Blaming the Poor for Their Poverty

Recent news that the U.S. population has surpassed 300 million along with the discussions of welfare policy associated with the ten year anniversary of welfare reform legislation brings up thoughts of Thomas Malthus. In Malthus' famous population theory, population grows geometrically while food supply increases at the slower arithmetic rate. Because of this, the size of the population will eventually exceed the available food supply necessary to support it.

Malthus believes there are two solutions to the inevitable overpopulation problem. First, there are preventive checks on population which reduce the birth rate. Preventive checks consist of moral restraint such as abstinence which Malthus believes to be virtuous, and vice such as prostitution and birth control which is not.

Second, there are positive checks on the population that increase the death rate - famine, misery, plague, and war - which, in Malthus' view, are unavoidable natural laws. They are unfortunate, but necessary to limit population. In his view, these positive checks represent punishment for those who are unable to limit population growth through moral restraint.

Malthus does not believe that positive checks can be avoided. If they are, then people will starve for lack of food. Thus, if we abhor starvation, we are foolish to try and prevent the positive checks to population:

It is an evident truth that, whatever may be the rate of increase in the means of subsistence, the increase of population must be limited by it, at least after the food has once been divided into the smallest shares that will support life. All the children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons. ... To act consistently therefore, we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavouring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders. If by these and similar means the annual mortality were increased ... we might probably every one of us marry at the age of puberty, and yet few be absolutely starved. [source]

Where does this thinking lead? To the idea that there must be no government relief for the poor:

A man who is born into a world already possessed, if he cannot get subsistence from his parents on whom he has a just demand, and if the society do not want his labour, has no claim of right to the smallest portion of food, and, in fact, has no business to be where he is. At nature’s mighty feast there is no vacant cover for him. She tells him to be gone, and will quickly execute her own orders, if he does not work upon the compassion of some of her guests. If these guests get up and make room for him, other intruders immediately appear demanding the same favour. ... The order and harmony of the feast is disturbed, the plenty that before reigned is changed into scarcity; and the happiness of the guests is destroyed by the spectacle of misery and dependence in every part of the hall, and by the clamorous importunity of those, who are justly enraged at not finding the provision which they had been taught to expect. The guests learn too late their error, in counter-acting those strict orders to all intruders, issued by the great mistress of the feast, who, wishing that all guests should have plenty, and knowing she could not provide for unlimited numbers, humanely refused to admit fresh comers when her table was already full. [source]

This statement was tempered in later editions of the Essay, but the message that helping the poor would only serve to increase their numbers and hence increase aggregate misery remained. The result of this was the Poor Law Amendment of 1834. From Brue:

Some of Malthus's ideas were adopted in the harsh Poor Law Amendment of 1834. The law abolished all relief for able-bodied people outside workhouses. A man applying for relief had to pawn all his possessions and then enter a workhouse before assistance was granted; his wife and children either entered a workhouse or were sent to work in the cotton mills. In either case the family was broken up and treated harshly in order to discourage it from becoming a public charge. The work house was invested with a social stigma, and entering it imposed high psychological costs. The law aimed at making public assistance so unbearable that most people would rather starve quietly than submit to its indignities. This system was to be the basis of English poor law policy until early in the twentieth century. Malthus, who died four months after the Poor Law Amendment was passed, must have regarded it as a vindication of his idea that there is not room enough at nature's feast for every one.

Ultimately, in Malthus view, the difference between the rich and the poor comes down to a difference in moral character. It is an attempt to convince us that poverty is inevitable, that it is the consequences of poor choices and the moral inferiority of the poor, and that there is little that can be done about it.

There is a long history of blaming the poor for being poor and downplaying other possible sources of inequality arising from differences in power, social position, institutional structure, and so on, followed by an argument that attempts to help the poor only serve to increase the incentive for immoral behavior. Increasingly, we appear to be heading down this road again. But before we do, we should remember where it leads.

Comments

[Lafayette]

"Where does this thinking lead? To the idea that there must be no government relief for the poor"

Aren't you deriving a conclusion out of context, the context being the beginning of 19th century political thought? Not many in that day and age thought of social services, presuming that being poor was also part of "God's design" for mankind. (Or, perhaps Dickens, in his "Christmas Carol" and other works of the same nature, sparked some incipient interest.)

And, when social theory advanced to the point of considering the moral dilemma of the poor and the responsability of the state, in the latter half of that same century, it was Marx who inevitably prevailed intellectually. Marx's analysis was probably historically correct, but his conclusions remarkably wrong. Regardless, his ideas affected dramatically 20th century events.

The cultural evolution of this dilemma, between the US and Europe, has evolved in distinctly different ways. Socialism is not even a major political force in the US, having been subsumed by the Democrats. Whereas in Europe, it is not only a potent political force but a deeply imbedded current abetted by statism over the past half century.

For each dollar the Old World spends on charity or aid, the New World spends 12. Whilst the New World, in terms of state-sponsored foreign aid barely arrives at 1% of GDP, in the Old Word it is almost three times larger.

What does this mean? Probably that aid (that amalgam of "charity", "assistance", "NGO", et al) is more linked to philanthropy in the New World than to the state ... and in Europe it is the reverse. Philanthropy gives perhaps a subliminal meaning to a rich person who has succeeded by conventional terms in business and feels the duty to "share" their wealth. (One may wonder why. Is out of a sense of repentence?)

State aid has no such connotation. It is devoid of feeling, for the most part. It is also often connected with political ends sought by governments.

Does it matter? Yes, because state aid has proven to be ineffective in many if not most cases. Just ask a repenting Mr. Gates who seems to have some very pronounced ideas on the matter ...

[Mark Thoma]

Lafayette quotes the post:Where does this thinking lead? To the idea that there must be no government relief for the poor.
And asks:Aren't you deriving a conclusion out of context...?

No. During Malthus' time there was an intense debate over poverty and how to solve the problem. A series of poor laws beginning with the Speenhamland law of 1795 provided for a minimum income for the poor, and the law was linked to the price of bread. This led to a heated debate over both the poor laws (welfare) and the corn laws (protectionism). So, I disagree with the statement:Not many in that day and age thought of social services as that was a major issue at the time.

[bob mcmanus]

"...third reason why Marxism had appeal, and those who in recent years have been quick to pounce upon its corpse and proclaim the "end of History," or the final victory of peace, democracy, and the free market, might be wise to reflect upon it. If generations of intelligent men and women of good faith were willing to throw in their lot with the Communist project, it was not just because they were lulled into an ideological stupor by a seductive tale of revolution and redemption. It was because they were irresistibly drawn to the underlying ethical message: to the power of an idea and a movement uncompromisingly attached to representing and defending the interests of the wretched of the earth. From first to last, Marxism's strongest suit was what one of Marx's biographers calls "the moral seriousness of Marx's conviction that the destiny of our world as a whole is tied up with the condition of its poorest and most disadvantaged members."[17]

Goodbye to All That ...Tony Judt on Marxism

[malcolm]

As I teach students in History of Thought, it is the writings of John Stuart Mill that provided the antidote to Malthus' pessimism about the role of government.
Mill argued that there may be "natural laws" that explained production but there are no "natural laws" that explained the distribution of wealth. If the distribution of wealth is man made, then it can be changed by man.

[Lafayette]

From a European prospective, socialism (a variant of Marxism) prevails to various degrees throughout Europe in a manner unseen and unheard in the US since the 1930s. McCarthyism killed whatever was left during the Cold War.

In Europe, Communism persisted because, as you say, it was an intriguing idea. The means to implement it, however, were erroneous because they did not account for individual initiative - an amazingly potent force within mankind. Communism is based upon the precept that if the priorities of the community are served then all benefit. So, the individual was forced to sacrifice his or her prerogatives such that the nation as a whole was first served.

Individualist cultures take an opposite perspective. If the ability to achieve is unrestrained then all may succeed and the community (the nation) as a whole is thus served. Nice notion, but as in the US, where 80% of the wealth generated is obtained by only 20% of the population, how does the entire community benefit? Most of the wealth DOES goes to a minority ... but at the other end of the economic spectrum!

The answer is somewhere in between the two above over-simplifications (made for the purpose of furthering the debate). Neither over-arching statism nor unregulated liberalism is to the benefit of a people. But, finding that middle ground, where the utilitarian principle of "the most good for the most people" is observed ... well, that's not so easy to discover.

I venture to say, nonetheless, that Europe is closer to it than the US. About 60% of the wealth goes to 40% of the people - due to high taxation rates generating state revenues that are redistributed.

The Rooseveltian New Deal succeeded too well in the subsequent half century. From a middle-class made poor by the Recession, it bred anew a middle-class that strives for wealth accumulation rather than wealth fairness. This is spurred by the incessant adulation of the rich, making them "celebrities", role models, the epitome of the American Dream.

[anne]

Malcolm:

"Mill argued that there may be 'natural laws' that explained production but there are no 'natural laws' that explained the distribution of wealth. If the distribution of wealth is man made, then it can be changed by man."

Nicely stated. Mill the humanist counter to Bentham, as well, is so conveniently forgotten.

[Lafayette]

MT: "If generations of intelligent men and women of good faith were willing to throw in their lot with the Communist project, it was not just because they were lulled into an ideological stupor by a seductive tale of revolution and redemption."

This is true, many Europeans were lured by the "Shining Path" (which is alive and well in parts of South America).

Communism in Europe as a political force, however, is spent. The French Communist Party, one of Europe's largest and most dynamic, is recieving a transfusion from the Socialist Party in order to stay alive.

As the middle class became less poor and more well-off, the necessity of the Communist Party as a countervailing force to capitalism (in a country where riches were concentrated in less than a hundred families at the turn of the 20th century) diminished. To this day, the Communist trade unions represent less than 15% of the work force. But, they are nonetheless vociferous and they are able to rouse sentiment, when they start demonstrating.

The CP therefore has no real constituency (in terms of party members) but does show great sentimental value - a relic from the days when it brought the average Frenchman his/her first annual vacation period (in 1936).

[georgist]

And, when social theory advanced to the point of considering the moral dilemma of the poor and the responsability of the state, in the latter half of that same century, it was Marx who inevitably prevailed intellectually.

Flat wrong. For many years, Henry George's Progress and Poverty was the worldwide best-selling book on political economy - Marxist kookery only became dominant after the Russian coup d'etat of 1917. See also Henry George's views on Thomas Malthus.

[calmo]

My goodness.
Not merely wrong, but Flat Wrong.
The cookery and the kookery of it all.
I B amused georgist at that kook, Marx, being upstaged by that cook, George.
Does this explain your kooky moniker? (we cooks need to know.)

[evagrius]

As a former "welfare eligibility", ( for AFDC, now TANF, Food Stamps and Medicaid ) worker for a county, ( one of the wealthiest and expensive in the U.S.), in California, I think I can speak from a certain experienced standpoint.

The application procedure for all three programs has now been reduced to a very long and tedious process with a computer program named CalWIN, ( California Welfare Information Network)( designed by EDS- the Ross Perot corporation), requiring numerous, sometimes rather intrusive, ( asking an 80 year old woman applying for Food Stamps or Medi-Cal," Have you been convicted of a felony drug charge?"), questions along with detailed documentation, ( birth certificates, proof of residence, bills, bank account verification, proof of insurance, savings etc;), making the process last three to four hours when it used to take an hour, at most, before. Benefits are no longer determined by the worker, ( who could override or simply ignore some requirements knowing the full situation of the applicant), but by the program. The result has been a veritable nightmare of confusion for both workers and applicants, ( although the "state" propaganda will always state how successful it is), with a huge amount of overpayments, underpayments, erroneously and illegally denied benefits, misidentification of clients etc; In short, applicants are treated rather poorly and workers are overstressed. The result is a "welfare system" in collapse.
The latest requirements issued by the Federal government ( taking effect about now) on work requirements linked to TANF are also becoming a huge hindrance. They definitely do reflect the "poorhouse" mentality, forcing applicants and benefiaciaries to take low-paying jobs in order to obtain or keep benefits, ( mainly Food Stamps and Medi-Cal- cash aid is reduced as wages are received). It's a nice form of ensuring a pool of low wage workers, ( most of the jobs are in fast-food, retail, ( Wal-Mart) and the like). There is no interest in providing any job training or any educational programs, ( even though many applicants are functionally illiterate and innumerate). Child care programs have been systematically reduced even as evidence shows that this and medical care are the two greatest obstacles for poor people finding better employment.

I think it behooves anyone discussing the state of poverty in the U.S. to seriously examine the aid programs in effect for the poor. It's necessary to examine the low level of assets allowed for eligibility for some programs ( Medicaid allows only $2000 in assets for a single elderly person,)as well as the low level of income allowed, ( for instance- a single elderly person receiving around $900/ month Social Security is eligible for about $10 of Food Stamps- income of over $600/ month is used as a deductible for Medicaid, ( share of cost) - that elderly person would have had have to pay $300 of medical bills before Medicaid kicks in - this was changed by Clinton but only for elderly people having an income of less than $932/ month). There have been some changes and revisions. The result is that Medi-Cal has over 150 types of programs, each with different asset and income requirements, depending on the applicant.
Is this confusing? It should be. It's all a result of the constant infighting and tussling over programs for the poor, by liberals who wish to extend aid by creating new programs and conservatives who wish to reduce programs to "workfare". It's a result of lousy thinking by all sides on what poverty actually is and how to reduce or not reduce it.

Sorry for the rant- I could go on for much longer but I hope that people reading this do go to the Internet and look up these programs. Find out what's required- reflect on it and decide if they really make any sense, from either a "liberal" or "conservative" viewpoint.

I'm retired from the madness- it took too much effort to remain sane and humane.

[Mike Doyle]

Well my background is admittedly in urban planning, not economics. But it seems to me job creation isn't the whole issue. In some cases, a family's breadwinner would have a higher "income" and familial health benefits going on welfare than working 40 hours (as if they could find 40 hours, much less with benefits) at whatever rate is set their state's minimum wage. So we're paying the cost for an inadequate minimum wage already.

Moreover, wonky economic debates over whose theory has greater currency in the moment's obtaining political climate always, always lose sight of the fact that we're talking about people, real people. People working at $5.15, or 6.50, or $8.00 all have a face and a story. They live, they feel, they hurt over wage and employment policies. Those of us debating this issue on the Net probably all are in a far better economic position than the people whose lives these economic policies directly affect.

For a reality check, take a look at the ACORN/AFLCIO video blog, "7 Days @ Minimum Wage"(sevendaysatminimumwage.org). I worked on that project. I heard what minimum-wage workers had to say about the psychological and emotional impact of life at what are, essentially, poverty wages. To my mind, an informed opinion cannot be one based solely on the numbers. If you don't take into account the human impact, you miss half the story.

If you can watch those interviews and not be touched by them somehow, then we have more depressing issues to worry about in this country than simply the economic.

[anon]

"Increasingly, we appear to be heading down this road again. But before we do, we should remember where it leads."

How are we increasingly blaming the poor for their problems?????

Are we talking welfare reform of the '90's? That gloom and doom led nowhere.

Free trade? Yeah it hurts the uneducated in rich countries like the u.s. but since the end of the cold war we've added a couple billion capitlaists to the world and cut the number of people living below u.n. poverty line in half.

Pleny of institutioanl reform left to go though. We really need to lower farm subsidies in the west to help poor countries.

Still don't know who is blaming the poor for their plight unless you count those pointing to education as the solution to those left behind by globalization. That would be Greenspan every time he went to capital hill.

[anne]

Evagrius, thank you.

[true dough]

I want to run something by people. In my mind, the greatest parallel between Malthus' theory and the current availability of government relief for the poor (in context of international aid anyway) seems to have everything to do with the optimism we hold for technology.

Malthus underestimated the benefits of technology and agricultural technology in specific. Therefore, an increase in population was thought to put a strain on the fixed amount of resources.

Things aren't so different today. Bill Gates et al don't foresee technology being of any benefit to the world's poorest people. When technology holds no promise, a subsistence level coupled with 'preventative checks' (by a more modern definition) seems satisfying to many people. Policy-makers may not be repeating Malthus' exact tenants (eg - no one is saying that a resident in the Third World will pursue vice and sloth if he/she receives financial assistance above the subsistence levels), but the distribution of wealth above subsistence levels seems futile to many (perhaps because it's thought not to lead to increased productivity).

[true dough]

whoops.
"...fixed amount of resources."
should have said
"...constant growth rate of resources."

(which, of course, coupled with the geometrically increasing total population, was thought to lead to an exponential rate of decay).

[slink/js paine]

mark wonderful post

the eye brow must go sky high when you read
he unvarnished malthus
daring to venture
a contemporary avatar
i'd pick george will

[georgist]

Things aren't so different today. Bill Gates et al don't foresee technology being of any benefit to the world's poorest people. When technology holds no promise, a subsistence level coupled with 'preventative checks' (by a more modern definition) seems satisfying to many people.

Given that the Nobel Committee has just awarded the Peace Prize to Mohammed Yunus and Grameen Bank for their microcredit efforts, I think they would disagree with your assessment. Make no mistake, government "aid" is about propping up corrupt and despotic regimes. It has nothing to do with poverty relief or economic development.

[calmo]

Ok, I'm just a tyro cynic compared to geo.
Poverty that Malthus talks about is local, visible and maybe imagined poverty. Not say, current but unreported African poverty that is hardly local, visible or imagined. (Not that philanthropist Gates does not notice, but it is after he has $40B and still thirsty.) [I can't just let geo take the cynic crown that easily people.]
Does this matter --the poverty that is measured in horrific mortality rates rather than some more or less measureable Poverty Line? Is my aid to some beggar on the street the same as that donation to starving children in Africa?
There is this sense that geo may be cynical and poor but not poor enough to warrant my lavish attentions --not starving, but to use a First Lady expression, merely "so underprivileged".
With a few more posts, my efforts to reconstruct his moral fibre and rinse his soul of this contaminating cynicism shall succeed and he, too shall feel the privileged station I have worked so hard to earn.
Or I could just skip it...like I do with an entire continent, you?

[true dough]

Calmo, no crown for you. First, Malthus was speaking in national terms. Okay, fine. He was also writing in a period when the benefits from technology were underestimated, and when the concept of sustainable productivity hadn't been so much as whispered. Hell, he was writing in a time when there was no good concept of demand. His writing is incomparable to today in a dozen ways.
In my mind, the significance of comparing Malthus' writing to the present day is that it allows people to reflect on our perception of the poor. Malthus left little room for the poor, do we?
Personally, I have a hard time drawing parallels to Malthus' writing in North America. Maybe I need someone to spell it out for me. But internationally....okay, I managed to draw somewhat of a comparison if you allow me to forge a few words into Malthus' argument (eg. Africa). Then georgis killed my theory. Now I can't draw any parallels.
Skip a continent? Why not. Let's even throw in a demand curve. Malthus' argument is a useful but outdated paradigm. Give that crown back to geo.

[ken melvin]

Evagrius, thank you.

[ken melvin]

Been found that poverty increases population growth. So, get some money to these folks. Most importantly, give them hope. Which brings us to the wealth distribution problem.

Each of the aforementioned great thinkers applied their intellect to a problem of their time. Now we need more of our best thinkers trying to solve the problems of our time. Problems, I submit, are quite different, thus requiring quite different solutions. We need a wealth distribution system that deals with labor being much less an actor in production. The nation has seen the benefit of increased production due technological advances. Now, how do we get the wealth to the masses?

[realpc]

Why isn't it possible to care about poverty and ALSO admit that the earth's capacity is limited?
Nothing in the Malthus quote in this post says he blamed the poor for their poverty. Maybe he said that somewhere else -- why didn't you include that quote, if he did say it? Instead of drawing that oblique conclusion?

Nature does control the population of every species, not always in pleasant ways. As Malthus said, if we don't control population nature will take care of it for us.

Yes poverty is tragic, and a society with high rates of poverty is a sick society. But you don't cure sickness by treating symptoms, you have to analyze the system and determine the cause.

Malthus was trying to look at reality, not necessary to blame the poor. Since then, we have figured out how to fool the earth into over-producing, so it looks like there are no limits. But the limits will be reached eventually.

[Mark Thoma]

I did include it. Saying that people are poor because they cannot practice moral restraint blames them for their situation. Malthus believes that if they didn't have more kids than they could afford, quit drinking, gambling, etc., etc., etc., then they wouldn't be in that situation...

[dryfly]

I did include it. Saying that people are poor because they cannot practice moral restraint blames them for their situation. Malthus believes that if they didn't have more kids than they could afford, quit drinking, gambling, etc., etc., etc., then they wouldn't be in that situation...

But then they wouldn't be 'people' and people are 'animals' and animals DO those kinds of things (like pursue pleasure & have children).

I'd like to reaffirm this part of realpc's comment...

Nature does control the population of every species, not always in pleasant ways. As Malthus said, if we don't control population nature will take care of it for us.

...that's the story EXACTLY, except maybe it should be worded that nature's control methods are NEVER pleasant to the species being controlled (though the bacterium, virus, carnivore or scavenger doing nature's work might approve - until it's their turn).

We'll get to experience it as a species too - sooner or later. There are contrived limits (like how many tunes I can download to my iPod) & real limits (like how much bio-mass we can produce to feed the masses, ultimately limited by efficiency of photosynthesis & sunlight to the planet). There really are limits.

Malthus' problem wasn't that he was 'wrong'... just too early. Like the traders quip 'Fundamentals are easy, timing's the bitch.'

[anne]

Important post to think about much further, Mark. Clever comment, in asking what it is that we are, Dryfly.

[Mark Thoma]

We have always divided those in poverty into the deserving poor (who deserve help) and the undeserving poor (who do not) in line with the road followed after Malthus (e.g. see Nassau Senior).

The subtle redefinition of the deserving and undeserving groups over time based upon Hayekian and other ideas is one place to watch.

[evagrius]

Exactly right, Mr. Thoma,

As I've stated, it behooves anyone interested in the subject as far as the U.S. is concerned, to look at the recent legislation and regulations that have been enacted.
The entire onus is on the applicant "proving" they are deserving of aid- never mind mental illness, poor health, poor or no education, etc;
In my experience, ( I saw at least 75-100 applicants a month over quite a number of years), I rarely saw anyone who did not "deserve" aid. Not all received aid, mostly because they did not or could not comply with verification requirements, ( often these became repeating applicants ). The reason was often a lack of familiarity with the arcane world of legal requirements, ( most of the applicants had very low education or were foreign-born or mentally ill).
Most of these people would not have been applicants had they been able to obtain a decent wage, or adequate medical care, or affordable child care or mental health treatment.
It was always interesting to see previously secure middle-class applicants, who had had a good employment, now lost and on unemployment insurance, ( which pays very little), sit there completely shocked as I would tell they are not eligible or that the benefits would not really help them much.
Yet that is the reality their poorer brethren face all the time.
It's interesting to note that the welfare reform program includes "personal responsibility" in its acronym.
I've always thought that phrase to be ironic, since the term "person" is originally a theological term describing the relation between the persons of the Trinity. In other words, person is relation.
Yet, in this culture, person no longer implies relation, certainly not one of mutual responsibility or trust, ( love is also included but let's not go there). Person nowadays is reducible to individual and individual means a single solitary subject with no relation. The result is that one is no longer responsible for anyone else and vice-versa.

says...

Our solution has been to disappear them; first the blacks, then the uneducated, then the skilled worker, and now anyone over 55. The millions of blacks who know that there is no use for looking for a job don’t show up as unemployed. They disappeared, so those in prison because they couldn’t find work, so those who lost their jobs to China, and so those over 55 who lost their job. Though gone form our conscience, in spirit you can find them lurking around bookstores, parks, etc. So, the 3.7 million Americans who lost their jobs to low paid illegals.

[evagrius]

Disappeared is a good term- if anyone is curious, all they have to do is look at how badly statistical information has been available in the last few years.

[Isabel]

Totally beside the point, of course, but in your second excellent post, Evagrius, you say something that I don't think it is quite right: "person" comes, as far as I know, from the latin "persona", that means "mask", "role". I quite like the idea of each of the persons of the Trinity being one of the masks of God!

And I think that Ken Malvin touched something important in this sentence:
"We need a wealth distribution system that deals with labor being much less an actor in production."
One of the problems in our Western societies is the changing, or shrinking, role of labor. I think that was quite obvious in the troubles in French cities last year: the suburbs that caught fire were built after the war to house a working class that had a role, a culture, a pride. Now, the youngsters of the working class face a present and a future, perhaps materially more comfortable, but devoid of a place, a role, of "respect", as they repeat over and over.

[evagrius]

Isabel,

Thank you for your kind remarks; you are correct- the term person does originate from "persona" but the actual definition of person, ( a rational ,free actor, ( as it were), in relation with other rational,free actors), originates from the theological disputes of the first centuries C.E.

[anne]

Evagrius:

"I've always thought that phrase [personal responsibility] to be ironic, since the term 'person' is originally a theological term describing the relation between the persons of the Trinity. In other words, person is relation."

Isabel:

"I quite like the idea of each of the persons of the Trinity being one of the masks of God!"

[Isabel]

Interesting. I guess the connection between "persona" and "personagem", "personage" (character, like character in a play) is so obvious in a latin language that I completely missed the theological story.
[A very funny coincidence is that Fernando Pessoa, a Portuguese poet that created half a dozen heteronyms as if he was half a dozen "persons", and is actually studied as various different poets, had a surname, Pessoa (person) that means "mask", "character"...]

[anne]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE0DF1F3FF932A3575AC0A967958260

September 1, 1991

Proud of His Obscurity
By FERNANDA EBERSTADT

THE BOOK OF DISQUIET
By Fernando Pessoa.

Fernando Pessoa (1888-1935) was a Portuguese modernist poet whose verse is as searing as that of Rilke or Mandelstam. The bare facts of Pessoa's life make him the very archetype of the artist as orphan, saint, invisible man.

Raised after his father's death and his mother's remarriage in the South African port of Durban (his first verse was in English), Pessoa returned to Lisbon as a teen-ager. He spent the rest of his obscure life there, working as a bookkeeper and commercial translator. By night in his rented room he poured out poems attributed to a series of imaginary personae -- a monarchist exile, a shepherd, an opium addict -- whose voices range from the Horatian to the Whitmanesque to the Futurist.

Unfortunately, Pessoa's exultant, rigorous verse has thus far defied successful translation into English, which makes "The Book of Disquiet," his chief work of prose, a good introduction to a little-known master. Composed of fragments written over a period of 20 years, "The Book of Disquiet" -- here appearing for the first time in English, somewhat abridged, in Alfred Mac Adam's splendid translation -- purports to be the spiritual self-examination of "Bernardo Soares, Assistant Bookkeeper in the City of Lisbon." It records with classical precision the secret raptures and desolations of an Underground Man, neurasthenic, paranoid, vainglorious, so addicted to nostalgia and the pride of obscurity that on publishing his first book he fears that "I am losing something -- being unpublished." ...

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/books/review/25schillinger.html?ex=1308888000&en=22e9b767983caa04&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Fernando Pessoa: "Rather the bird flying by and leaving no trace / Than the passing beast leaving tracks in the earth."

[run75441]

An interesting article came out in the "Smithsonian" (300 Million and Counting by Joel Garreau), which painted a rather different picture of the population surpassing 300 million this last week. Almost 40 years ago, in 1967, the US surpassed the 200 million in population. In 1968, Paul Erlich wrote a book called "The Population Explosions" and he predicted this:

"In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs,’ he declared. “At best, North America and Europe would have to undergo ‘mild’ food rationing within the decade as starvation and riots swept across Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Arab countries; at worst, the turmoil in a foodless Third World would set off a series of international crises leading to thermonuclear war."

Yes, we did have starvation in various parts of the world; but overall, we did survive the 200 million mark and we should survive the surpassing of the 300 million mark as well. Technology and modernization helped us a nation, and the world, stay ahead of Mathus's curve of death to reduce population. I would go as far as to say this, the issues at hand could be solved through better food distribution practices, less divisive politics, and less greed. The means to severely limit starvation in the world and in our nation are available.

Garreau in his "300 Million and Counting" points out the US has a population with a median age of 35, the result of a vast wave of immigrants (legal and illegal [not specifically mentioned]). Typically the initial wave has more children than the succeeding generations who eventually assimilate into the population of citizens. With each generation, there is a gradual loss of the characteristics brought with the initial immigrant. My whole point to this is, we have a younger population than many of the other countries, which is not bad, and will provide the US with a workforce through the 21st century. We are growing at 1% yearly or at 2.1 births per couple (CIA data).

In comparison, city-countries such as Macau and Hong Kong the replacement rate has dropped to .96 and .84 amongst couples; Italy and Spain reside at 1.3 births and Tokyo is at .98. Unless there is a reversal of some magnitude many countries are faced with the aspect of having more elderly than there are young people making up the population and the workforce which could lead to decreased productivity and higher social costs. China will account for 1/5 of the world population by 2025 and 1/4 of the world population over 65 years of age. Even with a higher growth rate, China’s elderly problems will not be resolved easily (this may be why they are investing heavily in US Treasury Bills). The issue is many countries is no longer the population explosion over the long run, it is a lack of replacement of native population.

The above is a synopsis of the article. In the long run, the US is in a better position with its workforce than its global neighbors. Our past immigration policies have placed it in a better position. Our past productivity has given us the ability to grow more jobs (in the past) than population growth and maintain a tax base that even without any growth in population; the revenues for Social Security would remain constant (CBO). The only difference will be in the ethnic make up of the population and how they assimilate in the US as citizens. What has changed?

Job growth in comparison to population growth, which "evagrius" sees the first hand effects of while working with the social programs of California. For some 40+ years until 2001, this country had a growing participation rate or more and more of the population becoming a part of the workforce. Any period of transition between jobs was relatively brief except during recessional periods. Before the anomaly of the dot.com explosion, when unemployment truly dropped to 4.7%, participation rate was at 66.8%. In Oct/Nov 2001; it returned to 66.8% after going bonkers in the 67+ percentile, an economic correction. From Oct/Nov 2001 till 2004 participation rate dropped to 65.8% (lowest since 1988?), a reversal of the upward trend of 40 years. Today it sits at 66.2% with economists, and this administration, touting a low unemployment rate of 4.7%. I do not believe anyone is seeing hints of massive wage driven inflation or a tightening labor pool with ~ 1.8 million people looking for work and not counted in the unemployment rate. Of course, unemployment is low when you count it against a smaller workforce in comparison to population.

We have a growing economy, which is not translating into job growth or at least returned to what it was immediately after (or before dot.com) the 2001 recession. In the short term, social programs are necessary to carry us over. In the short term, fully funded federal programs mandated to the states are vital to help people get past what I believe is an anomaly in negative job growth for this economy. At the same time, the administration with its programs should be advocating greater job growth of value and not hamburger flippers or service jobs. In comparison to the other countries of the world, we have a younger workforce ready, with training and education, to again take on the world’s production needs. Jobs supplant welfare and this is what we are missing today.

300 Million and Counting”

[ninjaplease]

"Communism is based upon the precept that if the priorities of the community are served then all benefit."

Yeah and the closest people to this are small groups of Eskimos, Inuit and American Indians, and look at how they governed: through virtual family royalty with a shaman for religious control & completely authoritarian. Interesting indeed, sounds like much of Medieval Europe on paper, atleast.

In a world that celebrates the cult of personality, celebrities, etc, I don't think you'll find the means to remove greed, envy, laziness and any of the other deadly sins inherent in all people. Some ignore those motivations, others don't.

However,

"Blaming the poor for their poverty" sure sounds a lot like the excuse given to the now out of work factory hand, IT developer, software engineer, or any member of any union in the US. Why they just need more education is all! Education for what? Losing one's job is all the education anyone could ever need. Believe it or not there is gray area between North Korean Economic policies (which more resemble an organized crime enterprise) and what the US had after world war II.

I'd hope that the house you leave your children is sufficient enough that they don't have to get a job--I'm sure that that's what you're hoping for.

[Betsy L. Angert]

Dear Mark . . .

Wow! What a powerful subject this is.

When Malthus writes of over population problem and birth control, I wonder whether he choices to repress or reduce the sexual exploits of the underclass or those of all people.

I could speak on this topic endless. When I chat with those that have many, many millions, I seem to.

I am baffled by how unaware and out-of-touch some of the affluent choose to be! They think they are helping the poor and underprivileged when they offer a twenty to forty percent tip to a service worker they barely speak to. Their gratuity is to them a sign of gratitude and understanding. Yet, few of those filthy rich really understand.

Many were born into their station or one that was not so bad. They were and are afforded opportunities that they chose to ignore. Perhaps, they are so unaware of true poverty they cannot comprehend the truth.

Malthus speaks of society wanting the labor of the particular people. I laugh and cry simultaneously as I read these words.

An extremely wealthy man I am acquainted with thinks and states aloud often, “that is the purpose of the poor is to serve the rich.” He adds, “There is only so much wealth to go around.” He, as the long-standing Puritan powers-that-be do wishes to promote and preserve the idea of scarcity. I think nature disputes this man-made claim.

I invite you to read and comment on . . .
• Income Inequity. The Real Reason the Rich Get Richer. ©
The following article discusses the effects of poverty on education and upward mobility.
• Failing Children, Accountability and Testing [FCAT] ©

I greatly appreciate your thoughts on these treatises.

Betsy L. Angert
All work can be reviewed at Be-Think.
BeThink.org is in transition. Recent writings are available here.

[Betsy L. Angert]

Dear Malcolm . . .

Mill argued that there may be "natural laws" that explained production but there are no "natural laws" that explained the distribution of wealth. If the distribution of wealth is man made, then it can be changed by man.
Hooray for you and Mill.

Betsy L. Angert
A work can be reviewed at Be-Think. BeThink.org is in transition. Recent writings are available here.

[georgist]

"that is the purpose of the poor is to serve the rich." He adds, "There is only so much wealth to go around."

The fact that a wealthy person would have such a destructive zero-sum attitude is the best indication that their wealth was unearned.

[Isabel]

I read your essay a couple of days ago, Betsy, and I thought how lucky you were to have been raised by two families, in both sides of the railway tracks.

[ninjaplease]

Earth to all economists viewers: Rich people DO NOT tip well. The richest person I know, a billionaire, with a "B" tips 10% for excellent service and nothing for standard service.

[calmo]

Earth to ninja (viewers of ninja optional),
arguing from a single stingy billionaire anecdote to the entire class, the Rich, is not the strongest logic on the planet. Therefore not excellent service and no tip for you.
And not even standard service, so you owe us --especially those of us who don't know any billionaires, who according to Fortune, number less than 500 in the US.
How do you expect him to maintain his billionaire status if he keeps tipping?

[evagrius]

""Communism is based upon the precept that if the priorities of the community are served then all benefit."

Yeah and the closest people to this are small groups of Eskimos, Inuit and American Indians, and look at how they governed: through virtual family royalty with a shaman for religious control & completely authoritarian. Interesting indeed, sounds like much of Medieval Europe on paper, atleast."

Ninjaplase- I think you're mistaken in your belief, As far as I can tell, quite a few Native American tribes had a rather vigourous form of democracy and freedom, so much so that quite a few Western Europeans decided to go "native".

For an enternaining look at Native American life, read the Tay-bodal mysteries of Mardi Oakley Medawar.

[run75441]

Betsy:

Would you consider those making $100,000 to $200,000 to be rich (as included in the upper 20% of the taxpaying bracket)? Would you consider those making $200,000 to $500,000 to be rich (as included in the upper 10% of the taxpayers. When you utilize the 10 and 20 percentile in effect you are including these income brackets as rich when indeed they are probably middle and upper middle class. While they have amassed more wealth, I would not call the rich.

The 2001/2003 tax breaks benefited the 1% of the tax brackets, with those in a $500,000 to $1,000,000 in income seeing an average of $24,000/year and those over $1,000,000 seeing an average of $94,000/year in tax breaks. "Finally something for us," as stated by Cheney after the 2001 tax break. 31% went to 1% of the taxpayers or ~600,000 taxpayers as determined by the Tax Policy Center (Brookings and Urban Institute).

A Chicago street kid.

[ken melvin]

run75441, ...

The employment to population ratio? Obviously it doesn't meant 200 million have jobs. What does it mean and has anyone taken a look at it separate BLS numbers?

[evagrius]

Another thought- I've always been fascinated by the notion that the poor are somehow more immoral than richer folks. I'm not sure where this originates from but I suspect it is a middle-class invention.
After all, would the fantasies of Marquis DeSade ever be possible if he had been born and raised poor?
Mr. Malthus was definitely a bourgeois thinker, completely unaware of the corruption and immorality of the rich. They were his betters and their behaviour of course could not be questioned. I think it's the same now- after all, look at the behaviour of Paris Hilton.

There are some differences these days. Nowadays, it's possible for a relatively low-income person to indulge and practice the fantasies of De Sade. In fact, one may see how the behavior of the ultra-rich becomes something to envy and emulate by the poor.

I think the explosion of drug abuse is explainable this way- after all, you ain't got a future but you can get f##*ed up just like Mick Jagger!

[georgist]

Mr. Malthus was definitely a bourgeois thinker, completely unaware of the corruption and immorality of the rich.

That's a well understood phenomenon, as portrayed in the novels of Jane Austen and Anthony Trollope: people who managed to appropriate a lot of unearned wealth become nihilistic because their lives are stripped of genuine meaning. They lose any sense of accomplishment, because their well-being is effectively determined by the rents they have captured - any productive effort becomes negligible by comparison. Ironically, most productive people face the opposite problem, as most of their effort is soaked up by rents and taxes. It's alienation and nihilism all around.

I find it surprising that fashionable Marxist sociologists have not picked up on this pattern - it might clue them up as to the distinction between earned and unearned wealth. Can anyone really imagine Jane Austen's wealthy elite as productive undertakers?

[evagrius]

I find your focus on earned and unearned income fascinating.

Does this mean that you're in favor of a "death tax":)?

I'm not sure if "earned" wealth actually gives anyone any more existential meaning than unearned wealth, especially if it involves the usual morally ambigious activities that surround most wealth accrual, ( especially in the realm of finance- stocks, etc; and marketing- exception can be given to those individuals who became wealthy through inventions or art ). I'm always reminded of the French saying, " Behind every great fortune lies a great crime".

[calmo]

"definitely a bourgeois" is this like tasting an unlabelled brew and declaring "definitely Chateau de Chateaulet" (or "Possibly Golden Retriever, Sherlock but I defer to your finer sensibilities")?
Something fishy about "a bourgeois thinker". Is it because "bourgeois" does not identify any kind of thinker but a social class? Thinking, (honest to goodness noodling), is supposed to rise above those petty class distinctions, those social conditions, (those economic constraints that close the door on so many green pastures) [for the rest of us sheep.]

Yes, that B it: once you've labelled someone "bourgeois", you've stamped him as not thinking too hard. So "bourgeois thinker" means thinking in the service of that class. (And it smells for so many reasons, but esp because the critic has not declared his own class, nor why we should lend him our ear to speak to that wider audience, the people.)
Ok, geo, I'm homing in on you now maybe...george elliot?

[ninjaplease]

"How do you expect him to maintain his billionaire status if he keeps tipping?"

Thank you for illustrating my point. The billionaire was just one example, the guy is worth 5Bs. I know many upper thousandaires who are the sameway.

I've never heard of democratic american indian tribes (the original, pre-casino /duty free ones.)

[evagrius]

calmo; bourgeois means exactly what it states; "middle-class", ( that is the definition of bourgeois you know).

Middle-class thinkers do not question their betters.

My class? "bohemian"

Read Paul Fussel's little book ;Class, A Guide Through the American Class System. It's an amusing read and quite accurate.

My original class? "Prole"! But I'd received a love of learning from my early education in France.

There's not much room in the U.S. for educated proles. When I graduated from university with a degree in philosophy, ( how intellectual), I was very naive about the class/ status system of the U.S. although I'd gotten definite glimpses of it in university, ( classmates being sons of U.S. Senators, daughters of film stars, children of financiers etc;). My employment was always limited to prole work since I knew no one and really didn't understand the coded language, ( an amusing example- I was working for a CPA educational non-profit, ( doing shipping/ receiving of educational material- quite physical work), and had gone on vacation to Scotland where I bought a Pringle sweater at their factoty- I came to work one day wearing it and one of the directors, a rather nice middle-upper-middle class woman noticed it and asked where I'd bought it. On responding "Scotland" her eyes got large. Obviously, a prole does not travel to Scotland).
Because class and status are officially non-existent in the U.S. doesn't mean they don't exist. In fact, it makes the entire society more oppresive.

[evagrius]

ninjaplease;

"I've never heard of democratic american indian tribes (the original, pre-casino /duty free ones.)"

Then you haven't read much history.

[ninjaplease]

"Then you haven't read much history."

Hah, thanks General Blanket Statement from the army of Hyperbole.

And being that you probably didn't know who allesandro Galvani was, or Michael Faraday was, or Carl Friedrich Gauss was, or Enrico Fermi was, or James Clerk Maxwell was:

Then you don't know much about science.

History is my hobby, more so than posting ignored rantings on economist blogs. Specifically scientific history, engineering history & military history. I haven't read much about Native American history because it never really interested me and probably because wasn't it an oral history until sequoia changed all that?

Economics interests me only because it directly affects my future.

[calmo]

Sounds like an interesting digression to me: democratic aboriginal people in the US. Some American history and even possibly military history and possibly some surprises about the transition from royal lineage to something more suitable for modern administrations who need mechanisms for compliance...but I know beans about aboriginal history.
Unlike "bourgeois".bourgeois means exactly what it states; "middle-class", ( that is the definition of bourgeois you know). Jimminny that's neat and tidy. Brutally concise esp with that 'don'tcha know'. (But I discard this knowing --for mulling it over. It could have changed since the last time I knew. I could have changed since the last time I thought I knew. I'm done with those fiat denotations and for hunting up those juicy connotations, you? Why go to the supermarket when you could go fishing?)
That fishing expedition:
I'm thinking that "bourgeoise" identified some owner class and that "bourgeois", a derivative that came later, was aimed slightly lower and slightly to the left of these owners. Aspiring middle class becons of capitalism, but also (the adjective) reflecting those aspiring tastes, that sophistication and glamor of the wealthy, --that somewhat misplaced arrogance that comes with a little success. [geogist reads the relevant literature of the period with what's-her-face. Honestly, reading that stuff informs you of what "bourgeios" means in a way that the usual reference texts do not.]

Ok, eva, philosophy graduate, next time Don You-Know-Who makes an appearance --he's your job. [Why were you just sitting there watching me beat my brains out? U B cruel.]
Last unrambling and cross-threading thing: that other post about the Taleban has a link by anne reinforced by spencer about a society that has had its civility interrupted by war. The poverty and corruption documented by Rubin illustrates the difference between real (and widespread) poverty and an academic appraisal of a much tamer version. Current corruption in the US does not appear to be at the Afghanistan level, but there may be some neighborhoods or some aspects that are not that different.

[ninjaplease]

"bourgeoise" is fine as middle class atleast as a working definition if compared with the "Sans-culottes." Hell anything was middle class when compared to them.

I find it difficult to imagine a Democracy in America that did not include old people with leering looks barking at young people in line waiting to vote. Old people hate taxes which fund schools, schools are devices which to some degree, prevent young people from forming gangs and robbing old people.

People don't act rationally. If kids are in school, then they're not out robbing old people, atleast from 8-3pm.

[evagrius]

ninjaplaese- my rant's as good as yours. I do know a bit about science- perhaps not as much as you but are you a "scientist"?

"History is my hobby, more so than posting ignored rantings on economist blogs. Specifically scientific history, engineering history & military history. I haven't read much about Native American history because it never really interested me and probably because wasn't it an oral history until sequoia changed all that?"

You mean Sequoyah, the Cherokee leader who invented a writing system for the Cherokees?

No- I don't think their history was purely "oral". You probably haven't read much- the Incas had a system of recording history, the Mayas had a written system, ( and discovered the zero), etc;etc;

Your accuse me of ignorance, fine- but your smug ethnocentrism is peculiar for some one who claims to study history.

Here's a good subject for you- look up the "Great Peace" Treaty of 1701 between the French, their Native allies and the Iroquois. There's some fascinating information on how the Native Americans governed themselves.

[evagrius]

calmo- yes, bourgeois is middle-class in its simplest form- middle-class trying to be upper class, with all the pretensions and none of the means.

I really do recommend Paul Fussel's book on class in America. It certainly explained to me why I could never be "upper-class" and why being "middle-class" was no way to go.

It's better being "bohemian" No one knows what class you belong to. It's more amusing that way and one can have a range of acquaintances, from working-class stiffs to snobby intellectuals and artists and even bankers.

[Ninjaplease]

Re: Evag,

I said hobby, not master's degree.

I'm not a scientist, I'm an engineer by trade and training.

"It's better being "bohemian""
That would be Czech, wouldn't it?

"Your accuse me of ignorance, fine- but your smug ethnocentrism is peculiar for some one who claims to study history."

Ethnocenstrism? Dude, do you even know what ethnicity I am? No? Then shut it down, buddy.

"http://www.geocities.com/Cordobakaf/marx_iroquois.html"

I had no idea that Marx was influenced by Iroquois society (assuming this piece true.) That is some interesting stuff.

[evagrius]

ninjaplease; ( considering your nom de plume you could be Nihonjin but you seem to not have the requisite courtesy)

I wasn't remarking on your particular ethnicity- just pointing out that the assumption that a society not being literate is therefore "primitive" and unworthy of recognition typifies a prejudicial attitude. Ethnocentric in this case means assuming that only Western European values are of any worth.

As for "bohemian", it does mean Czech ,(Bohemia), in its original meaning but it now has a different meaning. Read Paul Fussel for details.

You're an engineer-fine. Just because you are doesn't mean you can use science as a bludgeon in arguments.

Thanks for the reference. I've seen other material on the Iroquois and Mohawk contributions to democracy.

[ninjaplease]

"Ethnocentric in this case means assuming that only Western European values are of any worth."

This sounds like an argument you've prepared against someone else. I'm not arguing that western euro values are better. I blame the British empire for most of the issues facing the modern world.

[evagrius]

ninjaplease;

"This sounds like an argument you've prepared against someone else. I'm not arguing that western euro values are better. I blame the British empire for most of the issues facing the modern world."

Good. Then carefully examine what you wrote about Native Americans and their history. :)

[ninjaplease]

"Good. Then carefully examine what you wrote about Native Americans and their history. :) "

I've never discussed the issue before.

[evagrius]

""Communism is based upon the precept that if the priorities of the community are served then all benefit."

Yeah and the closest people to this are small groups of Eskimos, Inuit and American Indians, and look at how they governed: through virtual family royalty with a shaman for religious control & completely authoritarian. Interesting indeed, sounds like much of Medieval Europe on paper, atleast."

""Good. Then carefully examine what you wrote about Native Americans and their history. :) "

I've never discussed the issue before."

I think you did. :)

[run75441]

Ken Melvin:

What I am referring to is the Prticipation Rate (didn't I say that) which is the ratio between "Civilian Noninstitutional Population" and "Civilian Labor Force." As titled, it does not mean the entire US Population. I assumed this was common knowledge.

My Words from above:

"Before the anomaly of the dot.com explosion, when unemployment truly dropped to 4.7%, participation rate was at 66.8%. In Oct/Nov 2001; it returned to 66.8% after going bonkers in the 67+ percentile, an economic correction. From Oct/Nov 2001 till 2004 participation rate dropped to 65.8% (lowest since 1988?), a reversal of the upward trend of 40 years. Today it sits at 66.2% with economists, and this administration, touting a low unemployment rate of 4.7%. I do not believe anyone is seeing hints of massive wage driven inflation or a tightening labor pool with ~ 1.8 million people looking for work and not counted in the unemployment rate. Of course, unemployment is low when you count it against a smaller workforce in comparison to population."

BLS looks at this ratio monthly for Household Numbers. Many Economists and almost all pundits ignore Participation Rate and are stuck on Unemployment Rate. CBO mentioned it in one of there reports. Since Participation Rate has dropped, we are now measuring Unemployment against a smaller Civilian Noninstitutional Population.

Make sense?