- How do you define poor?
- Why do we have poor people and families in our communities?
Since the “poor” often work their way into our discussions, it seems some positional perspective may be useful. We live in America, the land of opportunity, yet many seem to be unwilling or unable to claim their portion of the bounty. And this has significant consequences for all of us. Thoughts?
9 comments:
I have an extended family member who is poor for some of the most typical reasons. She is an unemployed, single mother receiving a variety of assistance (housing, health care, food.) The father of her child has been out of the picture since before the baby was born. She did graduate high school, but has no post secondary training. She has a history of drinking and drug use and has been through rehab.
Nearly all others of my family and friends have followed the middle class track of education, marriage and then children. (and no chemical use problems.)
I do have one other near poor relative who skipped the post high school education step. Financial difficulties contributed to his recent divorce, which will make the financial situation even worse for him and his family.
One of the (if not) last great Democrats Patrick Moynihan said something like, "The greatest economic trend of the last 30 years has been the destruction of a viable economic [and social] unit, the two-parent family, in favor of two non-viable economic units." And much of that is due to government "incentives" in the welfare system.
Lot's of readers, but few comments... Join in, it does not hurt at all.
So far we have a few comments regarding why people are poor:
- bad choices
- irresponsible behaviors
- divorce
- limited education
- government incentives
Agree? Disagree? Other?
I would swear there were 3 comments here the other day... Well here they are...
From Laurie,
I have an extended family member who is poor for some of the most typical reasons. She is an unemployed, single mother receiving a variety of assistance (housing, health care, food.) The father of her child has been out of the picture since before the baby was born. She did graduate high school, but has no post secondary training. She has a history of drinking and drug use and has been through rehab.
Nearly all others of my family and friends have followed the middle class track of education, marriage and then children. (and no chemical use problems.)
I do have one other near poor relative who skipped the post high school education step. Financial difficulties contributed to his recent divorce, which will make the financial situation even worse for him and his family.
From Jerry
One of the (if not) last great Democrats Patrick Moynihan said something like, "The greatest economic trend of the last 30 years has been the destruction of a viable economic [and social] unit, the two-parent family, in favor of two non-viable economic units." And much of that is due to government "incentives" in the welfare system.
From John (G2A)
Lot's of readers, but few comments... Join in, it does not hurt at all.
So far we have a few comments regarding why people are poor:
- bad choices
- irresponsible behaviors
- divorce
- limited education
- government incentives
Agree? Disagree? Other?
Two little questions and so few answers... Here are mine...
How do you define poor?
Income so low that you have a hard time providing for basic needs. (ie food, clothing, shelter, utilities, school supplies, etc) For a family of 4: shelter could be a two bedroom apartment.
Why do we have poor people and families in our communities?
I think I'll start a new post for this... And discuss the "5 Why's" technique.
Sorry, haven't had time to compose the response, and still do not. But very briefly, poor are those without wealth. Once you define wealth, you also have the solution, including why government is exactly the wrong answer to poverty. You also can understand why those in poverty could escape but for government's heavy hand.
"yet many seem to be unwilling or unable to claim their portion of the bounty."
There is the key phrase in your proposition. Suggesting that some are "unwilling" marks you as a "classist" and suggesting some are "unable" classes you as a Marxist. I believe neither is true of you, nor of our fellow Americans. That it seems otherwise requires us to go back to basic definitions.
The poor are those without wealth. Wealth is the ability to provide things to people, including food, clothing and shelter, but also things like recreation, religious experience and education. The only real wealth is created by people working. Capital is accumulated work, which can be used to multiply wealth. Capital takes many forms-- knowledge, equipment, infrastructure, and human. So long as everybody in the country is working at doing something that other people want, either now, or in the future, we are creating wealth, building capital, and everything is good. This whole shining city, however, is built upon the foundation that everyone has personal economic freedom and the personal responsibility to seek out economic opportunities.
Now throw in government, in particular an overweening liberal, nanny-state government, and what happens? Economic freedom is curtailed, and personal responsibility is prevented. It simply must be. I have met a lot of poor people. Some are poor because of poor choices, and others through no fault of their own. Those I meet in charitable work, regardless of how they got there, have hope and are working-- i.e. creating wealth-- to improve their lot. Those I meet who are wards of the state are listless and without wealth of any kind, foremost the desire to work. What government has created in these people is a sense of entitlement that not only consumes wealth for their care and feeding-- paying people to NOT work-- but it actually DESTROYS wealth by taking it from those who would otherwise use it for themselves, or to store away as capital to create more wealth in the future.
So were there fewer poor people in the 1800's?
I am guessing not... We do know that there was minimal governmental support, and I am guessing the programs started because their were more poor than the charities could support. (road to hell paved with good intentions...) If your hypothesis is correct, shouldn't there have been fewer poor back then?
I don't disagree with many of your concepts, yet something rings funny...
And apparently there is some Classist and Marxist in me. I believe there are many people with diverse belief and motivational systems, and I believe the system is sometimes rigged in favor of the most capable.
There were more poor people in the 1800s because the young country had not yet amassed enough capital to increase wealth. Yet by the late 1800s-early 1900s we build the railroads, invented and built cars and planes and factories and McCormick reapers. We all got wealthier and a few people got very rich. They in turn endowed the great philanthropic and charitable institutions and education centers (e.g. Carnegie-Mellon University).
You might ask why Mexico has so many poor people yet today, and the answer to me is obvious: they never had a period of unbridled capitalism and capital growth like the US did. The only difference is that their government was a kleptocracy that kept it for themselves, whereas our recent governments were a kleptocracy that distributed it to the dependent class, the destroyers of wealth.
Post a Comment