John Edwards' Poverty Reduction Program

An article in the Washington Post on John Edwards' poverty reduction program brought this reaction from Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute:

The Post Gets It Wrong: Edwards' Poverty Policy is Just What’s Needed, by Jared Bernstein, TPM Cafe: The article criticizes Edwards for not bringing any new ideas to his signature issue: ... poverty reduction. But as someone who has studied this issue for decades, I can assure you of two things. First, there simply is no amazingly effective silver-bullet idea out there that we’ve somehow overlooked. And second, we know that some, not all, of the "old" ideas work. ... (Full disclosure: I’m not working with his campaign in any capacity, but I did write a chapter for a new book on these issues that Edwards edited.)

What’s particularly upsetting about the Post article is that they ignore a new, important report by the Center for American Progress (CAP) Task Force on Poverty that emphasizes many of the same ideas Edwards has been promoting...

Re political will, both the Edwards anti-poverty campaign and the CAP report support a poverty-reduction target, a tangible goal that will focus policy makers on the steps that need to be taken... This strategy of setting a poverty target has been highly effective in the UK.

Then there are the policies. Among others, Edwards stresses higher minimum wages, expanding the Earned Income Credit (a wage subsidy for low-income workers), second chance educational opportunities, an ambitious housing policy, and direct job creation for those whose boats don’t get a lift even in a strong economy.

That’s right, these are old ideas, but they work (and Edwards has some new ones too, like the poverty target and some asset-building ideas). In the 1990s, amidst truly tight job markets, a big EITC expansion, higher minimum wages, and welfare reform that spent more, not less, on training and work supports, we made huge progress against poverty. CAP did a careful analysis of the impact of their ideas, and found that they would reduce poverty by half, at a cost of $90 billion per year (hey, you don’t get something for nothin’ and, anyway, that’s about the value of Bush tax cuts to the top 1%). ...

Here’s what [Edwards] gets. It’s not just that those baking the pie ought to get fair slices. It’s not even the simple fact that too many poor people are playing by the rules yet still struggling to make ends meet... Nor is it the glaringly obvious fact that kids who grow up poor have tremendous disadvantages that it is in all of our interests to avoid. ...

[W]hat Edwards gets ... is that these inequities undermine America. ... So, don’t be moved be this critique of Edwards poverty policy. To the contrary, when it comes to this issue, he’s the guy to watch.

Greg Anrig follows up with an explanation of why Edwards supports housing vouchers, but not school vouchers:

More Piling on The Post's Edwards and Poverty Article, by Greg Anrig, Jr.: ...[W]hen we read an ill-informed piece like the one in today’s Washington Post dismissing John Edwards’ anti-poverty proposals, we get ... infuriated. ... In addition to Jared’s criticisms of the Post article, I’d add these (and I don’t have any connection to Edwards’ campaign either):

The Post says Edwards’ proposals "do not challenge liberal orthodoxies by, for instance, exploring private-school vouchers, even though ... the idea ... is justified by the same logic as Edwards’s housing voucher program: giving poor families a choice." But housing vouchers and school vouchers, as implemented in the real world, aren’t remotely analogous.

The whole purpose of housing vouchers is to enable people living in high-poverty neighborhoods to move to low-poverty locations (where schools also have low numbers of students from impoverished families). Abundant research has shown that the section 8 housing voucher program, for example, has produced a variety of successful outcomes. In contrast, school vouchers, as they have been carried out in cities like Milwaukee and Cleveland, shift students from high-poverty public schools to high-poverty private schools. No valid evidence exists to demonstrate that school vouchers have done any good. What’s important from a policy standpoints isn’t vouchers or "choice" per se, it’s providing a mechanism that can effectively get families and students out of high poverty settings. ...

Research is abundant showing that when families and children are able to move from high-poverty neighborhoods and high-poverty schools to middle-class neighborhoods and middle-class schools, they do much better by a variety of measures without imposing costs on those already in the middle-class setting (as long as large numbers of the poor don’t move to the same place). John Edwards understands that, but unfortunately the Washington Post reporter writing about his proposals doesn’t. ...

Comments

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/opinion/08herbert.html

May 8, 2007

More Than Just Talk
By BOB HERBERT

New Orleans

It was a nice moment. The sky was filled with thick, dark clouds and a monsoonlike storm was on its way, but there was the presidential candidate, John Edwards, in work boots, jeans and a navy blue shirt, talking with a handful of neighborhood people gathered outside a house that was being built in the Ninth Ward.

The former senator was there for a photo-op and the chat wouldn't last long. But the people, most of them young, were excited to see him. They listened thoughtfully and asked a number of questions.

The scene was immensely more appealing than the overly scripted televised "debates" that feature sleep-inducing nonanswers from an army of candidates browbeaten by moderators wielding stopwatches.

New Orleans has not been a hot topic at those upscale gatherings. Much of the city is still in ruins, still in "terrible shape," as Mr. Edwards noted. During a lengthy interview that followed his talk with the local residents, he told me that what had been allowed to happen to New Orleans was "an embarrassment for America" and that as president he would put the power of the federal government squarely behind its revival.

He said he would appoint a high-level official to take charge of the rebuilding, and he would have that person "report to me" every day. He said he would create 50,000 "steppingstone jobs," in parks, recreation facilities and a variety of community projects, for New Orleans residents who have been unable to find any other work. And he said, "We're also going to have to rebuild these levees."

(As if to underscore the last point, torrential rains on the same day as the interview caused dangerous flooding in the city. The levees were not an issue in this case. But the flooding occurred just as attention was being focused on serious flaws that have been found in repairs made to the levees after Hurricane Katrina.)

Mr. Edwards, who announced his campaign for the presidency in the Ninth Ward, has stood by his commitment to make poverty one of his big campaign issues. I mentioned that poverty has not gotten much attention from the national media, and asked why middle-class Americans should care about the issue.

"First, you should care because it's a moral issue," he said. "It tells us something about the character of our country. And, by the way, I think most people do care about it. And second, you should care because if you want to see the American economy grow and strengthen over time, the strength and breadth of the middle class is a critical factor. When we have middle-class families struggling on the edge, falling into poverty or near poverty, those things weaken the American economy."

It's not a good sign, said Mr. Edwards, to have so much of the middle class hanging on by its fingertips at the same time that the ranks of the poor are growing. There are about 37 million Americans living below the poverty line, five million more than when President Bush took office....

[anne]

Though Mark Thoma rightfully warns us that the coise during a time of war is not guns and butter but lives and butter, nonetheless we are squandering more than $15.8 billion a month directly on occupying Iraq as well as squandering lives there and here by default.

Remember when I repeatedly complained about using $8 billion a month as the amount of spending on Iraq. Well, notice carefully that we have gone from $8 billion a month in fiscal 2005 to $15.8 billion in fiscal 2007.

[anne]

Thinking of housing subsidies, we should remember how radically successful the housing subsidies to soldiers were through the 1950s; not to forget how successful the subsidies for colleges and universities were. Millions of students, including soldiers, were able to go freely to college from the 1930s through the 1950s.

["Choice" not "coise" above; I am growing steadily less observant.]

[robertdfeinman]

One of my "naive" essays deals with eliminating poverty. I suggest giving poor people money. Most poverty programs make the (paternalistic) assumption that poor people don't know how to deal with money and have to be told how to spend it. This leads to targeted disbursements like food stamps and housing subsidies.

I detail why most of these programs are based upon unacknowledged prejudices, many stemming from our religious underpinnings.

For the curious:

Eliminate US poverty

[yartrebo]

Here's my proposal: Give extra public resources to poorer areas instead of giving them less. Give the poorer schools lower student to teacher ratios as they need it. Buy out abandoned structures and either rebuild them (if there is a need for housing) or build parks/recreation if not. Locate the next convention center/office tower/other upscale item in that area, if only to get richer people's attention.

[ken melvin]

Most significant is the absence of denial. Since at least Sir Roland, Americans have pretended that poverty doesn't exist, and, even if it does, it's their own damned fault. TV discovered poverty for a brief time around Katrina, but again promptly lost it.

[cm]

robertdfeinman: You don't actually detail the motivations for avoiding cash alimony, and I would like to ask how do you propose to limit, ahem, "substitution effects", but I don't want to derail the discussion into speculative bickering about who is (ir)responsible with their spending and why.

[cm]

ken melvin: Attributing other people's misfortune to their own supposed shortcomings and faults (as opposed to one's own, which is the result of unfortunate external circumstances or conspiracies by other people) is not an exclusively US phenomenon.

[anne]

"Attributing other people's misfortune to their own supposed shortcomings and faults (as opposed to one's own, which is the result of unfortunate external circumstances or conspiracies by other people) is not an exclusively US phenomenon."

Ah; but we are so adept at just such fault-finding, and becoming more so.

[dissent]

I live near a housing project where the very poor are concentrated. ~1000 people live there, many kids and young adults. The project is being crowded by middle class developments. A few nights ago there was a burst of gunfire (AK47) at midnight and the next day some neighbors reported find bullet shells in their daughter's bedroom. I have lived here for 12 years, observed the dynamics of the neighborhood closely, and I am sure Edwards is right, that the segregation of the poor is part of the problem. The vouchers would have to be implemented carefully, so as to end this segregation. But this is the right approach.

I think that high concentrations of the very poor and dysfunctional are in and of themselves socially toxic. It is the segregated slums in France which exploded. Countries which do not permit such residential segregation in Europe have not had such problems. Social isolation is part of the dysfunction of the poor.

[ki]

Why do you think there is segregation? Do the rich or even middle class want there to be violence in their neighborhoods?

Explain to me how this desegregation would occur? If you just move poor families into middle class neighborhoods, they may be looked down upon and shunned. Or they might fit in. But move the whole ghetto into the neighborhood, and you will see the phenomenon of people moving out, the prices in the housing market of that neighborhood to drop, and once again..you will have a poor neighborhood.

It is unfortunate scenario...but it doesn't always work out the way we would/expect it to.

[ki]

People are very stereotypical and tend to associate things that are not necessarily true. For example... the poor and crime. They see on TV that there are shootings in areas that have a high population of poor people. And they associate these two factors, so why would the average American want this to move into their community. It seems as if they are avoiding this from happening as much as possible. IE. Higher housing cost in certain areas.

says...

Rich guys do not like to be with poor guys. If you send the poor guys where the rich guys are then the rich guy will move out.

[dissent]

It would be immoral to jail the poor. It is also immoral to trap them in large violent developments. Our policy also has insidious effects throughout society, from crime, drugs, gangs, to social alienation and 'banana republic' syndrome.

Every citizen is a member of OUR community as a nation, as a democracy. Edwards is right: this is a moral issue.

It is also a policy issue and it has to be done right.
The point of spreading out housing for the poor is not to overwhelm some new neighborhood with lotta lotta poor. Duh. The point is to keep the density LOW. Duh.

There is really no remedy for the illness so prevalent among Americans of hating other Americans. Hating the poor, the unemployed, the non-white, the outsourced, the "losers". The more we engage in this, the more we produce "losers" and the more likely we are to become "losers". We are on the skids, folks. The middle class has to get a grip, get some REAL values, get honest, and be tough or we'll lose what we've got. That's why I am for EDWARDS.

[calmo]

Well, I'm not equipped like TB is to talk about the poor, but I'd say that presidential candidates who require ~$100 M to participate, are in an even worse hole.
Even now the Python skit raises its distracting head and it is all I can do not to You Tube it.

This is luxury --being able to express a view about the Problem of Poverty (here, on the basis of Edward's contribution); being able to take the time out from mowing the grass (but esp mowing some other fathead's grass).
Something like 40 M have no health insurance in this country, but an untold portion do not have this luxury, surely an essential ingredient of health: the time to reflect on how things might go better for the overwhelming majority who are miles away from this "community" spirit; who are more likely to sink into depression if they had the luxury to ponder their circumstances; who are increasingly declining the option to participate in elections.
Could be Edwards (my favorite too dissent) is looking ahead to a much weaker middle class in 08 as the housing decline sobers up many who currently think they could help The Poor somewhat...and somewhat more in Nov/08.

[James Killus]

tb,

I also have spent substantial time in the midst of poverty and some near equivalents, and I'd like to add some suggestions to your "stop being poor," list.

1) Don't get sick. Being sick does a fair job of making you poor if you are not already poor, If you are already poor, it makes it nearly impossible to exert the sort of heroic effort that it takes to get substantial education without student aid.

2) Be very smart. In particular, do well on standardized tests. There's nothing like a poor background with very high test scores to get you into elite universities, and they'll give you the aid money.

3) Win the lottery. Lots of poor people are getting wealthy every week by winning the lottery. It's true that this then causes the sharks to descend, and often screws up their lives, but life is about taking risks. Besides, rich people sometimes make bad choices, too.

Which brings us to

4) Be born rich. This is like winning the lottery, only better, because there's a vast safety net stretched out to make sure rich people don't become poor. Trust funds are just the tip of the iceburg. Even more important is that you have a lot of rich relatives. If you slip up and develop a drug addiction, they'll usually come through for you, if only to avoid the scandal. Get into legal trouble and have to spend all your own wealth on legal fees? That kind aunt will toss a few extra million into your trust fund to top it off.

I have not known when his affections sway'd
More than his reason. But 'tis a common proof
That lowliness is young ambition's ladder,
Whereto the climber-upward turns his face;
But when he once attains the upmost round,
He then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend.
--Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare

[ken melvin]

Thanks James.

[anne]

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/Tragedy/juliuscaesar/juliuscaesar.2.1.html

1599

The Life and Death of Julius Caesar
By William Shakespeare

Act II. Scene I.

Rome. Brutus's orchard.

BRUTUS

It must be by his death: and for my part,
I know no personal cause to spurn at him,
But for the general. He would be crown'd:
How that might change his nature, there's the question.
It is the bright day that brings forth the adder;
And that craves wary walking. Crown him?--that;--
And then, I grant, we put a sting in him,
That at his will he may do danger with.
The abuse of greatness is, when it disjoins
Remorse from power: and, to speak truth of Caesar,
I have not known when his affections sway'd
More than his reason. But 'tis a common proof,
That lowliness is young ambition's ladder,
Whereto the climber-upward turns his face;
But when he once attains the upmost round.
He then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend. So Caesar may.
Then, lest he may, prevent. And, since the quarrel
Will bear no colour for the thing he is,
Fashion it thus; that what he is, augmented,
Would run to these and these extremities:
And therefore think him as a serpent's egg
Which, hatch'd, would, as his kind, grow mischievous,
And kill him in the shell.

[ki]

James

So how do you explain why some people are poor and then raise themselves out of poverty? Are they the ones who don't get sick and get a perfect score on the SATs? Come on!

Yea most people get sick, and yea if you can't afford to take a day off its hard to deal with being sick. But some people do deal with it. I think part of the issue is that some poor people don't know how to cope. And also they do not have people who believe in them. But they should also be willing to seek out support, to try to make a change that could put them in a better position in life. Even alcoholics have sponsors.

I think that some of them may be in those positions because they do not know how to seek out resources and help themselves.

My mother and I came over from a country which was formerly ruled by the Soviets. She had $68 in her pocket and that was about it. We stayed with a distant relative and by no means did we live anything like royalty, I would even venture to say that we live in poverty. But it was good enough, a place to stay. She cleaned houses for about 7 years. This was about 14 years ago, and since then she has climbed up the ladder I guess you could say. She is now a payroll accountant, and bought a house last year.

It was hard for her to be able to provide a good life for me, and she gave up many things in order to do that. And I benefited largely from that, I went to public schools, some not in that great of areas, but I always tried to do well.
The kids need encouragement, from their parents, family, and teachers. But don't try to blame the whole poverty thing on the government. Yea sure they could give more to the poor, help them out. But there are people that will take advantage of anything that is free, 'free-rider problem', so how do we know that we are really helping those that earnestly need the assistance and just aren't milking the system?

And as a middle-class American, sorry but I don't feel like giving up more of the little amount that I bring home. I would like to ensure the wellbeing of myself, selfish I know, and my future family. Dammit I think I deserve some security too. I work hard, thinking that I make what like $12 AN HOUR, WHEN I REALLY ONLY MAKE $8. Its hard to start out at a higher salary while in college.
If they really want to help why not help kids coming out of college get on their feet and start a life, buy a house. Maybe then so many would not get stuck in the rut of renting? At this rate I don't know how I will ever be able to afford a house since I am not a fortune trust fund baby and would not qualify for other assistance since I work. Give the working class a break for once.

[ki]

I am not trying to say that unfortune things don't happen, and that hard times can't strike, but simply that they must be willing to also put in the effort and want to get ahead.

And in this I do not mean to demean those who have gone through the terrible disaster of Katrina. I agree that they should have definateley gotten more assistance.
I certainly agree that when tragedy strikes, assistence is necessary but should not be a permanent crutch.

I am speaking of those who I see every day in the Northeast, specifically Boston. Kids who don't care and parents who don't care.

[SanFranciscoJim]

plans of the kind that caused the problem in the first place.

Oh, you mean there was no poverty before the social welfare programs of the New Deal and Great Society? And of course, there is no poverty at all in those countries with no social net.

Good to know that.

[ki]

TB: I agree. "Working smart and hard"!

A person has to be able to find a way to improve their own lives instead of depending on others to give them something.

My dad always says 'give a man a fish, he eats today. teach him to fish, and he can feed himself forever' or something along those lines, I believe its from the bible.
But my point is that instead of helping them by giving something to them, why not teach them how they can make their own lives better. Its always more rewarding when you earn something yourself. When you get a gift, its easier to squander it away on something useless.
But when you earn it yourself, you cherish it more. And I think are more apt to spend it wiser(unless you have credit cards ;))

[James Killus]

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. from Jingo by Terry Pratchett

I met a guy at a party a few months ago. Several years back, his then two-year old daughter developed lymphoma. "We were lucky," he told me. "It's both the most common kind, and most curable. All it cost me was my house. It was worth it."

I'm sure it was his own fault he didn't have health insurance that would have covered it. I mean, what with everybody being insurable, and health insurance being so cheap, without any loopholes in the coverage.

I happen to know a lot of people like the guy at the party, one way or another. I also know several who have become quite wealthy, and I don't begrudge them their good fortune, and I don't belittle or devalue the work they put into it. But I know people who have worked as hard or harder, who did not succeed so well, and I do not find them to be less virtuous.

It's a fairly good idea for those who are poor to believe that, with hard work and virtue, they can raise themselves up. It's not quite a pre-condition for the climb, but it's close.

The word "Providence" used to occur frequently in American discourse. At that time its primary meaning is now secondary: "The care, guardianship, and control exercised by a deity." Fortuna smiling on our ways. There was a certain amount of humility in that outlook.

"I did it, so can you, and if you don't, there's something wrong with you," is the antithesis of humility.

There’s a line in one of the letters written by John Adams where he’s telling his wife Abigail at home, ‘We can’t guarantee success in this war, but we can do something better. We can deserve it.’ Think how different that is from the attitude today when all that matters is success, being number one, getting ahead, getting to the top. However you betray or gouge or claw or do whatever awful thing is immaterial if you get to the top…

We walk around everyday, everyone of us, quoting Shakespeare, Cervantes, Pope. We don’t know it, but we are, all the time. We think this is our way of speaking. It isn’t our way of speaking – it’s what we have been given. The laws we live by, the freedoms we enjoy, the institutions that we take for granted – as we should never take for granted – are all the work of other people who went before us. And to be indifferent to that isn’t just to be ignorant, it’s to be rude. And ingratitude is a shabby failing.
-- David McCullough.

[anne]

Nicely done, James.

[ki]

Very good point. I was not trying to say that we don't need to have a social safety net. Obviously, shit happens, and as a nation we should be there to help those who fall.

But I stress that this should be temporary.

People should not take advantage of the system.

[reason]

TB...
Anecdotes are not evidence as every scientist will tell you. Yes some remarkable people have remarkable success. But so do some pretty lousy people (several are in the White House). But the evidence is just as James Killus suggested it is, economic mobility in America currently is very low, and notably lower than it was (and even lower than it is in Europe).

How many 150K jobs are there? Enough to go round? It is a competitive world, what makes you think everybody can win? The lottery really is a good example here, a few people win big, but most lose. It would be better to find models where everybody wins.

Now I agree, some people are unquestionably poorer because of their own behaviour. But without living exactly their life, I don't see how I'm in a position to judge them. But perhaps we can help them, if we make an effort understand them, to understand what will genuinely help them and to offer them whatever assistance proves effective.

[James Kroeger]

I know first hand that being poor is a direct result of choices we make.
Here's why you're wrong, TB... What do you suppose would happen if everyone made the right decisions, as you describe them? Would we all be enjoying the comforts of an affluent lifestyle? The answer is no.

The mistake you are making is the same one that many education professionals make when they suggest that education is the key to eliminating poverty. To see the flaw in this reasoning you need only to ask yourself what would happen if the educational system and the social system worked ideally and we all made every sacrifice needed until we all obtained Ph.D's? Unfortunately, we would still need the same number of people picking up the trash and fixing engines and building houses and driving trucks and waiting on tables, etc., etc. It's just that the people doing those jobs would all have Ph.D.'s.

This isn't to say that we all wouldn't be better off being highly educated; we would. But you're dreaming if you think that possessing all of the qualifications for a job means that you are guaranteed to get the job you trained for.

If we all had Ph.D.'s, then other criteria---other than educational achievements---would be used to determine who gets particular jobs and who doesn't. Perhaps the ones who would get the jobs---from amongst all of the candidates who possess the same technical qualifications---would be those who are friends/relatives of members of the hiring team, or perhaps they would go to those who are the most attractive, physically, or perhaps they would go to those who are most liberal in granting sexual favors.

Markets are markets, TB. The only reason why some jobs pay much more than other jobs is because the number of them are quite limited in number, or at least, the number of those who have the skills needed for the jobs are relatively scarce compared to the number of job openings. If everybody becomes highly educated, then possessing an advanced education simply wouldn't be worth much in the marketplace. Think of the diamonds vs. water paradox.

The only way it is possible for individuals to "succeed" exceptionally well in the marketplace is at the expense of others. We can't all be The Best. See Robert H. Frank's "The Winner-Take-All Society. It is exceptional performance that is rewarded by the marketplace.

You see, this is the fundamental flaw of the economic "solutions" proposed the the Republican Party. Yes, it's true that certain individuals can---through dilligence and hard work---rise above the pack, but we can't all rise above the pack. It is really unfortunate that more so-called 'Democrat Economists' do not point out the fatal flaw of the Republican Solution.

If you want to get a better grip on the problem of poverty and it's solution, you might want to begin by reading this.

[ken melvin]

ki and tb: Exceptions don't make the rule. Simple tales are for children to live by. Fact is there's only so much pie and that pie is distributed by fortune. One's fortune changes with the cards held. We individual mortals do get a chance to diddle the odds, but odds they be and the best and brightest, hardest working may fail and the pig dumb succeed. Now the pie's size can be increased from time to time with policy and a little bit of luck, but in the main there's only so much pie. There are only so many jobs, so the most diligent search doesn't produce a new job, it only affects the odds of one searcher get the job afore another. So, education , personality, etc. 'Tis true that those born w/o are more likely to go without throughout their lives. To better their odds, they must improve themselves relative to others. If everyone else improved the same amount, the individual's odds don't change at all.

[Lafayette]

tb: Interesting enough he did it with NO student aid.

Your fascinated by rags to riches stories, aren't you. They probably comfort your notion that being rich is simply a matter of individual will.

What pathetic nonsense. If it were just that simple the poor WOULD BE rich, everybody WOULD BE rich, and a caffé latté would cost everyone $5000.

NB: "rags to riches", wikipedia -
"These stories give the poor hope that they can rise to fame and wealth. They are most popular in societies such as the United States, where confidence in the ability to move between social classes is an important part of the national identity (even though some argue this ability is more of a myth than a reality - see Bowles, Gintis, and Osborne-Groves 2005)."

[dissent]

We tend to treat the idea that the poor are not deserving (and that is why they are poor) as an argument that should be addressed with evidence.

I prefer to look upon it as an attitude. It is an expression of hostility by Americans towards Americans.

It is clear that social spending can be an investment in developing our own citizenry. That is a moral good and also a social good. Consider: "Future workforce growth will come from older workers and from demographic groups in which, for a variety of reasons, dysfunctional and disadvantaged families are more prevalent."

Here's more:

In their paper "The Productivity Argument for Investing in Young Children," University of Chicago economist James Heckman (a Nobel Prize winner in 2000) and University of Michigan doctoral candidate Dimitriy Masterov marshal an impressive argument in support of early intervention preschool programs for children from disadvantaged backgrounds as the best tool for ensuring later success in life. The evidence compiled is conclusive. Children from such backgrounds who gain access to such programs are more likely to graduate high school, less likely to end up in jail, and will score higher on aptitude tests. And the longer society waits to try to fix the problem -- by boosting funding for secondary school education, or by providing tuition help for college, for example -- the less of a positive effect you will have.

For a civilized society, that should be enough, right? Helping out disadvantaged children at the point in their lives where it can do the most good is the obvious moral thing to do, isn't it? As the authors note, "most analyses have cast the issue of assisting children from disadvantaged families as a question of fairness or social justice."

But not Heckman and Masterov. For them, the real challenge is that the U.S. economy is facing a looming shortage of skilled workers.

The labor force is aging and young replacements for old workers are increasingly in short supply compared to the 1980s. The aging of the American workforce raises serious problems for the future of American productivity growth. The work force of prime-age workers, fueled by the entry of baby boomers, propelled U.S. economic growth in 1980-2000. However, we cannot count on this source of growth in the next twenty years. Indeed, the largest components of growth in the workforce will come from older workers as the Baby Boom cohort ages. Hence, a major source of vitality in the U.S. workforce will be lost. Future workforce growth will come from older workers and from demographic groups in which, for a variety of reasons, dysfunctional and disadvantaged families are more prevalent.

Not only are the baby boomers becoming decrepit, but "educational attainment rates" are stagnating. "College-going rates have stalled out" and "the high school dropout rate has increased over time if one counts GEDs as dropouts, as one should, because GEDs earn the same wages as dropouts, and graduate from college at the same rate as dropouts."

In short: The United States is faced with a dire crisis that needs no elaboration by tiresome moral or social equity considerations: "The growth in the quality of the workforce, which was a mainstay of economic growth until recently, has diminished." So get those poor kids from single-family households in the ghetto some quality preschool care! We need better workers!

link http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/05/01/chicago_preschool/index.html

[James Killus]

TB is obviously a lost soul, so I will address my remarks to ki (interesting moniker, though I doubt it has anything to do with Japanes martial arts).

But I stress that this should be temporary.

People should not take advantage of the system.

I recently spoke with a woman who was somewhat more than annoyed at her brother, who has some marginal mental illness, and who has decided that the best way to live is to stand by the road with a cardboard sign asking for handouts. Some years ago, he could probably have managed some disability under SSI, but that's astonishingly difficult these days. In any case, let's assume that he is, in fact, a lazy slob who is "working the system," to the extent that he could do better, he could hold down some modicum of a productive job, get a regular abode, and as the woman put it "show some pride."

Now let us consider Neil Bush, who was on the Board of an S&L whose bankruptcy cost taxpayers about $1 billion, and whose defense against criminal charges was basically that he was too imcompetent to know what was going on around him. He paid about $50,000 in civil penalties for "breaches of his fiduciary duties involving multiple conflicts of interest."

In 1997, he made about 3/4 of a million dollars on stock trades just before a company for which he was consulting announced good news. He insisted no insider trading was involved.

In 1957 the Soviet Union launched a space satellite, and the outpouring of federal money to science and engineering education essentially paid for my college degrees.

We all take advantage of the system. There is no such thing as temporary. Some of us take more expensive advantages than others.

[cm]

TB, ki: And when everybody shows enough determination, we won't have losers in Musical Chairs anymore too.

[James Killus]

cm,

See

http://unintentional-irony.blogspot.com/2007/05/playing-rent-iiilotteries-and-casinos.html

Cheers,

James

[save_the-rustbelt]

Edwards Discusses Time at Hedge Fund

May 8 04:17 PM US/Eastern
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) - AP Video Democrat John Edwards said Tuesday that he worked for a hedge fund between presidential campaigns to learn about financial markets and their relationship to poverty —and to make money too.
In an interview with The Associated Press, the former North Carolina senator said his yearlong, part-time position with Fortress Investment Group helped his understanding of the connection but he has more to learn. Edwards has made eradicating poverty a focus of his second White House bid...

(emphasis mine)

[dissent]

STR,
If you had to hire someone for a job which required a good understanding of economics, would the fact that they had worked for a hedge fund be a positive or a negative on their resume?

Forget Edwards. Is there anything useful to be learned from working for a hedge fund? Would you judge a job candidate negatively simply because they had worked for a hedge fund?

Thanks.

[Outside the Box]

Sociologist Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh did an interesting study of how the informal economy of Chicago's South Side works. He suggests that reducing gov red tape would allow the poor to better their lives by improving their ability to form more flexible informal small companies.

I think he has a point. Create the conditions for people to build a vibrant economy, and the industrious worker bees tend to do so. The prosperous portions of our country became that way via private initiative, not central planning.

Legitimate enterprises adhere to regulations that their ghetto counterparts have no chance of heeding. Businesses in Maquis Park are wont to pay below minimum wage; they are not overseen by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; they frequently lack licenses. Permits, whatever their virtues, make little sense in so mutable a business climate. A shop owner might be selling car parts one day, cutting hair the next. City regulations simply bear no relation to the realities of Maquis Park markets, and every layer of red tape widens the space between marginalized and mainstream entrepreneurs.

Ghetto Capitalists Book Review

[Outside the Box]

ki...move the whole ghetto into the neighborhood, and you will see the phenomenon of people moving out...

That is actually what happened to many cities. The main mistake made was not running a criminal background check on people before relocating them. Criminals were relocated into neighborhoods under various programs, and the increased crime caused the middle class to flee. After awhile, virtually the entire city fell into decay because the middle class moved to the suburbs.

If new voucher programs relocate criminals into the suburbs, the suburbs will also become high crime. The middle class will flee once again, and the suburbs will deteriorate. Moving poor people who don't commit violent or property crime into a neighborhood would probably be okay. The middle class is not willing to live next to criminals, or let their children be abused by criminals in the public school system. Moving even a few criminals into a neighborhood or school can destroy it.

[cm]

Closing blockquote ...

[cm]

James Killus: Thanks. Bookmarked it, but will have to read it later.

[calmo]

James,
Link to unintentional irony blog, unintentionally not working...maybe twas intentional and I B fooled again...

[Outside the Box]

Thanks cm. I forgot a solidus in my HTML.

[ghetto medic]

Ken and James ...Fact is there's only so much pie and that pie is distributed by fortune...
Your philosophy sounds like a throwback to the medieval philosophy where EVERYTHING (including intangibles, such as love) was limited in quantity and distributed by fortune alone. Forgive me if I cannot remember the name, but it has been a long time since my undergrad years; however, in the intervening centuries, with the exception of politicians and class warfare theories, that theory has been pretty much discarded. Yes, it can be said that fortune does play a role in our lives, but it is not the only determinant. As TB, Ki and others have mentioned, the choices a person makes go a long way to determining success or failure. After 20 years of working in the ghetto, the formula never changes: Those residents who take responsibility for their own choices, work hard, get an education, plan for the future, and care for their family (Lots of illigetimate children or multiple divorces tend to be deal-breakers) are usually able to get out of the ghetto, and that is the first thing they do. The ones who are out running around until the wee hours of the morning on school nights are the ones who never leave and end up living on the dole, making excuses and blaming everybody else for their choices as will their children....
No, the people who make it out of the 'hood will most likely not end up in Beverly Hills, and everybody who makes the right choices and works hard is not guaranteed a ticket out, but it is a better start than a bunch of excuses. Life is not fair and even the government cannot make it so, no matter how much money, or how many politician's utopian campaign promises are thrown at the problem. If politicians and the government really want to increase the odds of success, rather than throwing money, blame, and excuses at the problem; they should try lowering some of the government-created barriers to entry and encourage people to start their own businesses, further increasing the number of available jobs. Also, they should put those resources they would have wasted on utopian programs to work policing people who try to take advantage of the system (more jobs...).
Yes, we do need a safety net for unforseen catastrophes and for those poor souls who simply cannot (cannot, not will not) get traction; however, that safety net should never be a way of life.

[anne]

Ah, we have a medic, a real medic to fix things:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/health/22infant.html?ex=1334894400&en=5d5d40b319346648&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

April 22, 2007

In Turnabout, Infant Deaths Climb in South
By ERIK ECKHOLM

HOLLANDALE, Miss. — For decades, Mississippi and neighboring states with large black populations and expanses of enduring poverty made steady progress in reducing infant death. But, in what health experts call an ominous portent, progress has stalled and in recent years the death rate has risen in Mississippi and several other states.

The setbacks have raised questions about the impact of cuts in welfare and Medicaid and of poor access to doctors, and, many doctors say, the growing epidemics of obesity, diabetes and hypertension among potential mothers....

"I don't think the rise is a fluke, and it's a disturbing trend, not only in Mississippi but throughout the Southeast," said Dr. Christina Glick, a neonatologist in Jackson, Miss., and past president of the National Perinatal Association.

To the shock of Mississippi officials, who in 2004 had seen the infant mortality rate — defined as deaths by the age of 1 year per thousand live births — fall to 9.7, the rate jumped sharply in 2005, to 11.4. The national average in 2003, the last year for which data have been compiled, was 6.9. Smaller rises also occurred in 2005 in Alabama, North Carolina and Tennessee. Louisiana and South Carolina saw rises in 2004 and have not yet reported on 2005.

Whether the rises continue or not, federal officials say, rates have stagnated in the Deep South at levels well above the national average.

Most striking, here and throughout the country, is the large racial disparity. In Mississippi, infant deaths among blacks rose to 17 per thousand births in 2005 from 14.2 per thousand in 2004, while those among whites rose to 6.6 per thousand from 6.1. (The national average in 2003 was 5.7 for whites and 14.0 for blacks.)

The overall jump in Mississippi meant that 65 more babies died in 2005 than in the previous year, for a total of 481.

The toll is visible in Hollandale, a tired town in the impoverished Delta region of northwest Mississippi....

[anne]

Thanks for the medic, the real medic....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/opinion/l26south.html

Infant Deaths: Shame of a Nation

To the Editor:

"In Turnabout, Infant Deaths Climb in South":

When my colleagues and I started a community health center in the Mississippi Delta in the 1960s, we estimated the actual black infant mortality rate in our area at nearly 60 per thousand live births.

The causes were abysmal poverty, wide unemployment, crumbling shacks, outright malnutrition, contaminated water and lack of transportation.

We addressed those problems, in addition to providing desperately needed medical care. The infant mortality rate dropped sharply.

Those causes persist, now worsened by deep cuts in Medicaid and welfare.

The consequence of shredding the social safety net is more dead black (and white) babies. No health service can overcome the effects of social policies that devastate the lives of the poor.

This is not just a health problem; it is a measure of our moral commitment to a fair chance for survival. We should be enraged, and ashamed, that these preventable excess deaths continue, and increase, among us.

H. Jack Geiger, M.D.
Brooklyn, April 25, 2007
The writer was a founding member and national coordinator of the Medical Committee for Human Rights....

[ki]

Ghetto medic, I appreciate your comments. You have verbalized my opinion better than I have myself. I am still in college, and obviously not very wise, and sometimes I tend to drift off topic.

I agree with you. And below are some of my experiences that relate.

"The ones who are out running around until the wee hours of the morning on school nights are the ones who never leave and end up living on the dole, making excuses and blaming everybody else for their choices as will their children.... "

My family was never rich, and probably will never be rich. But we made it out of poverty. I went to some pretty poor schools (Roxbury, MA..if you know what that is like) but I had something that I think a lot of the kids who went to the same schools didn't. My mother always encouraged me to do well in school and work hard. And SHE SET A GREAT EXAMPLE. When we first came to the US, she worked a lot of jobs, cleaning houses and such. And ever since I could remember, she has had at least two jobs. She still does because otherwise she wouldn't be able to afford the mortgage.
Maybe I was lucky that my hard work payed off, maybe I was born smart. I don't know, form your opinions as you wish. What I will tell you guys is that I worked hard. Instead of going out at 10pm or skipping school in middle school, I studied.
I think back to when I was in middle school in Roxbury, the kids would sometimes be so disruptive that sometimes we would not go over anything in the entire class period. Is that fair to the other students, who go to learn? No. Life isn't fair.
I think what a lot of those kids lack is RESPECT and DISCIPLINE. And that is not the governments fault. It is those who raised them. Obviously sometimes good kids do fall into the wrong crowd. But what about those parents who don't even care? They are responsible for teaching their children to be good citizens and to be respectful. Otherwise the kids will not respect anyone, including the parents, and by the time they are in high school it becomes very difficult for them to change.

Again I stress that the safety net is necessary, but it should not be a permanent solution. I refuse to pay for others to permanently live without working(those whose are capable of working), while I have to work my ass off! Is that equality? I should work myself to death because I want to create a good life for my family, while others do nothing. I am not a complete meanie, I do not propose that no one deserves aid, but those that deserve it on a non temporary basis are those that are not capable, mentally or physically, of providing themselves with a decent living. And if tragedy strikes, of course there needs to be a mechanism that will help the family get back on their feet.
I am not saying that if your house burns down, or if it is carried away by a tornado or raging waters, that you deserve to live on the street. But those people are the exceptions in poverty, they are the ones that transition fairly quickly through the system and are back on their feet.

"No, the people who make it out of the 'hood will most likely not end up in Beverly Hills, and everybody who makes the right choices and works hard is not guaranteed a ticket out, but it is a better start than a bunch of excuses."

Totally agree! Obviously not everyone can get a job making $150K, I probably wont be able to do that and I am going to college. But these people will be able to maybe afford a humble house which their children can inherit when they grow up, instead of living off of someone else's money. I dont know about other cities or states but when I drive through the projects in Boston, there are so many people just hanging around. Why don't they work, volunteer(ie give back to their commmunity), do something? Maybe because they dont have a good role model. And I know that there are also people in these communities who try to help, and I very much respect them for their efforts. But I have a feeling that these people get worn out and sometimes think whats the point? Exactly what is the point? When young adults make up their minds it is very difficult to persuade them otherwise. They think its cool to ditch school, drink , do drugs, join gangs, be tough. I think what we need is what someone mentioned earlier, is for these kids to have support early on in schools. Lots of politicians in this area have claimed that education is one of their top priorities, yet I don't notice too much of a change in Boston Public Schools. They need to teach these kids, especially from poorer backgrounds, to have discipline and that there are options for everyone.
Education is key, not because if you are smart you will get ahead, but because it will help them analyze issues, think for themselves, and to make better choices. Also they might find something that they are passionate about.

Anne,
And as for healthcare, yes it is a pittance that not every child can receive proper medical care. Maybe we should look to Canada and give EVERYONE healthcare! I also think its much too expensive for the average family. It's outrageous! But again I am selfish and I do not want to pay additional taxes unless I benefit. Sorry to all of you philanthropists, but I cannot afford to pay more taxes, I think a 1/3 is enough.

Why dont I deserve health care on the cheap? I'll tell you why...I still live with my parents, and am part of their household. The three of us make too much to need assistance. Hahaha..what a joke! My stepfather can't keep a job because he is an alcoholic, and my mother works two jobs so that she can keep paying the bills and mortage.
So because some people want something for nothing she should have to work harder to keep what she has worked all her life for? Is that equality? Is is FAIR that people and families work hard and take home 2/3 of what they earn and then have to pay the mortage, bills, for insurance? And then have barely enough for food and such. I think she deserves to be able to enjoy her life too, but no she will probably spend the rest of her life working herself to death. But hey that is fair!!! So that the poor can have a good living too RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT!
Yes everyone should have a good life, but you know what sometimes that comes with sacrifice. I have a feel that some of these 'Poor' don't have the integrity and willingness to work hard to rise up out of their demise. Again, not all, some! I not talking about those who really need this help because they have no other options.

(To James, I do not mean that people with disablities that do not have any support system should be abandoned. On the contrary it is people like them that should be receiving support)

One more thought, which is off topic. Has anyone else ever seen an Escalade in the projects? I have and this is why I am taking this point of view. I know their money is most likely illegal. And you know what...I don't mind that as much. They want to deal their drugs to markets that demand it. Fine with me. But they have no right to claim that they are poor!! NONE! If you have a car like that then you obviously make money, under the table. Use of the system. They are basically stealing from those that need it. If there weren't people like that then there would be more to go around for those that really need the help!

[ki]

TB: "And I can't tell you how many times I have heard from them and from those in the community "The government doesn't care about us, the government isn't doing enough to better our lives""

Very interesting. I have not experienced this myself, but this is what I imagine that they do. I mean sometimes I do this myself, watch the call game with some friends, have some beers have some fun. But if they are so poor, why drink beer? Why not pay for those bills instead.
I know that every one needs recreational fun activities. But not all of these have to cost money.

But on with my point. I agree TB.

Also, I find it very common that a lot of people LOVE TO BLAME OTHERS FOR THEIR MISFORTUNES! I know because I have done this a lot myself. But one day I realized that blaming others was actually holding me back. This led to me taking a lot more responsiblity for my actions. If I mess something up, OK fine, lets deal with it and move on.

Guys, blaming the government for all the things that you are unhappy about is not going to solve anything. Obviously there are some, or even a lot of things that they don't do well, but it is a big machine with a lot of turning parts and its hard to make even one part turn in the opposite direction.
So instead of blaming the government for why you are poor, blame yourself, that is if you sit on your ass all day and complain that you don't get anything for free!

[ki]

TB: "And I can't tell you how many times I have heard from them and from those in the community "The government doesn't care about us, the government isn't doing enough to better our lives""

Very interesting. I have not experienced this myself, but this is what I imagine that they do. I mean sometimes I do this myself, watch the call game with some friends, have some beers have some fun. But if they are so poor, why drink beer? Why not pay for those bills instead.
I know that every one needs recreational fun activities. But not all of these have to cost money.

But on with my point. I agree TB.

Also, I find it very common that a lot of people LOVE TO BLAME OTHERS FOR THEIR MISFORTUNES! I know because I have done this a lot myself. But one day I realized that blaming others was actually holding me back. This led to me taking a lot more responsiblity for my actions. If I mess something up, OK fine, lets deal with it and move on.

Guys, blaming the government for all the things that you are unhappy about is not going to solve anything. Obviously there are some, or even a lot of things that they don't do well, but it is a big machine with a lot of turning parts and its hard to make even one part turn in the opposite direction.
So instead of blaming the government for why you are poor, blame yourself, that is if you sit on your ass all day and complain that you don't get anything for free!

[ki]

sorry for the double post. :)

[reason]

ki...
I don't think you understand - most of the people who post on this blog are comfortably off. It's not a personal thing, we just want to live in a more equal society.

[reason]

ki, TB,
please understand details count. I know there were severe problems to the way poverty programs were implemented in the past. Important mistakes were made (especially housing estates exclusively for the poor and high effective marginal tax rates on low earners). Hopefully, new programs will avoid these mistakes. But there is a big danger that the next generation growing up in poverty will pay an enormous price for the errors of their parents. Equality of opportunity is hopefully what this is all about. Equality of outcome is no chance anyway.

[cm]

calmo: As previously noted, long lines are clipped in the display, but they are there. You have to triple-click them (to select the whole line) and copy the selection with Ctrl-C as you would otherwise do.

[anne]

"Sorry to all of you philanthropists, but I cannot afford to pay more taxes, I think a 1/3 is enough."

As with all else, this is of course nonsense. The only purpose is to pretend and deceive, but no matter keep on paying 1/3 in taxes while I pay a whole whole whole lot less. Must be all the beer and television. The nonsense is not even interesting, when the only thing that bothers the pretenders has nothing whatsoever to do with where spending is really aimed. Lots of nice family portraits and sentiment though.

[Lafayette]

ki: Has anyone else ever seen an Escalade in the projects? I have and this is why I am taking this point of view. I know their money is most likely illegal. And you know what...I don't mind that as much. They want to deal their drugs to markets that demand it. Fine with me. But they have no right to claim that they are poor!!

You’ve seen ONE Escalade in the projects and so THEY are not poor? Please, a bit of common sense.

This is biased anecdotal evidence. Have a look at the statistical numbers of those who live below the threshold of poverty. They certainly do not all drive Escalades. They were born in poverty and there is the greatest possibility that they will die in poverty.

In America, these people are roadkill on the highway to riches. Who cares about them? The politicians will show concern over the next few years, but after the elections it will be "business as usual". Bill C., with his bucolic Arkansas origins, never looked back once he left middle-America - never to come return. He paid only lip-service to poverty, preferring to hobnob with rich Silicon Valley executives.

America has done NOTHING for the poor since the Great Society of LBJ - and that dissipated quickly like the morning dew.

Has anyone ever seen, in the Democrat Party, a well-reasoned comprehensive program to significantly and permanently reduce poverty levels in America in the past 25 years? It takes more than tweaking tax levels, believe me.

[ki]

Lafayette: What do you propose we do then? How do we lessen poverty?

[ki]

I apoligize for the escalade comment. It is biased and I do not claim to be unbiased. I also do not claim to be wise or experienced, I am just trying to communicate why I feel like I am not being treated equally.

As to common sense, how much common sense does it take to see that as hard as we try, we will not all be equal! No offence but I do not see how this can possibly happen since according to economic principles people seek out their self-interest. Isn't that why people try to be better, rise above the rest?

From the little history I have studied and experienced, I take it that equality was the goal of communism. It failed terribly. The government was corrupt and the system didn't work.

As for my comments disagree with them all you like. I appeciate constructive critism. I am still trying to learn and understand how the world works. Forgive me if I only see black and white, but I am trying to see the colors.

Also, very sharp comment on the politicians :)

[Lafayette]

Can we take a moment for some perspective regarding taxation? Here are ranked Total Taxation levels as a percentage of GDP (2003) from the OECD:

Japan: 25.3
US: 25.8
UK: 35.6
(Europe of 19 countries: 39.4)
France: 43.4
Germany: 43.4
Denmark: 48.3
Sweden: 50.8

So, before harping about taxes, consider how low yours are in the US. And, if they are higher in Europe, attribute the fact to better public services (including quasi-total health car, education and transportation - just to name a few).

You wanted low taxes to be able to buy all ya wannabuy? Ya got 'em. Why complain? About costly private health care. About a university education that puts people in debt. About a transportation system based uniquely on road and air. About social services (for the family, for children, for the elderly) that are practically non-existent?

Why complain? Not enough BigMacs to go around?

[ki]

reason,

I understand that you want equality, and I am not trying to berate you for your kindness and generous heart.
I also hope the new programs don't make the same mistakes. But I also think that it will take time for the mistakes in the program to be undone. Maybe there is hope for more equality. It would be nice to have efficient programs wouldn't it.

I just find it hard to know what to believe and what to think. And I guess I as well am fascinated with rags to riches stories, and the American dream. When I came to the US with my mother, I remember how I had pictured this place to be perfect. But it is not and I realize it, however, I believed in the American dream growing up. I thought that if I tried hard enough I could do anything. Now I dont know what to think.

[James Killus]

ghetto medic,

I have searched through my posts and I am unable to find one in which I said there's only so much pie and that pie is distributed by fortune. Neither sentiment correspnds to my actual opinion, though I will note that language matters, and there is a reason why young men are said to set forth in the world to make of find their "fortune."

It is quite true that the poverty that exists in a ghetto often extends to a poverty of spirit. Indeed, I believe that this spiritual impoverishment often persists long after those who leave their early circumstances to better material surroundings so often still show such strong evidence of "imposter syndrome" and come to despise those still mired in their own remembered circumstances, as if by denying the sentiment "there but for the grace of God go I" they can exorcise their own inner divisions. In fact, they only deepen them.

But how exactly do you consider circumstances of birth as something other than Fortuna? I can point to any number of men, who, if not for being members of what my father-inlaw calls the "lucky sperm club," would be in jail, or dead, as their behaviors are very much the sort that would get a ghetto-born individual those outcomes. Can you name for me a Bush, or Kennedy, or Rockefeller whose present circumstances is not a matter of family connections? People move through the world via their personal associations; if those you knew in childhood become bankers, then you probably have money in your future. If they are dead or in jail, then there's a much better chance that you will be on the wrong side of the law.

My bottom line is this: the poor gain nothing from your opprobrium, the well-to-do do not gain from your council, and the wealthy really don't care what you think. I quite agree that it is an excellent idea for everyone to take responsibility for their own actions, and to avoid blaming others when things go awry. Again, however, I note that a poor youth with this failing has good odds of winding up in jail; a rich one may become President.

TB says, "Only a monster would think that somebody who want people to EARN a good living is somehow a lost soul."

This is pity, he thought, and then he lifted his head in wonder. He thought that there must be something terribly wrong with a world in which this monstrous feeling is called a virtue. -- The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand

[ki]

Lafayette:

The reason why the taxation in the US upsets me I guess is that in my naive mind I am practically not getting anything for that money that I pay into it. Yea we have roads and such.
I guess you get what you pay for. They pay more and get more.

[James Killus]

calmo,

Otherwise, just Google killus irony. Such are the advantages of a rare last name.

[anne]

"Forgive me if I only see black and white, but I am trying to see the colors."

A nice comment; and I will try better to remember the same.

[calmo]

Jeeze I'm getting unwarranted attention.
Still, thank you cm (triple clicking...I'm heading for Parinson's with this.) and James...I could not resist being foibled by that mask "unintentional irony". Pray tell, don't the other varieties sink like a stone despite all that brave skipping?

[ki]

Thank you Anne.

I am just a college student trying to understand others' points of views, even though at times I may get heated with my own views. A lot of my comments are hastily written about what I happen to be thinking at the moment and examples from my own life. And I know that what I experienced is not what others do, although others may experience similar scenarios.

I try to see the logic behind what others say and sometimes I do find that even though I did not know it I agree with the factuality of their statements. Other times I disagree.
It is difficult (for me at least) to be open minded and I know that I sure do fail often.
I question your posts to try to understand your concepts more clearly. I do not mean to insult anyone, and if I have: I apoligize. I have much to learn.

[Lafayette]

ki: They pay more and get more.

If you can make the American people understand that simple fact, it would be a small step towards remedying one of the worst income inequity situations on this planet.

There's a long road to haul before Americans understand. It's a young nation, perhaps in another hundred years or so?

[ki]

It may also be that we don't look to other countries for examples, but instead think that we are the country to which others should look to.

You are right, the US is a young country. And like anyone who is young, they think they know better than the old folks. It is not til later in life that they gain perspective and wisdom.

We should look at other countries and analyze and compare it to our own systems. But the leaders are too much into self-image and are too proud to try to better our systems by examples of others. They know that the US is the best, supreme, whatever. But they ought to be careful, since all great empires fall and history repeats itself.

[James Killus]

calmo,

Unintentional irony is what I fear. Ambiguous irony is what I practice, or so it seems.

There are those who argue that everything breaks even in this old dump of a world of ours. I suppose these ginks who argue that way hold that because the rich man gets ice in the summer and the poor man gets it in the winter things are breaking even for both. Maybe so, but I'll swear I can't see it that way.
-- found in the typewriter of William Barclay Masterson at the time of his death

[Holly W.]

TB, you state: I am not remarkable, yet I now make in a single year, what I made in 20 years from age 17 to 37. And 5 years from now I will have double that again.

Even assuming you only made a couple thousand dollars a year between ages 17 and 21, and then, say, $15k a year after that, you must be making about $250 annually now, which would put you solidly in the top 1% or so of income earners. Or let's say you're making only $150k, which still puts you in the top 5%, and then you expect to be making $300k five years from now.

This strikes me as fairly remarkable. Would you like to share just what it is you do to make all this money, and give the rest of us a little better advice about how to reach these rarified heights of income ourselves than just "work hard, pay your own way through school, and don't drink beer on week nights"?

[James Kroeger]

It isn't education that is the key it is SKILLS, of which education is as subset.
I'm afraid you're still not getting it, TB. In any market, there is only a certain amount of [derived] demand for particular skill sets. (The demand for that skilled labor is ultimately derived from the market demand for the product being produced). If every individual in the labor force possessed those same skills, then they would be worth very little to those who employ those skills---tremendous supply vs. very limited demand.

Another point you are not getting is that, while working hard is a necessary condition for becoming rich, but it is not a sufficient condition. Let's imagine a world where there is such a high demand for human resources, it is possible for everyone to work 10 hours per day and get paid for it. Would we all be rich? No.

The reason why the rich will always be with us is because the highest-quality, most desirable 'experience opportunities' are very limited. There is only so much beach front property, so much mahogany that can be harvested, only so many of the Best restaurants/scenic views/entertainers/etc. This scarcity is what guarantees that there will always be a limited number of rich people, period.

In a market economy, the people who get to experience these limited 'experience opportunities' are those who are able to outbid all others for them because they have more money at their disposal. With this in mind, now ask yourself what would happen if everyone worked hard (longer hours) and earned more money for doing so. What happens if all these people who now have more money try to buy the rare experience opportunities (luxuries) that they always wanted to possess? The answer is that the price of all those luxuries would be driven up until only those at the top of the hierarchy of disposable income distribution would be able to purchase them.

Everyone may be richer in dollars, but not everyone is going to be able to own/experience the rarest of 'experience opportunities.' They will still be auctioned off by the marketplace to the highest bidder. The number of Rich People is determined by relative scarcity, not by money accumulations. This is where your 'solution' fails, TB. It's not enough to simply make more money in order to be among those who have a claim to the scarcest of 'experiece opportunities', you need to acquire more disposable income than everyone else. We can't all obtain more income than everyone else.

There is nothing wrong with being rich, TB. Somebody has got to have the 'right' to experience the rarest of 'experience opportunities' (travel opportunities, the opportunity to experience the rarest of art objects, etc.). But do you see why it is ultimately disigenuous to suggest to people in general that they can all become rich if they work harder and make the right decisions and that they have themselves to blame if they do not?

You would do well to consider revising your views on this topic...

says...

I'm fairly convinced that Anne, Maria, Lafayette and the 2 letter people are all the same person: Mark.

[Mark Thoma]

That's so dumb it's funny. Even the slightest bit of thought would convince you that couldn't possibly be true.

Now let me make a guess. I'm pretty sure the person making this comment is Ninjaplease. Hey, what do you know, I'm right!

I'm not sure what this was supposed to accomplish, but be ninja enough to use your tag when making accusations.

[Lafayette]

ki: It may also be that we don't look to other countries for examples, but instead think that we are the country to which others should look to.

When deliberating over her health plan, Hilary is reported to have investigated the system in Quebec, which is the closest in North America to the French one (selected as best by the WHO in a global survey in 2000). What good did it do her?

The AMA and K-street lobbyists made sure that her efforts to change the American health care was stillborn.

All state policy is inevitably a matter of choice. In the option between "guns" (toys for our boys) and "health", America systematically selects the former. Change that mentality and America has a chance of having a health care system worthy of a developed nation.

Sorry, but, for the moment, in the blablabla forming amongst Dem candidates I see nothing being said that will change matters - except a mad dash for implementing the Romney Plan, which is based upon private practice medicine and therefore destined to change NOTHING in its aberrant cost structure.

(NB: Let's remember that the prevalent weighting factor in the WHO survey was accessibility to health care services. Though extending coverage to all residents in a state, the Romney Plan based upon private health care is still too expensive and constitutes a barrier to access for a great many people.)

American politics is dependent upon the umbilical cord of money that ties politicians to K-street lobbyists.

It's dead simple. Cut the money cord. Definitively. Have political elections paid for by the state at local and the government at federal levels.

How do you get the law changed? Good question. We've been trying for two decades and getting nowhere. Which only testifies to the influence of K-street in Washington. The power of money to manipulate in American politics is what pollutes America's so-called "democracy" - which is nice in principle and rotten in fact.

America has distanced itself greatly from the days of Kennedy's "Profiles in Courage". You've come a long way, baby. But, the wrong way.

[Outside the Box]

Good points. The Founders planned to deal with the problem with an elaborate series of checks and balances. The 16th amendment removed one of the checks, which allowed lobbies to infiltrate Washington en masse. Before 16, there was not enough loot for the lobbies to pilfer, so they didn't much bother.

The Founders did make other mistakes, such as not anticipating political parties. The Pres was supposed to act in the national interest by vetoing spending that served special interests at the expense of the national interest. However, if the Pres is the head of the political party that rules Congress, he mostly just rubber stamps special interest bills passed by Congress. George Washington was so appalled at the danger political parties posed to the checks/balances that he warned the public about them in his Presidential farewell address.

No system is perfect, I guess. Maybe a new amendment will one day pass that reigns in the special interest groups a bit. They really are an expensive problem.

[Lafayette]

whoever: I'm fairly convinced that Anne, Maria, Lafayette and the 2 letter people are all the same person: Mark.

I am personally flattered to be seen in such pleasant company ... even if only virtually.

[Lafayette]

jk: But do you see why it is ultimately disigenuous to suggest to people in general that they can all become rich if they work harder and make the right decisions and that they have themselves to blame if they do not?

Not only indigenous but a con. The media makes you think that YOU can be one of THEM, just shut up and work hard all your life.

It is also a statistically flaky premise. As I recall, the statistical probability that an American citizen will become a millionaire (or more, that is, possess a million dollars or more) by means of business is about the same as winning a lottery. That is, it is infinitesimally small. (But, admittedly, it is increasing daily, due to both real estate speculation and inflation.)

So, why sweat? Buy a lottery ticket and kiss her when Lady Luck smiles at you. In the meantime, it would be more convincing where we to tax the hell out of high incomes and spend the money on public services.

That is more than a sure bet.

[Lafayette]

tb: Your perpetual social safety net takes that away from people, I don't just know it, I LIVED it.

Bollocks again, tb.

What you WANT and what is happening are altogether two different things. The first is a wish the second is reality.

In any given country on earth, there are those who will succeed tremendously and those who will drop by the wayside. It is society's moral objective to reduce both exaggerations of reality.

Nobody being left behind is simply the community assuring that all people live a decent life. And, this does not happen all by itself in any modern economy. It must be promoted by the state.

Nobody getting too far ahead is assuring that the political equation is not disturbed by inordinate financial wealth. Along the philosophical lines, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

History explains that the latter is, most generally, the norm. Read a bit of political history. It has much to teach you.

[ki]

Lafayette:
"All state policy is inevitably a matter of choice. In the option between "guns" (toys for our boys) and "health", America systematically selects the former. Change that mentality and America has a chance of having a health care system worthy of a developed nation."

Very good point. I also think that America, as a nation, need to change their viewpoint.
Also thanks for your concise explanation of how US politics works. :)

[Lafayette]

TB, you've lost all credibility.

Have a nice debating with yourself.

[reason]

Lafayette,
looks like you took my advice before I gave it.

TB
Yes the reality is that the Leftwing in this country is taking more and more of our freedoms away while in the process destroying more and more lives with the programs they implement.

Curious TB I could have SWORN the right wing had been in control! Wait what country are you in?-)

[Holly W.]

OK, TB, so you were living on $3500 a year or less. Could you elaborate on what government aid you were receiving? I'm not being snarky here; it's just that my understanding is that welfare (AFDC) in its pre-1994 existence was aimed mostly at female-headed families, and while I could be mistaken, your posts make me assume you're male. I didn't get the impression that aid to men was ever very generous or easy to obtain. It also seems to me that aid to families has been very much tied to working since the mid-'90s. So a history of what you've experienced might be very enlightening to those of us who grew up as and remain solidly middle class or higher.

I'm also curious as to how living on such a low income made you comfortable enough that you didn't feel the need to seek a better life until you were in your thirties?

I just think a bit more specific backstory would better explain your position on these issues and allow people to empathize with you rather than antagonize you.

[Holly W.]

Then how about what the people around you were getting? You've been insisting that it's government aid that keeps poor people down; all I'm asking for is some specific examples of what makes this assistance so appealing that people receiving it want to stay poor. You say you've seen this with your own eyes, so you must have something to tell the rest of us about how it works. I'd honestly like to know.

[Holly W.]

TB, it's this line from one of your posts that intrigues me: I put it to you that those who support the social safety net are the monsters, monsters who trap people in poverty, shackled by government handouts. I have seen and felt to the core of my soul the pain, misery and despair in the eyes of loved ones and I hold YOU social safety netters responsible for the destruction of their lives.

Lovely bit of prose, that. But this is what I'd like more concrete examples of.

[Holly W.]

TB -- While I was at lunch, it occurred to me that I'd still like to know more about your own story. What were you doing for the first 37 years of your life? What finally made you decide to do something different? How did you make the changes required to improve your lot? Did you go to school, or finally get a job with a career ladder that allowed you to move up? Did an employer see your potential and encourage you? Your achievements sound very inspiring; I'd like to know more about how you attained them.

[James Killus]

(I dunno . . . sometimes I just get tired of ya, honey . . . it's - Ah - your hair spray . . . or something.)

Plastic people
Oh baby!
You're such a drag

(I hear the sound of marching feet . . . down Sunset Blvd. to Crescent Heights, and there, at Pandora's Box, we are confronted with . . . a vast quantity of PLASTIC PEOPLE.)

Take a day
And walk around
Watch the nazis
Run your town
Then go home
And check yourself
You think we're singing
'Bout someone else . . . but you're

Plastic people!
(Woooooooooooooooooooh!)
Oh baby, now . . .
You're such a drag
--Plastic People by Frank Zappa

The amazing history of the Plastic People is so crucially intertwined with the history of Czechoslovakia that one can not fully understand the history of that country without knowing the history of the band, and vice versa. No other rock band has had to put up with the abuse and the obstacles that the Plastics did during their lifetime. Yet they did not plan to risk their lives for their music. As Hlavsa said, they were "dissidents against their will." Eventually, however, they came to the realization that what they were doing was historically important and their very existence through the hard times their country was experiencing was a powerful symbol of freedom to the younger generation of Czechs.

The Plastic People were ultimately a major catalyst to the overthrow of communism in Eastern Europe. History would most surely have been very different without them. Apart from the aforementioned Beatles and the Velvet Underground, there's not a lot of rock and roll bands you can say that about.

Also, knowing that the true cultural heritage of Czechoslovakia includes not just Jan Hus and Franz Kafka but also Lou Reed and Frank Zappa makes it easier to understand why Vaclav Havel's record collection includes not just Antonin Dvorak but also "White Light White Heat" and "Bongo Fury." Let's face it. There's not a lot of national presidents you can say that about.

http://www.furious.com/PERFECT/pulnoc.html

[Holly W.]

Nice story from your professor, but I'm still curious about YOU and am starting to feel that you'd rather talk about anything else than what you yourself have actually done. Likewise, those four rules or variations thereof have shown up on the Heritage Foundation website, I think, among other places, and again, aren't part of your personal story.

I was really hoping to learn something from an individual who's "been there, done that," but I guess I'll have to look elsewhere. It's been nice talking to you.

[James Kroeger]

TB...

The reason why you and all other rich people should want to try to eliminate poverty is not in order to help them, but in order to help yourselves. You should want to do it in order to make yourselves richer---in real terms---than you are today. Just forget about the 'helping others' talk for a while and focus on what poverty is costing you.

Again, we need to understand that "the poor will always be with us" in the sense that there will always be some group of people in society who are 'least well off.' We can't eliminate poverty in that sense any more that we can all hope to get rich some day.

My working definition of Poverty is that 'situation' (that affects both individuals and communities) as a result of unemployment. With unemployment comes lack of income, dependency, and privation. In my mind, poverty is completely eliminated if/when all those who are able-bodied or able-minded are working at jobs that produce goods or services of value.

Why should this matter to the rich? Well, when people are unemployed, they do not stop consuming; they just aren’t producing any of the stuff they consume. Someone else is. As a society, we all become richer when all those who are idle become productive. If part of your productive output is no longer needed to provide for the basic consumption needs of the unemployed (because they are now producing for themselves), then that means more of your output becomes available to you. When/if we employ all those who are able-bodied and able-minded in real wealth producing activities, everyone else automatically gets a pay raise in real terms.

But there's more, TB. Contrary to what you've been taught by the Ayn Rand Institute, The Government is actually a major producer of real wealth, real wealth that the rich get to consume as well as everyone else. When highways are built or repaired, the transportation experience is enhanced. When polluted rivers and lakes are cleaned up, the quality of life of rich people as well as poor people is enhanced. When people who grew up in uneducated families graduate from college, rich people benefit as much as the individual does. (They are no longer plotting to storm your gated community with torches in hand.)

As rich as he is, Bill Gates cannot personally afford to reduce the traffic congestion he must deal with on the highways, nor the blight that he often sees from them. He can afford to keep his primary living environment clean and healthy, but he can't afford to buy pollution-free air and water wherever he goes in the U.S. He might feel a certain amount of pride in his ability to keep up the appearance of his own properties, but he can't personally afford the cost of beautifying his city, his state, or his country. The good news for wealthy individuals like Bill Gates is that they can afford to buy significant improvements in the quality of their lives through their national government.

When the government invests in public infrastructure and in the human capital that employers hire, the rich benefit as well as the poor. It is as much a real economic investment as any that are made by private sector firms. It expands our capacity for growth in the long term. Contrary to what your friends in the Republican Party have been telling you, The Government is not a big black hole into which all tax money disappears forever. To repeat, it is a major producer of real wealth that enhances the quality of rich people as well as everyone else.

If rich people were smart, they would start heavily taxing themselves through their government and have it use those funds to start spending heavily on more public investments. If Congress were to increase spending enough on such projects (not on welfare programs), it could create and maintain a modest labor shortage, one that would eventually suck up all the unemployment in even the most blighted ghetto.

That is how you eliminate poverty, TB. Eliminate all unemployment. If you create and indefinitely maintain a labor shortage, it would no longer be necessary to have unemployoment insurance, minimum wage legislation, or welfare for any who are not disabled. The hand-out industry would be over, even charity for the poor would no longer be necessary.

You want to win your argument with all the bleeding hearts out there, TB? There is no better way to do that than by first eliminating unemployment through a sustained labor shortage. If you do that, then even the most sympathetic 'bleeding hearts' out there will be forced to agree with you that those who are still unemployed and in need are most likely guilty of the personal failings you like to harp on re: personal responsibility. No one will disagree with you. I won't.

Nothing is going to enhance the welfare of the rich more than the complete elimination of unemployment. With everybody working, crime is going to drop dramatically; you will be less fearful of being victimized by the rabble. You and your friends will be able to brag to the rich of other countries about how America's rich people know how to take care of their poor people. As the countryside and cities are cleaned up, you'll be able to feel proud of how your country looks.

The best part of all of this, TB, is that it isn't going to cost the rich anything in real terms to make themselves richer in this way. That is to say, even if they agree to tax themselves through a steeply progressive income tax, it will cost them nothing in terms of lost purchasing power. You see, it is not possible to deprive the rich of their claim on the scarcest goods and services that the economy produces, so long as they still have more money than anyone else after they've paid their tax bill. That's the beauty of a market economy. Read the above link for an expanded explanation of why this is true.

Here's hoping that you and your friends are wise enough to start helping yourselves in an intelligent way...

[James Kroeger]

TB:If progressives were smart they would eliminate the welfare programs and the half of the budget they consume...I guess you really are beyond redemption.

FWIW, even back in the mid-1990's, when Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress 'eliminated welfare as we know it', the total of federal spending on 'welfare' amounted to approximately 1/2 of 1% (.5%) of the entire federal budget.

Unfortunately, the fantasy world you and your cohort are living in is only guaranteed to make you very unhappy.

Perhaps storming those gated communities will actually turn out to be a good idea...

[James Kroeger]

"Welfare" spending---handouts of money to poor people---is almost non-existent in the federal budget. The single largest category of federal spending that is directed at the poor is Medicaid. In 2005 it amounted to approx. 7.6% of all federal spending ($188,497,000,000/$2,470,000,000,000). You'll want to note that neither Social Security nor Medicare are are poverty programs, even though they are "entitlements" which primarily benefit the middle class.

I guess you don't even realize that you're looking through distorted lenses, do you?

[ghetto medic]

James, my apologies for misquoting you. It was Ken who said that. It was late and I had just come in from a(nother) 2am shooting of a 14 y/o outside of a crack house on a school night. The script was the same, only the names were changed: When they found the mother at her boyfriend's house (kids left at home, supervised by the 14 y/o), she declaimed about how he was a good boy and how she had no idea how he got to be at a crack house. You are correct in that one of the problems is a poverty of the spirit; however, I believe that you have the order reversed: Poverty of the spirit breeds financial poverty, rather than financial poverty extends into poverty of the spirit.
As to the influence of Fortuna, it is true that we can do nothing about our birth and the family one is born into provides the basis for many of our choices, making some people's paths easier but, unless you believe in predestination, our lives are the results of the sum of our choices, not random chance. We are not predestined to fail just because Fortuna failed to smile upon our birth. It is true that some will have to work harder to achieve what they term success and some people will never be happy, no matter what they achieve.
In spite of what Ken believes, one those "Simple tales [are] for children to live by" are necessary to combat that poverty of the spirit. Rags-to-riches tales have been the catalyst for the hard work it takes to earn success if you are not born with a silver spoon. Another element is missing is real leadership--not from the self-appointed and self-aggrandizing blowhards who are more interested in making excuses and blaming others--we all know who these so-called leaders are and we are treated to their brand of bigotry every night at 6 and 11. Finally, they need mothers and fathers who will accept the responsibility that comes with parenthood and raise their children, rather than running around and expecting somebody else to care for and to raise their children. Unfortunately, the current system rewards those who do not admit paternity or who will not name the father; thus, it encourages irresponsibility and continues the cycle. As my preventitive medicine professor said: Having a child out of wedlock is one of the major factors in continued poverty. Tb, you are right with your plan to not be poor. It may not guarantee success, but, if one does not follow that plan, your only other opportunity is to leave aome serious sacrifices at Fortuna's altar and hope she likes you.
Sadly, to further strengthen the chains of poverty, we have faux-populist politicians who ride in and claim a panacea for poverty occurred in a vision as a result of his work at a hedge fund--a job he forced himself to undertake just so he could better understand poverty and plight of the little people. Forgive my cynicsm, but more government is not the answer, in spite of what many politicians, the hedge fund trader included, claim. It was more government that institutionalized poverty in the first place. How will more of the same help--by forcibly redistributing more of the income (higher taxes) we all work to earn? On the subject of government, the current administration did not create poverty any more than the previous 50-odd presidents did, and, lest James Kroeger forgets, the Democrats created the New Deal and the Great Society, which institutionalized poverty and created generations who are rewarded for not tryning to improve their circumstances. Now, the poor no longer have a reason to try to get ahead and to rely on themselves to improve their circumstances. Instead they rely on the government to do everything for them and to pay for everything for them.

[dissent]

Well 'ghetto medic' I'm not buying it.

The suburban professionals who post here may find your tales of street authenticity persuasive but as someone who grew up in some very tough streets I think you are full of it, dude. In fact I know your type: the suffering professional silently seething amongst the poor and dysfunctional you 'serve'. It must feel good to let some of that contempt out here. You have had to sit on it for 20 years, poor you.

People are responsible for their lives and if they are dysfunctional they suffer for it. That's reality, it's true for everyone. Life in its raw essence is not fair.

A clue for the clueless: that is not an excuse for refusing to craft a safety net to make this a more humane society.

Another clue: racism, sexism, classism, these are SINS. When our society engraves these forms of discrimination upon the lives of the less powerful it is WRONG.

Another clue: there are more and less effective social policies. I know it's ruff, really tuff to wrap your little head around it, but there are kinds of housing for the poor that work better than other kinds. Same with food stamps, child care, job training, education, unemployment insurance, and the like.

That's the real world. Now deal with it.

[ki]

James: "With unemployment comes lack of income, dependency, and privation. In my mind, poverty is completely eliminated if/when all those who are able-bodied or able-minded are working at jobs that produce goods or services of value."

But how exactly does government assistance help the poor become independent? I think some welfare recipients, do become dependent on these programs and then feel entitled to them.
There are jobs out there. However these jobs are minimum wage and many people either feel that they are above them or feel that they are better off being supported by the government.

I think that in order for welfare to lower unemployment, there should be a requirement that those on welfare that are capable of working, ie not handicapped physically or mentally (excluding obesity) should have to work. That way they would in essence at least be contributing.
I believe that this is the direction that the govt is trying to move the program, they do not have enough balls to simply say if you want assistance you must work (unless incapable). Or if they cannot find work(even with assistance of an employment agency), they should volunteer to help those that are also unfortunate. There are many programs nationwide for which they could volunteer their time to, and help those that are just as badly off as they are or worse.
Instead of sitting and watching TV (as TB points out) they should help others. Volunteering is very rewarding, not only for those who you are helping but it also makes you feel as if you make a difference. And I feel that for some poor this would really help boost their self-esteem.

[ki]

medic: "Poverty of the spirit breeds financial poverty"

I somewhat agree but I also disagree. It like the chicken an the egg, and nature vs nurture.
I think that the the children of the poor are both influenced by poverty of the spirit and finance simultaneously.
And I feel like although poverty of the spirit may form before financial poverty, it seems to be like they form a cycle of disparity and feelings of hopelessness.

"Another element is missing is real leadership--not from the self-appointed and self-aggrandizing blowhards who are more interested in making excuses and blaming others--we all know who these so-called leaders are and we are treated to their brand of bigotry every night at 6 and 11. "

Very nice point. Aren't there other types of community leaders, such as ministers and such?
But I guess their influence can only only go so far since the other "So-called leaders" seem though and even offer them a so called life or even a way out of their poverty. However the result is that they only dig themselves into a deeper hole and end up hurting eachother instead of helping eachother. I think those leaders also appear to be more macho and that is what young men admire.

"Unfortunately, the current system rewards those who do not admit paternity or who will not name the father; thus, it encourages irresponsibility and continues the cycle. "
Another great point! Some of the poor parents certainly do not take responsibity for themselves, and are not even concerned with the welfare of their children. Such as the mothers who claim on TV that their son was a good kid. I am sure that they must know what type of activities are occuring in their neighborhoods and the dangers of their kids participating. They should be more involved in their childrens lives. The PARENTS MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY!!

[James Kroeger]

ki:But how exactly does government assistance help the poor become independent?Perhaps you did not grasp the solution I am proposing. I'm talking about the government getting out of the 'assistance' business and doing nothing more than spending money on building projects and on such services as hiring more teachers. The money spent on building projects (e.g., highways, state-of-the-art sewerage systems, mass transit, pollution cleanup) would likely be put into the hands of private contractors. No further assistance would be necessary if market forces were putting upward pressure on wages. (TB was correct that many who are working still live in poverty, but that would also be fixed by the creation of a maintained labor shortage.)

My proposal involves the complete elimination of 'welfare', minimum wage legislation, unemployment insurance, etc., (exceptions: very short term emergency financial assistance, the plight of the disabled, etc.). My approach to helping the poor: "Need money? Here's a job..."

[Lafayette]

ki: They should be more involved in their childrens lives. The PARENTS MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY!!

THERE! You’ve fingered the blameworthy! Are you happy, now? What good has ever came from blaming? None, it just puts people in jail.

The problem of parental responsibility is enormous. It is often overwhelming, because it is dead easy to have a child and not-so-easy nurturing it through to self-subsistence.

I’ll grant you that numb-headed parents are giving birth to children. Children beget children. This cascade of stupidity is a large portion of the challenge many developed nations face, not only in America but in Europe as well. (The rest of the world is playing catch-up, but they are not far behind.)

The only effective remedy, as Europeans have acknowledged, is the availability of public services to assist those who need them. (And, often, even this is not enough.) Families nowadays require two working parents. What do mothers do with young children when putting them into a kindergarten will eat up half the income a mother would earn?

What about families in which the parents are non-functional? The father is away for weeks on end and the mother is harried by caring for two children who cannot cope at school. Does the school offer psychological care for both the mother and children? They do in many European countries
. You tell me if this is the case in America.

I could go on, but I think the point is made. Life is so complex that people “coping by themselves”, that is, self-determining their lives is becoming increasingly impossible. And, amongst the poor, the problem is worst. If they cannot take the economic escalator up to a middle-class existence, then they are incarcerated in poverty all their lives.

Blame the parents, if you like. It won’t solve the problem, however. Yes, the parents ARE responsible. But, they need help, not only for their children but for themselves.

[BJ Feng]

I can't believe this is an economics blog with all the throughly discredited socialist theories flying out there.

TB is right, poverty can't be eliminated because it is a RELATIVE term. In the simplest terms, there are scarce resources that not everyone can have. There's only so much beach front property, Bluefin Tuna, or caviar for example. How do we decide who gets those things? Those who contribute most to society should be rewarded the most. If those scarce resources were to be distributed based on need like what socialists want, there would be no incentive for people to contribute. People will work less, contribute less, and EVERYONE is worse off. That's why nations with more socialist programs tend to be poorer than nations without those programs, and why communist countries like the old Soviet Union and China were so poor despite trying their best to eliminate poverty.

How do we determine who contributes the most? The market decides. Everyone offers what they can or want and wages are determined by market forces. The greater the need for an occupation, the higher the wages, and the more incentive for people to do that job. Same with profits. There is a huge need right now for some way to produce fuel from bio-waste. The person or company who figures out how to do that will reap enormous profits. Profits are the signal that our society needs something, and people work to satisfy that great need because they stand to make a profit. Without that signal and incentive, why would someone bother? Society then would be worse off because the need would go unfilled.

People who want a more detailed explanation should go to the Mises Institute or read some of the writings of Ludwig Von Mises who convincingly proved that socialism can't work.

Look, we all want everyone to be rich and be able to get whatever they want when they want it. But this just simply isn't possible in our reality as it exists today. Nothing can change that fact. I also wish we could go faster than the speed of light in order to explore the universe, but that simply cannot be. The policies that have been advocated (tax the rich, provide government funding, have the government direct resources and jobs) won't work and we know they won't work because they've already been tried. No country has been able to eliminate poverty period. Those who use government intervention the most have made poverty worse. The best way to fight poverty is to keep government taxation and spending on social programs at a minimum. There's no need to make everyone poor in a foolish attempt to "reduce" poverty.

[Lafayette]

bf: There's no need to make everyone poor in a foolish attempt to "reduce" poverty.

Yep, just what I thought. You've never been poor. Otherwise, you'd know better.

[Lafayette]

jk: Poverty is NOT being unemployed, there are many who are employed and living in poverty.

This is nonsense. If you were unemployed, with a mortgage, perhaps you'd understand better.

It is beyond me the claptrap about poverty one will find on a forum, especially the mindless inanity such as, "I worked myself out of poverty, so they can as well".

Most people don't. They bear children who don't either. Look at the damn information on poverty before writing such simplicities. It is longterm imprisonment in a life of numbing banality.

[Lafayette]

TB: There is no income inequality, everybody gets just what they earn.

Thank you, TB. What would this debate be without your iconoclastic statements.

For your untiring efforts, I hereby award you the Troglodyte Prize of the Year for Economic Fairness in a Just Society.

[Lafayette]

BJF: I can't believe this is an economics blog with all the throughly discredited socialist theories flying out there.

Ah, yes, labeling was inevitable. It is the last refuge of those without a viable rebuttal.

In fact, I am roundly pilloried in socialist France as standing politically just to the right of Genghis Khan. So, you see, everything is a matter of perspective.

Which makes for horse races ... and debates.

[ki]

James,

Sorry for how my point came across. I was not trying to refute your solution. In fact, I agree. I was just writing what your ideas made me think of. :)

As I wrote above: "I think that in order for welfare to lower unemployment, there should be a requirement that those on welfare that are capable of working, ie not handicapped physically or mentally (excluding obesity) should have to work. That way they would in essence at least be contributing.
I believe that this is the direction that the govt is trying to move the program, they do not have enough balls to simply say if you want assistance you must work (unless incapable). Or if they cannot find work(even with assistance of an employment agency), they should volunteer to help those that are also unfortunate. There are many programs nationwide for which they could volunteer their time to, and help those that are just as badly off as they are or worse."

This way not only will they be making some money, but will also have something productive to do.

[ki]

Lafayette,

You are indeed correct that blaming anyone will not solve the problem. But I think that in addition to these programs that you describe, the parents should also assume responsibility and care for their children better.
Maybe parents would benefit from parenting classes beyond how to change diapers. Maybe those who are becoming parents did not have parental role models and do not know how to raise children. How to deal with the problems and pressures that these children might face in their futures, since the poor are more prone to living in violent neighborhoods.