between single motherhood and chronic welfare dependency is one of those facts too obvious to require a cite.[li]Do not have children out of wedlock.[/li][/QUOTE]
Yeah, but what really blows my mind is the opposition from conservatives to family planning (because that would lead to sex and that would lead to beer). Some liberals wax paranoid when family planning efforts target the poor, but at least they’re not trying to keep it out of education.
One factor may have been history of mental illness. A lot of employers will not contact someone if their job history, resume, or application have even a whiff of this. It doesn’t matter that this is illegal, it’s still done.
True enough, and I had much the same experience - grew up middle class, became poor (I qualified for food stamps at one point, although I did not realize it until later), and then went fairly steadily from the bottom quintile to the top. But the points to keep in mind are [list=A][li]I did it thru all the things that are recommended to poor people in the US - education, delayed gratification, not having illegitimate children, etc. And so the idea that it is impossible for other poor people to rise out of poverty because doing all this is so difficult does not have a lot of resonance - I did it, why can’t they?[]According to the measures of poverty generally used in this thread and other discussions, I was poor. So if you are going to talk about the experience of being poor in the US, my experience is just as valid as anyone else’s. []Your statement - [/li][quote]
Income alone is really not a very good measure of wealth or poverty at least until one is well into the adult years
[/quote]
has some validity, especially as applied to children living in poverty. A child who is being taught the value of hard work and education and investment rather than blowing the windfall isn’t “poor” in the same sense as the child of someone who doesn’t see the point in saving. [li]Income mobility works both ways. It is entirely possible to start poor, get rich, and then lose it and go back to poverty, if one does not start thinking differently about your money from how you thought when you were poor. Witness the history of, say, Mike Tyson or Joe Louis for some examples.[/list]But I think your point is a good one - we are talking (AFAICT) about chronic, long-term poverty, which is a different animal than scraping your way thru college.[/li]
Regards,
Shodan
I see chronic poverty as closely related to the “new” phenomenon of rejection of education. these are the kids who don’t want to go to school, and disrupt the classes when the do. Because they don’t learn math, they are prey to high-interest rate loans, and “rent to own” businesses. Because they don’t understand compound interest, they don’t use banks, and pay absurd amounts to cash shecks…and use money orders to pay bills.
Because they can’t write coherent sentences, they have trouble applying for jobs.
And mostly, they have an attitude that dooms them.
Ii see immigrants coming to the USA, and being successful-but its because of respect for education, and hard work.
Plus, not dressing in an intimidating fashion helps-how amny people want to hire somebody who dresses like a gang banger-my guess is, the job would go to somebody more conventionally dressed.
For one thing, your cognitive skills are obviously far superior to those of most people in the lower class. Probably there are 30 million americans with IQs below 80. For those people, even learning to read and write can be a real challenege. Let alone keeping a bank account in balance.
Anyway, I’m not saying that it’s impossible for people of low intelligence to rise above poverty - but it’s a heck of a lot harder than for you.
If you read any personal accounts of children in poor areas, they have a much better perception of “societal understanding, economic understanding, and cultural expectations and standards” than most other kids.
They know which way shit flows.
Well, apart from a little tinkering around the edges here and there, all we’ve ever tried is shitting on the poor. Seems to me we do so only to make certain people feel better about themselves without working to accomplish anything. (The kind of people who cherish their expensive collection of Horatio Alger books. What a bunch of Ragged Dicks, eh?)
Any reason to expect we’ll try anything else soon?
What exactly would you propose trying?
It’s learned young. I have students who tell me daily that they can’t afford to buy a 5 cent pencil from the school bookstore, but have a cell phone, iPod, and expensive clothes and shoes. The ones that drive generally have cheap cars, but all they talk about is trading up. When the priorities are out of whack at that age, it’s not going to improve.
I don’t know about that - is it really that hard to graduate from high school? I am sure that the mentally retarded are over-represented among the chronically poor, but there are things like SSI and so forth for the genuinely disabled. ISTM they would tend to be included under a different heading - EMR rather than lazy.
But if lots of the long-term poor are really retarded rather than merely lazy, then we aren’t going to address the issue with new spending either. It would depend on their degree of disability, of course, but I kind of doubt if a big training program is all that is needed to move them into the middle class.
It seems to me that for the less intelligent, an emphasis on not having children out of wedlock is even more vital - not merely for eugenic reasons, but to localize the poverty to one person without involving an innocent child in the mix.
"Three generations of imbeciles is enough ", and, in most cases, more than enough.
Regards,
Shodan
For one, stop shitting on the poor.
The first way I would do this would be to find alternative ways of funding public education in America. Reliance on local tax revenues do not resolve the disparities, which result in an uneven chance at a reasonable early, primary or secondary education and thus an uneven chance at securing the results of such an education. If these kids are part of America, and if the consequences of failing to secure the educational blessings of liberty are borne by Americans, we should all have a stake in resolving the problem.
That’s what I propose. Clearly it’s only a piece of the picture. The next one that I would address would be health care, but I’ll stop here for now.
Missed the edit window. I just wanted to add:
Oftentimes, the metaphor (or is it a simile) of poison is not so metphoric, but literal. Exposure to a number of environmental toxins is detrimental to neurological development, and such exposure is greater among the poor. Generally wealthy communities have the resources to force toxin producing companies to be located in other people’s backyards, and also don’t have the need to tolerate less than ideal conditions to increase their tax base.
I am going to need a cite on this. Specifically, the studies that show that exposure to environmental toxins is currently a significant cause of long-term, chronic poverty in the US.
You may wish to narrow it down to one or two specific toxins, demonstrate what levels are neurotoxic, show that children in a given community have been tested and shown to exhibit those levels, and that this is common enough across the US to be a significant factor.
Regards,
Shodan
How would alternative ways of funding public education solve anything? One of the Great Society programs contained funding for Title I, which was intended to resolve the very disparaties that relying on local tax revenue supposedly created.
I think you’re trying to say that schools in areas of poverty are underfunded. I’d like to see a cite on that (using all sources of funding, not just local property tax funding, since there are a variety of federal, state, and local revenue streams for education) as well as a cite that illustrates that providing more funding for education actually improves education and actually moves people out of poverty. I think you’ll have a hard time finding the latter cites, since there seems to be no causal connection between school funding and school performance.
Really? You need a cite that toxins are detrimental to children’s development? Wow! Given, well, you, and the fact that you are ignorant of this, I am sadly doubtful that actual education will change your mind. However, holding out hope against hope, here’s a cite to a fairly comprehensive recent review:
Laura Hubbs-Tait, Jack R. Nation, Nancy F. Krebs, David C. Bellinger (2005) Neurotoxicants, Micronutrients, and Social Environments. Individual and Combined Effects on Children’s Development
Psychological Science in the Public Interest 6 (3) , 57–121 doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00024.x
Thanks for the cite. Do you have one that demonstrates your point?
Here’s what I asked for -
Now, all you need to show are the studies demonstrating toxic levels of lead in US children, that this correlates with poverty, that it is widespread across the United States, and that it is coming from toxin-producing plants in poor neighborhoods. You know, what you said.
Regards,
Shodan
Stands to reason, don’t it? You got a plant spewing toxins, its going in the Hamptons?