Sunday, January 15, 2017

How to Win the War on Poverty?

I have been asked what should be done to Win this War.  Here are some ideas, I have numbered them for reference purposes only. They not in order of preference:

  1. Weaken or eliminate the Public Employee Unions. Their primary purpose is to ensure the senior employees make the most money, receive the best positions and are secure in their employment.  These goals are NOT aligned with cost effectively getting the most help to the people who need it. Pay for performance, not years and degrees.
  2. Set hard knowledge attainment and/or poverty reduction targets that the bureaucracy managers must hit, and replace them if they don't. No more of these employment contracts where Superintendents get huge buy out clauses when they fail.  Pay for performance, not degrees.
  3. Make Long Acting Reversible Contraception and the Morning After Pill free and readily available for all. NO baby should be born unless the Baby Maker(s) are 100% wanting the child and feel prepared to care for it. (ie committed to being responsible capable Parents)
  4. If a proven irresponsible Baby Maker who is on welfare (ie Angel Adams) gets pregnant. She should be forced to abort or give the Baby up for adoption. And if this happens more than once, her tubes should be tied.
  5. The welfare payments and service should be set up to make recipients work, learn, mature and improve their self sufficiency.
  6. The male Baby Makers must bear the consequences of their behavior.  The female Baby Maker must name the Father so the State can ensure the required child support is paid.  The cost may be higher than the money received, but the "free loading Baby Daddy" behavior  must be dissuaded.
  7. The State must ensure that Baby Makers and the Babies receive training, care, etc until they become a functional family. (ie Parents and Kids)  This includes mandatory Parenting classes, Early Childhood Education, Inexpensive quality childcare, etc. Many of the Baby Makers are in this position because their role models were Baby Makers (ie not Parents).  Someone has to train them what it means to be a Parent.

There is a start...  Now you Liberals and Conservatives can argue for your adult concepts while the unlucky kids continue to suffer...

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Talking about unions in terms of poverty isn't quite the right context for me. They aren't exactly relevant to each other. Union workers aren't poor, and quite frankly, often seem hostile to the poor.

I would suggest that the more relevant context is between unions and income disparity. Just as primary as keeping old people working, the purpose of the unions is to increase the bargaining power of working people. Since Ronald Reagan began the campaign against organized labor, the bargaining power of the American worker has been in precipitous decline, and we see the result in the increasing income disparity.

--Hiram

Fred said...

"The welfare payments and service should be set up to make recipients work, learn, mature and improve their self sufficiency."

Yes, they should. And that approach was in place before Obama took office.

Leftists do not want their base to be better educated or God forbid, self sufficient. Oh, they will say they do, but their actions give them away every time.

We will never "win" a war on poverty in a free society. There will always be people who will refuse to put any effort into their lives.

The best we can do is keep them from freezing or starving to death and do what we can to protect ourselves from them.

John said...

Hiram,
Of course they are related. The tax payers give a large number of dollars that the government is to use to accomplish many goals. Any entity that increases the costs unnecessarily or decreases the effectiveness / efficiency is constraining the results that could be gained for that amount of money.

Easiest example: MN requires Contractors to pay a Prevailing Wage which is higher than what they typically pay their employees. Therefore State road and construction jobs cost more and less work can be done for the same amount of money.

Same for schools, social workers, air traffic controllers, etc.

John said...

Fred,
I disagree. I think the Liberals just wear rose colored glasses and are absolutely certain that everyone will work hard... Given enough money, services, etc.

I agree that it is very irrational... There are FreeLoaders at all wage levels and in all societies. Those who want to do as they wish and live of the efforts of others. It is amazing how well us humans rationalize.

Please remember that I think the Conservatives are just as bad... They say they want to help, yet they continue to get in the way.

John said...

Hi Everyone,
I am at MSP about to head to Beijing. I will check in when the Chinese Govt lets me contact my Google hosted site. Have a Great Week !!! And stay professional in your comments. Thanks !!!

Anonymous said...

Of course they are related.

Kind of in an adverse way too. Going back into history, many unions have a history of discrimination which had the effect of denying black workers jobs.

I really wish unions had more of a link to the reduction of poverty as others seem to be claiming. I just don't think they do.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

"There will always be people who will refuse to put any effort into their lives."

And there will always be poor people, even if every last person puts maximum effort into their lives.

Joel

John said...

Joel, Please explain your rationale?

jerrye92002 said...

"There are FreeLoaders at all wage levels and in all societies."

The problem is that you seem to want this to be a binary exercise, where all those who accept public welfare are freeloaders. Since our society refuses to root out those who contribute less than they take (from government) "at all levels," we will have a tough time with those who liberals call "the most vulnerable" and who are easily exploited for political fun and profit.

The problem is one of numbers. Yes, if we require work (in some time and manner) as a condition of welfare, you seem to think that all will continue to be freeloaders and need to be "cut off." I believe the vast majority, given proper incentives, WILL step up and become more or less self-sufficient. I want those people to have a chance and not be "made to" do anything.

jerrye92002 said...

Heh. I think Joel is citing Scripture: Matthew 26:11 "For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always."

Anonymous said...

"Joel, Please explain your rationale?"

Terrible things befall good hardworking people every day. People fall into poverty for many reasons, laziness likely being far down the list.

Joel

John said...

On layover in lovely Seattle...

Jerry,
I will never understand where you get your views...

"you seem to think that all will continue to be freeloaders and need to be "cut off." "

Do you even read what I write? Please explain this terribly incorrect paraphrase...

Joel,
The poor we have today are mostly poorly educated, low skill, single parents, addicted, recent immigrants, etc. Do you disagree?

Now you are correct that some people will encounter "acts of God" that can drive them into poverty. On the other hand if you have a good education / job skills, a strong family support system, a rainy day savings fund, etc, you will survive better and bounce back sooner.

jerrye92002 said...

I paraphrase this:
"If a proven irresponsible Baby Maker who is on welfare (ie Angel Adams) gets pregnant. She should be forced to abort or give the Baby up for adoption. And if this happens more than once, her tubes should be tied.
The welfare payments and service should be set up to make recipients work, learn, mature and improve their self sufficiency."

So, forced abortion and sterilization, and welfare payments set up to "MAKE" recipients do what you want. Presumably the only way to do that would be to "cut off" all or part or those payments. How is that incorrect?

jerrye92002 said...

God isn't the only one creating poverty. Failing to educate poor kids, or offer adults job training that WORKS and other life skills and opportunities is just as certain. And I for one am not willing to simply ignore all of the folks in these unfortunate circumstances just because a few of them might be "freeloaders" with no desire to do better.

Here's a story. We were working with some inner city youth and were talking to one young man about "what it would take" to improve his lot-- what would he like to do? He admitted he had always wanted to be a welder. Fine, we said. There is a welding school just up the road about 30 miles. We will pay your tuition, room and board, the whole thing. When you complete the course, they will help you find a job as a welder. And we will look after your mother while you are away. He declined. Now was he a freeloader, or just mired in hopelessness? I was there, I think I know. Moral: don't assume you know what's good for everybody else.

Anonymous said...

"On the other hand if you have a good education / job skills, a strong family support system, a rainy day savings fund, etc, you will survive better and bounce back sooner."

I don't think you realize how out of reach those things are for a lot of people.

Joel

John said...

Of course there will still be some serious free loaders... Maybe 5 to 10% of those currently receiving welfare... Do you disagree?

So where did you get... "that all will continue to be freeloaders"

And unfortunately there is a higher number that will need some consequences to take the effort seriously. They are not going to all say... "Everything I have been conditioned to believe is wrong... Yes I want to study hard, work hard and change all of my life long habits."

Anonymous said...

"Now was he a freeloader, or just mired in hopelessness?"

Maybe he had no reason to have faith in you or whatever system you were advocating for.

Joel

John said...

Joel,
And who do you want to blame for that?

Remember that my proposal comes with support if someone wants to improve and change.

Anonymous said...

"And who do you want to blame for that?"

I don't believe there is a single force. I think it's partly due to human nature that there are those that get lost in the system, whether that be the government or the economic system. Historically, many people were poor because the wealthy were the ones in control. I doubt we've removed that stain from our human nature.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

"So where did you get... "that all will continue to be freeloaders"

I am inferring that from your concentration on "baby makers" and "irresponsible, immature, uneducated, etc." as descriptions for people in poverty, without mentioning the possibilities of "temporary" or "trapped" or "denied opportunity" or any of the other explanations I would offer that indicates these people are real human beings like the rest of us, deserving of the same human dignity.

Now this is progress: "Of course there will still be some serious free loaders... Maybe 5 to 10% of those currently receiving welfare... Do you disagree?"

I disagree only in that I am unwilling to categorize people that I do not know and who have not been offered the opportunity and assistance to make their own way. My estimate is that about 20% of current welfare recipients would probably remain in poverty after a 5-year program designed to get them off of it, simply because they have been deeply mired in "the system" for so long. On the other hand, I would estimate that a serious work requirement would almost instantly remove 20% of recipients from the rolls, and that would be the most egregious "freeloaders."

Anonymous said...

I agree with all of your proposals, and believe they would be constructive in removing the most destructive segment of the poor population, but I aver we will never completely be free of poverty. Poverty, you see, being an innate station in any free Democracy.

There will always be people that choose poverty, and it is their right as free citizens to make that choice. Most free living bums are not a blight on society. Poverty's damage comes at the hand of the despised moocher, and it is they that will wither under your proposals.

Moochers do not want to be poor; they just don't want to work for their daily bread. American moochers are among the worst. Not being satisfied with free bread, they demand standards of living indistinguishable from the lives of the people that work and pay for their room and board.

You cannot punish someone with harsh standards they freely choose to impose upon themselves, but you can use them to uncover the imposters.

~ Fred

Anonymous said...

"Maybe he had no reason to have faith in you or whatever system you were advocating for."

But he had enough faith in the system to believe his feckless disregard for his own well being wouldn't result in starving to death in the street.

He believes in the system; it just looks like more effort than he is prepared to expend.

~ Fred

jerrye92002 said...

Fred, thanks for the defense, but it was clear that this young man was unhappy with his lot, and not happy with whatever welfare was keeping him and his mother away from the wolf at the door. He was just beaten into hopelessness. One of the big lies about welfare is that nobody "falls through the cracks," but I can tell you from some other work I have done that it happens all the time. And usually it makes no sense when they do. About all that sensible reform would do would be to expand the cracks a bit and make sure only the freeloaders "fell through," while we try to help everybody else as far away from that crack as we can get them. I know it works, I've seen it many, many times either directly or indirectly.

Now that I think of it, maybe the "War on Poverty" is the wrong terminology? If it is, the war is over and Poverty won.