Understanding Poverty in America
The Heritage Foundation recently released a study on Poverty in America. This study provides some welcome perspective on the issue of poverty. The study contains some interesting statistics and what not, and is well worth reading.
The underlying issue is the confusion between absolute poverty and relative poverty. Absolute poverty is what most of us think of when the word poverty is mentioned. People going hungry because they don't have enough money for food. Homelessness, evictions, ramshackle housing, or overcrowded tenements. The sort of thing that involves real suffering. Relative poverty is making less than other people, but nevertheless having sufficient money for housing, utilities, food, and other needs.
The government defines poverty in relative terms - most of the bottom quintile of income is by definition poor. But as the Heritage study indicates, most of these people are not poor in the traditional sense of the word. They have homes, cars, air conditioning, plenty of food and health care. They have tvs, vcrs, cable and other luxuries. The average poor person in America lives better than the average citizen almost anywhere else in the world. We need, really, to distinguish between the two.
Jesus said the poor we shall always have with us - and as long as we define "poor" as the bottom fifth of incomes, we always will.
Some people will always make less than others. Where we need to make the effort to ameliorate poverty is with the less than one third (possibly much less) of the government defined poor who actually suffer from a significant amount of absolute poverty.
I saw this report on the news Saturday evening, and was struck by the comments of the man (I didn't catch his name or what group he was with) who was interviewed to counterpoint the Heritage position. He expressed considerable disdain for the authors of the study, and suggested that they should walk the streets of the poor parts of our cities and see whether or not real poverty existed in this country. (Obviously, if they did so, they would see the light and immediately endorse any number of Democratic entitlement programs.) But that was not the conclusion of the study - not that there are no poor people in this country, but that the numbers are far smaller than some would claim if we are careful and honest in our definition of the word "poor."
A good while back, my compatriot Ross posed the question of why do we become conservative or liberal? Every now and again, I pull that question out of its cage and smack it around a bit. That study makes sense to me. Based on my own experience and on my expectations of both how the world works and how I think it should work. I was poor twice in my life. Once because I was the child of a single mother when I was young, and again in my twenties because I was young, unskilled, and far more interested in beer than regular, gainful employment.
We are a rich soceity; we can and should help the poor. But should I have been helped on either of the two occasions when I was poor? No, because I don't think we deserved the help. My mother and I made it, though things were often tight. She worked two jobs, and sometimes we rolled pennies at the end of the month. But Mom managed to save enough to buy a house by the time I was eight - five years after my parents separated. (Dad helped with the child support, too.)
What about the second time? Hell no. Once I laid off the intoxicants and the gave up my aversion to work, things swiftly turned around. My parents actually delayed this by helping me far too often out of corners I painted myself into.
With sound personal fiscal policy and a realistic appraisal of how much standard of living you can afford almost anyone with any income at all can meet all basic requirements for life, and live comfortably if not exactly in the catbird seat. Barring major upheavals, this can be maintained indefinitely. Those people do not need the government's assistance. They should fend for themselves because that is what freedom and personal responsibility call for.
I think people have a responsibility to look after themselves. Freedom also means the freedom to screw up your life, make poor life choices, and have a low income. The relative poor get my sympathy, but not my endorsement for dipping into the public purse. The absolute poor are a different story. If things have really gone balls up, charity demands that we help. If that charity is through the government, so be it. It is misguided to attempt to help those who no one in the history of the planet up until the last half century would have called anything but rich. A waste of money and effort that could be used to help the actual poor, or accomplish other worthy goals.
on
| § 6
§ 6 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Buckethead, I don't have time
Buckethead, I don't have time now to rebut (hopefully coming soon), so I will just say this: you seem to be endorsing the classic story of American success: work hard and fly right and society's rewards are yours for the taking.
Is that really all the more complicated you think poverty is?
Also-- don't get so cocky about "surely endorsing all sorts of Democratic entitlement programs." There's two edges to that sword. On one hand, sure, entitlements without attention to individual cases are foolish. But on the other hand, denying aid to people without attention to individual cases is foolish. After all, the moral heart of Great-Society Democracy is "we could be doing better." You may disagree with the methods, but I think the goal is pretty much unassailable. And I say this as a small-government advocate.
I don't disagree with you on the big picture, nor on the matter of personal responsibility, but I think the Heritage Foundation and you as well are making the matter of who is poor and how far more simple than it really is.
I think that this is a useful
I think that this is a useful distinction to make - between people who are actually poor and those who are only less well off than others. We do not need to be aiming our efforts and our money at the latter group.
The reasons for being poor are simple - single parenthood, un- or underemployment, and drug and alcohol abuse. The single mother faces significant challenges that are not always solvable by simply working harder; especially if the mother is a high school drop out, or in her teens and completely lacking in marketable skills. Those suffering from chronic drug abuse are often beyond any help that anyone can provide - at least as far as any hope for them reentering the workforce. These are problems that are simple to describe, but difficult to solve.
But - big but - they are the smallest fraction of what the government describes as the poor. We dilute our efforts, and engage in misguided policy initiatives when we attempt to help those who aren't truly in need of government help.
Also, it is important to remember that we are onnly entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We are not obligated - and it can be harmful to attempt - to provide beyond bare bones assurances for food and shelter. Anything extra should be directly tied to moving the recipient off the government dole - like job training, education vouchers, tax relief for home ownership or medical expenses, and time limits on assistance. Amd benefit programs should be structured to encourage, rather than discourage marriage because that is one of the surest tickets out of poverty.
Buckethead,
Buckethead,
You've hit this nail on the head: America promises opportunity for success- the "pursuit of happiness"- but does not guarantee it.
That's a huge distinction between folks who feel they are entitled to decent cars and uber-cell-phones and what America actually promises. Then they feel cheated somehow when they don't get these things?!
You might fail to succeed, and many do. And guess what, kids? It's possible to dmake all the "right" moves in life and still not have those dreams come true. But you get the chance to try.
I recognize this point is beyond the original post, and can tie into immigration and foreign policy, etc, but it's a big deal to me and often on my mind.
"But you get the chance to
"But you get the chance to try."
And that's where I differ from neocons like Buckethead. I'm not convinced that everyone gets the chance to try, and I think they should. Equality of opportunity is more than just a platitude, and it's more than a list of economic factors (as the Heritage Foundation would contend).
Who doesn't get a try? And
Who doesn't get a try? And by that I mean, who is constrained from participating in the great game by factors outside themselves? And if they are, would "corrective action" like affirmative action do more harm than good?
JnO
JnO
I think everyone CAN try, I just don't believe everyone DOES. Sometimes I think not everyone does because they simply don't have to; it doesn't take much $$ to get yourself a 30-pack of Coors to wash down your car race on the weekend.
But I think I'm being a little too vague and it's not helpful. To be more specific, I mean that everyone in America has opportunity to go to school, learn a trade or other education, open a business, compete with others in a businesslike manner, own a home, take a wife, breed, and otherwise live a generally shared concept of the American Dream.
Are some people more advantaged than others? Of course, and those people and their heirs will probably make alot more $$ and have alot more say in our society because of it. And there will always be those people. Doesn't mean the rest of us can't achieve.
I wonder if there is a difference of interpretation over what "opportunity" means...?