Why so many of the poor remain poor

McG

Just read your response to Sozobe.

Let me go back to my mother in response to your response.

She was born in an impoverished, illiterate Italian family -- and had to quit school after the third grade in order to work in a sweat-shop to help feed the family. (She was the eldest of of six siblings.)

Mom always had a strong sense of ethics and personal pride -- and I can assure you that she gave each employer she worked for over the years the 75% effort he was hoping for -- and she threw in the other 25% just because she knew of no other way to work than to do the very best she could. She probably then threw in another 10% from grit.

I remember people chiding her for devotion to duty -- telling her to take it easy and mark time, because "the boss doesn't care about you."

But that was not her nature -- so she busted her ass for every employer.

When I was young and a genius -- I use to be ashamed of her -- and I thought her a fool for allowing herself to be taken advantage of.

She never had a chance to compete on a level playing field with most of the people with whom she was competing for better jobs. And she never really made it past the low-wage, **** jobs that people with her background got stuck.

(Actually, at some point, my father opened a small sandwich shop which she worked in for 15 16 hours per day/six days a week -- and she salted money away in secret from Pop, who was an alcoholic and a horse playing enthusiast. After they closed the store, she went to work at ShopRite and managed to last long enough to get a small pension -- which combined with her meager Social Security stood her quite well in her final few decades.)

But the answer to why so many of the poor remain poor -- at least in my mother's case (which is not unique by any means) has much, much, much, much less to do with laziness or duplicity than it does with circumstances.

Gain some empathy for that, McG.

Some of the people posting here can't. They don't have the character for it.

I think you do.

Go for it.

Think this thing through more carefully.

Soz- I think that is a wonderful success story.

Years ago I worked for the government in one of those programs that was supposed to teach work related skills to people below the poverty level. It was a waste, and a boondoggle. I counselled those workers who were in the program, where they were sent out to companies to work.

Because of a glitch in the government regulations, there were two general kinds of individuals in the program. One was the sort of person who did not have any job skills at all. The other were college kids, because they earned nothing, were eligible for the program.

Do you know who benefitted from the government largesse? The college kids. They utilized the experience to help them acquire and polish their employment skills. They would have succeeded without the program, but it was helpful to them.

Most of the others, for whom the program was originally designed, came out of it no better in terms of marketability than before they went in. Who benefitted the most? The companies who had political connections, who got themselves a lot of cheap labor (part of the salaries were subsidized by the oh so benevolent government.)

I am sure that here and there, there are success stories, but I have seen the government in action, first hand, and don't think too highly of their attempts to "help" the poor!

Well, frank, there's poor and then there's poor. Is there any real definition for it? Destitute and in poverty means more. There's actually a restaurant near Knott's Berry Farm called "Po' Folks!" I would imagine janitors in Silicon Valley were making up to $30,000.00 a year as there was compensation for the outrageous cost of living in the area. Most of them were doing the 2 to 3 hour commute, however, because the compensation fell well short of what it actually cost in residential Silicon Valley. My niece and her husband are considering a house in Orange County which is $500,000.00 and she must decide whether she should quit working as a teacher or afford the house. They aren't poor but they do live in a small two bedroom quadriplex in Huntington Beach right now and they rent. Some people see the high wages (which are high because of labor competition) in an area like this and think it's a dream come true until they check out the cost of housing. Food prices and clothing follow a "what the traffic will bear" philosophy also which makes them higher than other areas where you might not expect high earnings.

My main point, which I'm not sure was clear, is that I am very uncomfortable with the idea that only the "innocent" should receive help. Scrat did specifically say



I wondered whether he thought Linda was deserving. What I thought was his response was actually McGentrix's, who seemed to say that she was indeed undeserving. You also seemed to lean toward "no". That points out my discomfort with figuring this stuff out -- who can do it? How would they do it? Who would be left out in the cold? What would the consequences be? (How would Linda's 3 children turn out in those two different scenarios, for example? Gangs + drugs vs. clean, sober, and working.)

That is separate from whether government agencies are perfect. They aren't.

Outstanding and useful comments! Amen!


Whoops!

I don't recall reading anything in this discussion that fits this description, and I'm quite sure I didn't write anything that does. No offense, but this smacks a bit of the kind of failure to really "listen" to the other point of view that leads to the useless arguments you complain of above.

I have seen no suggestion that helping those in need is a bad thing. What I have seen is differences of opinion as to how best to help those in need.

Oh, come on, if you think private and religious organizations don't have their own bureaucracy and would me no more effective at screening people as to whether they are deserving of helpt are not you're dreaming.
If fact, they are more likely less effective and the government still has the responsibility of policing these organizations as to what they do with the money. Bill Bennet advises us all to higher moral ground by gambling it in Las Vegas.

I think the problem you are having is that you seem to have read into my comments that private agencies would not help those who were perpetuating their own bad situation. My point was that in some cases the best way to help them was by choosing to let them experience the real repercussions of the choices they were making.

If you take a child from birth and somehow shield his skin from burning, he will learn that it is okay to put his hand in a fire. Then one day you remove the protection and he is screwed. That's what we do with welfare programs that place no requirements on the recipients. We remove the appropriate negative feedback from which he or she might learn and then wonder why he or she doesn't learn.

In NJ they changed the law so that women already receiving benefits for dependent children would see no increase in their benefits if they had more children while on the program. Many liberals complained of the hardship this would cause, yet after the first year new births to these women dropped by 19%. Did some children and families have to make do with less in the short term? Yes. Was that a hardship? Yes. But maybe in the long run it will mean fewer children living with hardship, instead of more.

IMHO, those people that require financial help also need to be educated on many fronts, including money management, famiily planning, and job skills. Just giving money doesn't solve problems. c.i.

We'll pay $40,000 and more a year to incarcerate them but nothing to help educate them - priorities are certainly in the work place!

CI -- But many people who require help are well-educated, sometimes elderly (sometimes not), often beaten down by one cataclysmic event (serious long-term illness, loss of job, loss of financial support from a runaway spouse...), not people who are stupid, don't know how to manage a checkbook and credit cards. I 'm having a problem with this notion that "most poor" have been negligent or stupid or greedy. Not in my experience. Two of the changes in American society which greatly increased the numbers of those on the street or otherwise in really poor shape were 1) the opening up of the mental institutions and dumping the unprepared back into the world, and 2) a tremendous increase in job insecurity -- fewer manufacturing jobs, more jobs going overseas.

There is something else which needs to be faced, and that's the population explosion (on the one hand) and (on the other) the major change in the differential between the very rich and the very poor -- with fewer in the middle. Cultural changes: a culture of greed in which the rich do it for themselves alone and many (less educated on the whole than the stinkin' rich of 50 years ago) having no sense that with wealth comes responsibility. "What's mine is mine." Little recognition of the hard fact that their good fortune depends on what we all contribute in the way of education, infrastructure, defense, labor, etc.

And then there are some important things conservatives seem unwilling to face: the need for a much better education system, the need for sex education (not a plea to put it in the classroom as much as a plea to get the wrong kind of education out of our pop culture), the need for first rate family planning/contraception services as part of medical care, the need for first-rate medical care as a human right.

The small and very poor village I lived in in Spain for many years had a number of "unforgivable poor" -- a phrase I use for those who refuse to work, have an alcohol problem, are so badly behaved their families won't let them in the house, and are the real pains in the butts of everyone -- were always taken care of by the community at large, directly through hand-outs and indirectly through the church or doctor. There isn't a society I know of which doesn't have this very bottom layer. They're part of life, evenin this prosperous nation. They can't be thrown away. So we continue to take care of them. Those who try to overturn this by saying "I won't because they aren't worth it" are themselves, I think, at a level no higher. Go ahead, figure out another fair way of helping them have the best life they can, but make sure you do it.

Tartar, There are certainly many conditions that must be addressed when we speak of the "poor." I thought this forum was addressing those folks that start off poor, and remain poor for the remainder of their lives. Ofcoarse, there are some that are poor because of some disability, and they should certainly be assisted. c.i.

People inherit poverty just like people inherit wealth. The opportunities are there but one of the arguments is that the opportunities are too limited. A majority of business go out of business within the first five years and yet most people are employed by small business. That's a choice also, something just not wanting to be caught up in the bureaucratic and political quagmire of a large corporation. I was once caught up in the company politics of a smaller corporation and if Machiavelli were still alive, he'd write another book as a sequel to "The Prince" about corporations. I think it could be title "The Putz" because The Peter Principal certainly is at work and the people at the top are voting themselves wages they don't deserve and don't earn. Much of the time, they are consciously and methodically ripping off their stock holders and employers and yet they don't get caught with their pants down unless they fall on bad financial times. A poor person can become ignoble and rob a liquor store for a few dollars. A rich person can become ignoble and rip off trusting colleagues, those that work for them and their investors for millions.

In spite of my not being a "libertarian of limited social conscience" I happen to believe that every man, woman and child in this wealthiest of all nations, deserves a modicum of essential services including food, shelter and medical care regardless of the cause of their situation. We shall be known by the way we treat those most in need without judgement.

dys, Exactly my sentiment. That's the reason why I give to only two charities; Second Harvest Food Bank and Habitat for Humanities. They both do good works without discriminating on the whys. c.i.

frank wrote: But the answer to why so many of the poor remain poor -- at least in my mother's case (which is not unique by any means) has much, much, much, much less to do with laziness or duplicity than it does with circumstances.

.......................................................................................................... there is certainly no doubt in my mind that "circumstances" have much to do with how we get on in life(i don't want to use the word "succeed" , because many do not). having some "luck' -by being in the right place at the right time - also helps in the survival game. when i look at my own life since 1956 (when my wife and i arrived in canada), i'd have to say that i was "in the right place at the right time". i found a steady job in my profession (i was a pre-computer information-systems guy, having worked with good old ibm punched-card equipment before coming to canada and i found a boss who was willing to give me a chance). luckily we stayed healthy; i was encouraged by my bosses to improve my education and things certainly worked out well. ........BUT if i would not have found a good job, would have gotten sick, been laid off ... things certainly could have turned out badly. so, to repeat what frank said: "circumstances" and good or bad luck can very often make the difference between making it in life or falling through the cracks - that's the way i see it. hbg .......... i'd add that working hard in your profession certainly helps, BUT you've got to get your foot in the door first!

How quickly it is skipped over about the increasing percentage of the population is becoming part of the folks beset by poverty because of natural life circumstances! I posted my story not because my situation is in any way especially "deserving" or unusual - but because there are more and more folks dealing with these dilemnas. Were I to have counted on the help of charities and religious organizations, my family would have gone woefully lacking!

In the town where I live now there are two shelters for the homeless. One (the large one) is a church-affiliated charity that makes money off their shelter! They receive an ungodly (no mistake of wording) amount of grants and donations. They also have a policy that no person can stay there even a night if they have had any alcohol or drugs (illegal) for at least 3 days. If the person has difficulty with any sort of mental health issue, they are also excluded. And, if the homeless is considered "deserving" of a night's stay, they must have a job or be enrolled in a class or program of some sort within three days or they are kicked out. Of course an acceptable option is to attend nightly services before the supper meal and volunteer help in the shelter.

The other shelter will accept those who are passing thru, those who aren't interested in joining the religious life of the sponsoring shelter, and those that MAY have had some contact with whatever is judged to be "inappropriate". This shelter receives very little in contributions and support only from the most liberal OR most traditionally-Christian churches that hope to reap converts. Odd combo, eh? This shelter is the only place in town for those who do not meet the criteria of "deserving" per much of the community standards.

So, the others still yet unsheltered for a night? Why of course they are the true derelicts and the scum, right? I know way too many stories of those who sleep in their cars while they work full time, and those that have children and are afraid to go to a shelter for fear their children will be taken from them. The "working poor" is just about the same as those who are "poor" in my book.[/size]

Cobalt finished with this:

"...So, the others still yet unsheltered for a night? Why of course they are the true derelicts and the scum, right? I know way too many stories of those who sleep in their cars while they work full time, and those that have children and are afraid to go to a shelter for fear their children will be taken from them. The "working poor" is just about the same as those who are "poor" in my book."

AMEN!!!

Why pose the thread from this point of view? Why not pose a question which is not so done, why not focus on: "Why Do the Rich Remain Rich?

http://www.beerforthehomeless.com/

This is important work

Now, really important work would be "Bear for the Homeless"

Hey c.i., I donate to Second Harvest as well....a great organization.