# Poverty Apologists / Apologetics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 5, 2016, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287 "2016-04-05T19:52:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/221 "2016-04-12T19:34:35Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > As a poor person, I’d like to convey to you just how much your post oozes with condescension and contempt. You make the aristocrats from Downton Abbey seem humble by comparison. As opposed to saying that they need a keeper to tell them what to spend their money on? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/222 "2016-04-12T20:38:52Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I think your numbers are wildly optimistic, but I appreciate you having the courage to put something out there. > > The average bus driver’s pay is $30K ([source](http://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/bus-drivers.htm)). I don’t know what sort of benefits they’re usually entitled to (my guess would be they’re pretty meager), but I’d be SHOCKED if it was more than double their actual pay. > > I don’t know much of anything about the cost of self-driving cars, but I’ll be impressed if they can be purchased new for only $33K in my lifetime. [Some more numbers to play with:](http://publictransport.about.com/od/Transit_Vehicles/a/How-Much-Does-A-Bus-Cost-To-Purchase-And-Operate.htm) > [@](#): > > Diesel buses are the most common type of bus in the United States, and they cost around $300,000 per vehicle, although a recent purchase by the Chicago Transit Authority found them paying almost $600,000 per diesel bus. > … > Hybrid buses . . . cost around $500,000 per bus with Greensboro, NC’s transit system spending $714,000 per vehicle. > … > how much does it cost to drive a bus in service for one hour? Some examples of operating costs include New York City ($172.48 for bus) . . . Los Angeles ($124.45 for bus); Honolulu ($118.01); Phoenix ($92.21); and Houston ($115.01). > … > Of the above costs, a majority is the cost of employee wages and benefits - about 70%. > … > When you consider how expensive it is to operate both buses and rail systems, the cost to carry each passenger when the vehicles are empty can be quite high. For example, if in the course of one hour a bus only carries 6 people, it could easily cost the transit agency $20 to carry each passenger. On the other hand, a full bus that carries 60 people per hour only costs the transit agency $2 per passenger, which is likely not much more than the fare the passenger is paying. I’m not saying that a fleet of self-driven cars will be cheaper than buses in the short term, but there are some real advantages: -Incredible convenience compared to buses; -Zero driving time not at capacity (assuming a system that can send the right-size vehicle for the passanger–I order a car for myself, I get something dinky, whereas if my whole family is going I get a sedan) -Fewer accidents; -No pay for drivers. The convenience might be most important. My current mass transportation option to get to work by 7:30 requires me to leave the house at 6:23, walk ten minutes to the stop, ride the bus for 17 minutes, and then walk from the bus stop another 15 minutes or so to get to work at 7:05. I’d do this with a first-grader in tow. That’s not something I’m willing to do; thus I have a car. If I can schedule my self-driving vehicle to be at my house at 7:15 every morning to drive me and my daughters to school in an 8-minute drive, I can probably get rid of my own car. I suspect many people would make a calculation similar to mine. At which point we’d see a lot fewer owned cars, which woiuld suck for Detroit but hey, things suck for Detroit anyway. We’d see a lot fewer accidents. If self-driving cars are electric (whcih c’mon, seems pretty likely), we’d see some serious reduction in pollution, especially if the power’s nuclear. It’s something worth thinking about. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/223 "2016-04-12T20:45:17Z")
As for library books/teaching responsibility, I want to distinguish between three situations. I don’t have a huge problem with limiting adults’ ability to check out books if they owe too much in fines. That’s a wise shepherding of tax dollars and keeps the library in shape. I have a problem with denying adults the ability to use resources in-library (e.g., computers) if they owe too much in fines. That’s punitive, doesn’t help the library keep in shape, and is going to make it more difficult for poor people to rise out of poverty. I have mixed feelings about denying kids the ability to check out books based on fines. On the one hand, if kids can check out books but their parents can’t, that seems ripe for abuse (“Jimmy, go get me that copy of Left Behind, they won’t let me check it out!”). On the other hand, promoting childhood literacy is a major mission for libraries; and kids should not be held responsible for their parent failings. I might support a policy that finds a middle ground: every child must have an accountable adult on their card, and once the child owes more than $5 in fines, only children’s books may be checked out on that card or on the adult card. Late fees may be forgiven at the librarian’s discretion. If books are consistently lost, a cap might be placed–maybe the child is limited to checking out one book a month until the lost books start returning. The goal is to keep the library open to kids while reducing the financial burden on the library. Yes, it’ll still be a burden, but that needs to be balanced against the problem of denying children in poverty access to a valuable resource and building an ethic of reading. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/224 "2016-04-12T20:52:00Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Obviously you don’t have to tell me / us anything more, but you brought it up, and it piqued my curiosity. Are you living below the federal poverty line? If not, what’s your definition of “poor”? And to what would you attribute your poverty? Are you currently a college student? An elderly retired person? Medically disabled? Unemployed? Underemployed? Something else? I am a bit above the poverty line. I work a minimum wage job. I prefer not to divulge further details; I’ve had bad experiences in the past sharing my life story and having my life picked apart by conservative posters berating me for not being more successful. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/225 "2016-04-12T20:59:44Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > As for library books/teaching responsibility, I want to distinguish between three situations. > > I don’t have a huge problem with limiting adults’ ability to check out books if they owe too much in fines. That’s a wise shepherding of tax dollars and keeps the library in shape. > > I have a problem with denying adults the ability to use resources in-library (e.g., computers) if they owe too much in fines. That’s punitive, doesn’t help the library keep in shape, and is going to make it more difficult for poor people to rise out of poverty. > > I have mixed feelings about denying kids the ability to check out books based on fines. On the one hand, if kids can check out books but their parents can’t, that seems ripe for abuse (“Jimmy, go get me that copy of Left Behind, they won’t let me check it out!”). On the other hand, promoting childhood literacy is a major mission for libraries; and kids should not be held responsible for their parent failings. I might support a policy that finds a middle ground: every child must have an accountable adult on their card, and once the child owes more than $5 in fines, only children’s books may be checked out on that card or on the adult card. Late fees may be forgiven at the librarian’s discretion. If books are consistently lost, a cap might be placed–maybe the child is limited to checking out one book a month until the lost books start returning. > > The goal is to keep the library open to kids while reducing the financial burden on the library. Yes, it’ll still be a burden, but that needs to be balanced against the problem of denying children in poverty access to a valuable resource and building an ethic of reading. I agree with all of this, except for the dollar limit (it should be higher) and the discretionary part - should be a prescribed practice. Otherwise it opens the library to charges of inequitable treatment. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/226 "2016-04-12T21:00:26Z")
Incidentally, I really like [this blog post, “The Poverty Trap: Slack, Not Grit, Creates Achievement.”](https://radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/the-poverty-trap-slack-not-grit-creates-achievment/) A bit from the beginning: > [@](#): > > “No excuses” advocates calling for grit, then, are facing this fact: > > Children in poverty line up at the starting line with a bear trap on one leg; middle-class children start at the 20-, 30-, and 40-meter marks; and the affluent stand at the 70-, 80-, and 90-meter marks. > > And while gazing at education as a stratified sprint, “no excuses” reformers shout to the children in poverty: “Run twice as fast! Ignore the bear trap! And if you have real grit, gnaw off your foot, and run twice as fast with one leg!” > > These “no excuses” advocates turn to the public and shrug, “There’s nothing we can do about the trap, sorry.” > > What is also revealed in this staggered 100-meter race is that all the children living and learning in relative affluence are afforded slack by the accidents of their birth: “Slack” is the term identified by Mullainathan and Shafir as the space created by abundance that allows any person access to more of her/his cognitive and emotional resources. > > In the race to the top that public education has become, affluent children starting at the 90-meter line can jog, walk, lie down, and even quit before the finish line. They have the slack necessary to fail, to quit, and to try again—the sort of slack all children deserve. I’m primarily interested in poverty as concerns its effects on kids, given my profession. This isn’t a “think of the children!” situation where I’m pulling at heartstrings; rather, our current social structures result in 22% of children living in poverty, and it has a devastating effect on their social and cognitive development, and even if we’re willing to abandon poor adults to their own choices, I don’t think that’s an acceptable policy for kids, nor do I think we’re doing anything effective at all to change the social structures that have this effect. Effect effect effect. I used that word a lot, didn’t I? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/227 "2016-04-12T21:03:02Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I agree with all of this, except for the dollar limit (it should be higher) and the discretionary part - should be a prescribed practice. Otherwise it opens the library to charges of inequitable treatment. Raising the dollar limit makes a lot of sense–I based that off my local library’s cutoff for checking books out. But removing discretion in favor of consistency is not something I’d favor. Too many bureaucratic rules instead of allowing individuals to exercise discretion IME leads to a lot of the problems with government institutions. I’d rather allow librarians to use their judgment. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/228 "2016-04-12T21:10:36Z")
With discretion, it means that a child can be prevented from checking out books forever. That shouldn’t be the case. The fees should be forgiven after a set time period for children, regardless of circumstance. Make the adult fees higher to cover if necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/229 "2016-04-12T21:15:18Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > With discretion, it means that a child can be prevented from checking out books forever. That shouldn’t be the case. The fees should be forgiven after a set time period for children, regardless of circumstance. Make the adult fees higher to cover if necessary. Ah–I see what you’re saying. I’d want discretion to err only on the side of mercy. If there are exceptional circumstances in a child’s life (dad suddenly moved out, packed up everything including the kid’s book, to take an example from one of my kids earlier this year), I like giving librarians the chance to cut the kid a little slack. But yeah, I’m not married to the details of the proposal I wrote, and ideas like periodic forgiveness of kids’ fines make plenty of sense. The general idea is that libraries should have policies that never ban a kid entirely and that encourage kids to develop the habit of regular library visitation, even if such policies are more expensive. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/230 "2016-04-12T21:28:06Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > If the goal is to eliminate deprivation of food, shelter, and healthcare, then the basic income is a TERRIBLE way to try to achieve that. It will almost certainly fail if that’s the goal. […] > > If you give poorly-educated people a bunch of cash, you’ll end up watching them piss it away on booze, drugs, lottery tickets, iPhones, designer shoes, etc. Interestingly, this doesn’t seem to apply to direct provision of the basic needs themselves. That is, the best way to cope with people who can’t afford food is to feed them. The best way to cope with people who can’t afford healthcare is to provide healthcare for them. And it appears that [the best way to cope with people who can’t afford housing is to house them](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/04/17/the-surprisingly-simple-way-utah-solved-chronic-homelessness-and-saved-millions/). > [@](#): > > **The surprisingly simple way Utah solved chronic homelessness and saved millions** > > […] In 2005, Utah had nearly 1,932 chronically homeless. By 2014, that number had dropped 72 percent to 539. Today [April 2015], explained Gordon Walker, the director of the state Housing and Community Development Division, the state is “approaching a functional zero.” > > How Utah accomplished this didn’t require complex theorems or statistical models. But it did require the suspension of what had been conventional wisdom. For years, the thought of simply giving the homeless homes seemed absurd, constituting the height of government waste. Many chronically homeless, after all, are victims of severe trauma and significant mental health and addiction issues. Many more have spent thousands of nights on the streets and are no longer familiar with home-living. Who, in their right mind, would willingly give such folk brand new houses without any proof of marked improvement? > > But that’s exactly what Utah did. “If you want to end homelessness, you put people in housing,” Walker said in an interview. “This is relatively simple.” > > The nuts and bolts: First the state identified the homeless that experts would consider chronically homeless. That designation means they have a disabling condition and have been homeless for longer than a year, or four different times in the last three years. Among the many subgroups of the homeless community — such as homeless families or homeless children — the chronically homeless are both the most difficult to reabsorb into society and use the most public resources. They wind up in jail more often. They’re hospitalized more often. And they frequent shelters the most. In all, before instituting Housing First, Utah was spending on average $20,000 on each chronically homeless person. > > So, to in part cut those costs — but also to “save lives,” Walker said — the state started setting up each chronically homeless person with his or her own house. Then it got them counseling to help with their demons. Such services, the thinking went, would afford them with safety and security that experts say is necessary to re-acclimate to modern life. Homelessness is stressful. It’s nearly impossible, most experts agree, to get off drugs or battle mental illness while undergoing such travails. […] > > It’s now years later. And these days, Walker says the state saves $8,000 per homeless person in annual expenses. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/231 "2016-04-12T22:36:13Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Interestingly, this doesn’t seem to apply to direct provision of the basic needs themselves. That is, the best way to cope with people who can’t afford food is to feed them. The best way to cope with people who can’t afford healthcare is to provide healthcare for them. > > And it appears that [the best way to cope with people who can’t afford housing is to house them](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/04/17/the-surprisingly-simple-way-utah-solved-chronic-homelessness-and-saved-millions/). Yes, I agree that material assistance (food, shelter, medical care, etc) is far better than cash assistance if your goal is to solve people’s needs for food, shelter, medical care, etc. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/232 "2016-04-12T22:55:49Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > And it appears that [the best way to cope with people who can’t afford housing is to house them](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/04/17/the-surprisingly-simple-way-utah-solved-chronic-homelessness-and-saved-millions/). While I generally favor material assistance (not sure if there’s a better / more common term for it) over cash assistance, I think the “Utah solves homelessness and saves money while doing it” storyline is a bit oversold. I don’t think they’re making an accurate accounting of the costs before and after. For example, [here’s an LA Times article on the subject](http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-utah-housing-first-20150524-story.html). It says: > [@](#): > > The cost of providing an apartment and social work for clients in the Housing First program is $11,000 annually, while the average price of hospital visits and jail for street denizens is nearly $17,000 a year. There’s an important data point missing if we want to know if the program actually costs the state money overall or saves it money: how much does the state spend on “hospital visits and jail” for people who participate in the Housing First program? Is it more or less than $6k/year? ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/233 "2016-04-12T22:59:17Z")
In the Age of the Internet, where all information is freely available, transcending a poor upbringing is more possible than ever before. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/234 "2016-04-12T23:48:07Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > In the Age of the Internet, where all information is freely available, transcending a poor upbringing is more possible than ever before. > > Right? I don’t think that’s true at all. My kids who don’t have Internet access at home, and my kids who live in poverty, are almost a complete overlap. Increased information doesn’t level the playing field; it just raises the bar for everyone. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2016, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/235 "2016-04-13T02:07:59Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I don’t think that’s true at all. My kids who don’t have Internet access at home, and my kids who live in poverty, are almost a complete overlap. Increased information doesn’t level the playing field; it just raises the bar for everyone. While poor people are less likely to have internet access than rich people, the “digital divide” favors young people (a.k.a. “kids”) far more than elderly people, and urban residents are far more likely to have internet access than rural citizens. [cite](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/28/15-of-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/) ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2016, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/236 "2016-04-13T02:20:58Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If so, great - I can’t afford to pay for my speeding tickets either. If not, how do we tell? Simple. How much is your car worth? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2016, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/237 "2016-04-13T02:22:03Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Breaking up the “concentrated poverty”, by moving poor urban dwellers out into the suburbs where they’re surrounded by upstanding suburbanite role models, [seems to be the en vogue model for government housing assistance](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/us/09housing.html). As one of those upstanding suburbanites, I dislike it. My gut reaction is that it’s just spreading crime around (really bringing it to my neighborhood), rather than really reducing it, but I suspect someone has a study somewhere that would disagree with my gut. Here’s [a more recent, more positive article](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/chicago-regional-housing-section-eight/398798/) along the same lines. I’m sorry your gut tells you that you don’t want to live alongside poor people. I’m a lower class person. I’ve never been arrested or convicted of any crime. I’ve never committed any act of violence. I have zero debt. I show up to work on time. I call in sick maybe one day a year. We are human beings just like you, and we wish to be treated with dignity and respect. Imagine replacing everything you say about poor people with the word “black”, and realize how offensive your generalizations are. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2016, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/238 "2016-04-13T02:43:07Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > I’m sorry your gut tells you that you don’t want to live alongside poor people. I’m a lower class person. I’ve never been arrested or convicted of any crime. I’ve never committed any act of violence. I have zero debt. I show up to work on time. I call in sick maybe one day a year. We are human beings just like you, and we wish to be treated with dignity and respect. Imagine replacing everything you say about poor people with the word “black”, and realize how offensive your generalizations are. Look, I have no reason to doubt everything you said about yourself. You’re probably a really nice guy and a great employee and neighbor. But many poor people are not. If I were given my pick of three hypothetical neighborhoods, let’s say the only data point I have on them is median income of the neighborhood: A) median income is $25,000 B) median income is $50,000 C) median income is $100,000 I’d choose to live in C if I could, B if I had to, and I’d do everything I could to not live in A. That’s not to say that all poor people are bad, but my general expectation is that in neighborhood A, I’d have more stuff stolen out of my yard and off my porch, more trash being thrown or blowing into my yard, more problems with loud and obnoxious neighbors, more police visits to my neighborhood, etc. Since you brought up race, I feel it’s worth mentioning that even middle-class black people don’t want to live next to poor black people: ['It's not my fault you paid $250,000 and I paid a buck'](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41810267/ns/us_news-life/#.Vw2uBvkrJhH) > [@](#): > > The neighbors say there’s more to it than that. People like John Clanton, a retired auto worker, say the new arrivals have brought behavior more common in the inner city — **increased trash, adults and children on the streets at all times of the night, a disregard for others’ property**. > > “During the summer months, I sat in the garage and **at 3 o’clock in the morning you see them walking up and the down the streets on their cell phones talking** ,” Clanton says. “**They pull up (in cars) in the middle of the street, and they’ll hold a conversation. You can’t get in your driveway. You blow the horn and they look back at you and keep on talking**. That’s all Detroit.” > > The tensions have not gone unnoticed by local officials. > > “I’ve got people of color who don’t want people of color to move into the city,” says Southfield Police Chief Joseph Thomas, who is himself black. “It’s not a black-white thing. This is a black-black thing. My six-figure blacks are very concerned about multiple-family, economically depressed people moving into rental homes and apartments, **bringing in their bad behaviors**.” > > For example, “They still think it’s OK to play basketball at 3 o’clock in the morning; it’s OK to play football in the streets when there’s a car coming; it’s OK to walk down the streets three abreast. That’s unacceptable in this city.” If more poor people acted like you, you wouldn’t see this opposition to them moving into middle- and upper-class neighborhoods, but you do, because they don’t. Do you really not understand this? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2016, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/239 "2016-04-13T03:01:55Z")
If only the poors were just better behaved, we’d tolerate them in our neighborhoods. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2016, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/240 "2016-04-13T03:05:02Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > While poor people are less likely to have internet access than rich people, the “digital divide” favors young people (a.k.a. “kids”) far more than elderly people, and urban residents are far more likely to have internet access than rural citizens. [cite](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/28/15-of-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/) Sure. So? We’re talking about whether the information age mitigates the effect of growing up poor. Old people have nothing to do with that question, and there are plenty of poor folk in rural areas. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287.md?page=13)