Speaking Truth To Powerlessness

Abookamongstthemany

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/26/speaking_truth_to_powerlessness.php

The January 25 issue of The New York Times reported a recent study on the costs of child poverty. According to the study’s authors, child poverty also incurs costs to society as poor children age: they earn less money, commit more crimes and have more health-related expenses. Not exactly surprising, but the documentation is nearly irrefutable.

As a result, even the usual deniers were quieted. Said the Times, “A Republican scholar and former official who testified at the hearing, Ron Haskins, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, called the study superb…”

But, Haskins cautioned the House Ways and Means Committee, “Do not think that if we suddenly gave a bunch of money to poor people, everything would change." Instead, he explained, as the Times wrote, “…behaviors, neighborhoods and parents’ actions need to change if children’s life paths are to change.”

“Poor people!” Haskins all but stated, “your problem isn’t a lack of money, it’s your bad behavior.”

I stand in awe of the naked, cheesy, pompous effrontery of the man. Not since the days of Ronald Reagan has the doctrine of financial Darwinism been so concisely and unselfconsciously delivered.

Most of us who are not poor harbor a suspicion that there’s something to what Haskins is saying, but few say it. But finally, we’ve found a man who has the courage to speak truth to powerlessness. The trouble with this belief—and it is a belief—is that there’s no credible evidence to back it up.

There are no statistics that I know of that clearly associate virtue with income level. Or, that immoral behavior is the domain of the impecunious. There is evidence that the two groups commit different kinds of crimes and misdemeanors. Drunkenness and drug addiction is enjoyed by all classes more or less equally. But wealthy drunks and drug addicts, for instance, don’t usually gather around street corners, thereby avoiding arrest for loitering. Nor do poor people tend to commit stock fraud or resort to offshore banks.

It’s well known that the better classes don’t spend beyond their means, over consume or abuse their spouses and children. Nor do they essentially set fire to their money by frequenting any of the hundreds of casinos that seem to pop up daily. No, they dependably spend their money on refinements and wholesome family activities.

The truth is, cheaters, bullies, pilferers and layabouts inhabit all the classes and income levels. Those with money, however, are better hidden and protected from the legal and financial consequences of bad behavior. The poor are not.

To Haskins, on the other hand, giving money to the poor is like throwing gasoline on a fire. They would squander it all on dope and bling, never using it for housing, food or on their children. I would bet that Haskins believes that homelessness cannot be alleviated by providing housing; it, too, is a behavioral condition that needs a firm moral orthodontist, not four walls and a roof.

This argument has been around since nobility was invented, and was given broader subscription since the growth of the bourgeoisie. It had gone underground for several decades in the wake of the New Deal and its international counterparts, but it was given new life by Thatcher and Reagan. Their doctrine was clearly stated: the poor are helped by taking money away from them. Disencumbering the poor from their housing subsidies, food stamps, rent control, public schooling and underwritten medical care, goes the story, makes them nimbler and more ready to stand on their own two feet—providing they’re willing to forego child care and labor for minimum wage.

That a right-wing economist like Ron Haskins would restate this doctrine isn’t so surprising. But that The Times doesn’t challenge it as nonsense is somewhat appalling.

So, let me make what passes for a revolutionary statement these days: The reason people are poor is that they don’t have enough money.

And let me also state a germane corollary: Giving people access to enough money, regardless of their sins, would drastically reduce child poverty and its attendant health problems. And so on.

polaris

chief economist for one of the major banks here in canada wrote a paper outlining the decline in economic properity that comes with inadequate social infrastructure ... by cutting off social programs, long term economic growth will be impacted ...

gue_barium

That's a good article, to me, but for his closing line:
And let me also state a germane corollary: Giving people access to enough money, regardless of their sins, would drastically reduce child poverty and its attendant health problems. And so on.

As germane as that may be, it plays right into the hands of people like Haskins who already state that nothing changes by giving money to the poor.

It's a verbal thing, I know.

know1

So why are poor people having children? Are people forcing them to?

RainDog

"The Devil dances inside empty pockets...."

angelica

know1 wrote:

So why are poor people having children? Are people forcing them to?

Humans have underlying life drives that direct us in each moment. As much as we like to create logic and social niceties that control those drives, our manmade structures don't override nature and our true evolutionary purposes.

know1

angelica wrote:

Humans have underlying life drives that direct us in each moment. As much as we like to create logic and social niceties that control those drives, our manmade structures don't override nature and our true evolutionary purposes.

I tend to think people have the brains to make choices and that they aren't existing like some single-celled organism - only reacting to heat and light.

angelica

know1 wrote:

I tend to think people have the brains to make choices and that they aren't existing like some single-celled organism - only reacting to heat and light.

Do you realise that acknowledging people operate based on their natural drives at all times, rather than only based on logic is a far cry from thinking they are mindlessly reacting to heat and light, or being single-celled organisms? People do make choices in each moment of each day, and those choices reflect their deepest drives and motivations. Are you implying poor people "shouldn't" have the natural drive to procreate like others do? Whether they should or shouldn't, they just do. It's natural.

know1

angelica wrote:

Do you realise that acknowledging people operate based on their natural drives at all times, rather than only based on logic is a far cry from thinking they are mindlessly reacting to heat and light, or being single-celled organisms? People do make choices in each moment of each day, and those choices reflect their deepest drives and motivations. Are you implying poor people "shouldn't" have the natural drive to procreate like others do? Whether they should or shouldn't, they just do. It's natural.

Yes I do realize that those two examples aren't equal, but in the end, I believe people have the power to choose their reaction. I think it's dangerous to think that they do not.

angelica

know1 wrote:

Yes I do realize that those two examples aren't equal, but in the end, I believe people have the power to choose their reaction. I think it's dangerous to think that they do not.

They do have the power to choose. I've been perpetually poor throughout my life, and I've chosen to have children because it was meant to be. It was the only option for me given who I am. I've been willing to accept the consequences of my actions, and I've been very creative in how I have handled my challenges. And I don't regret one moment of it. To think I could have gone to my deathbed holding a regret about not being true to my heart and my life purpose because of money is a ludicrous, completely unacceptable concept for me.

When we try to fit who we are into contrived packages to fit our manmade systems rather than fulfill our truth and our life promise, to me, we've got it completely backwards. Our systems currently reflect our backwards manmade structures, and how out of synch with truth and life they are in some far-reaching ways.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

And let me also state a germane corollary: Giving people access to enough money, regardless of their sins, would drastically reduce child poverty and its attendant health problems. And so on.

Sigh.....

Seems odd since child poverty is on the rise in many industrial nations that "give people access to enough money". As a matter of fact, the United States has seen the highest (or close to the highest) decrease in child poverty in the last ten years. Those ten years have also been marked by tougher welfare standards.

Money is not a cure all people. It is not pixie dust. If you simply hand it out to people, "regardless of their" worth, that money will only end up being worth what those people are worth. And that means if you're handing out to people with no skills who provide no tangible benefit to society, that money will end up being worth no more than the paper it's printed on.

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

Sigh.....

Seems odd since child poverty is on the rise in many industrial nations that "give people access to enough money". As a matter of fact, the United States has seen the highest (or close to the highest) decrease in child poverty in the last ten years. Those ten years have also been marked by tougher welfare standards.

Money is not a cure all people. It is not pixie dust. If you simply hand it out to people, "regardless of their" worth, that money will only end up being worth what those people are worth. And that means if you're handing out to people with no skills who provide no tangible benefit to society, that money will end up being worth no more than the paper it's printed on.

While I'll agree that money is not a 'cure all', it's a bit short-sided to suggest that all poor folks would handle money poorly.

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

While I'll agree that money is not a 'cure all', it's a bit short-sided to suggest that all poor folks would handle money poorly.

I don't suggest that at all.

I did suggest that these poor people didn't do anything to earn that money. If they had, they wouldn't need it to be given to them.

The true value of money is dictated by the effort that went in to earning it. When that effort is zero, the value of that money becomes zero. Bought milk lately?

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

Sigh.....

Seems odd since child poverty is on the rise in many industrial nations that "give people access to enough money". As a matter of fact, the United States has seen the highest (or close to the highest) decrease in child poverty in the last ten years. Those ten years have also been marked by tougher welfare standards.

Money is not a cure all people. It is not pixie dust. If you simply hand it out to people, "regardless of their" worth, that money will only end up being worth what those people are worth. And that means if you're handing out to people with no skills who provide no tangible benefit to society, that money will end up being worth no more than the paper it's printed on.

where did you get that info??

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_06232004

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

where did you get that info??

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_06232004

I was talking about growth rates in child poverty, not overall child poverty.

See page 7.

http://www.unicef.org/brazil/repcard6e.pdf

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

I was talking about growth rates in child poverty, not overall child poverty.

See page 7.

http://www.unicef.org/brazil/repcard6e.pdf

and i think the chart on pg. 6 is mroe relevant don't you think?

your stat is misleading in that the US has one of the highest levels of child poverty rates thus a change in it would seem to be more significant ... and although i haven't read the whole thing - i doubt you will find a link between welfare standards and a reduction ... in fact - according to the same report ...

*******
also from pg. 7

It shows, for example, that higher government spending on family and social benefits is clearly associated with lower child poverty rates (Figure 10).
*******

polaris

what would also be interesting is to see that rate present day ... this specific Unicef report compared 1991 vs. 2000 (essentially the clinton era) ...

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

and i think the chart on pg. 6 is mroe relevant don't you think?

No. The issue being discussed is increasing free money to the poor in order to decrease child poverty. The United States decreased free money to the poor in the 90s, but child poverty here fell. Conversely, some nations on that list increased free money to the poor in the 90s, but child poverty rose. The argument presented in the original article made it sound like free money was simply the cure-all to child poverty. The issue is much more complex.

your stat is misleading in that the US has one of the highest levels of child poverty rates thus a change in it would seem to be more significant ...

In total numbers, yes. Those figures are percentages, not total numbers.

and although i haven't read the whole thing - i doubt you will find a link between welfare standards and a reduction ... in fact - according to the same report ...

*******
also from pg. 7

It shows, for example, that higher government spending on family and social benefits is clearly associated with lower child poverty rates (Figure 10).
*******

Hehe...of course "higher government spending on family and social benefits is clearly associated with lower child poverty rates". The question is not association -- the question is whether or not government spending actually is the most effective way to address child poverty.

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

what would also be interesting is to see that rate present day ... this specific Unicef report compared 1991 vs. 2000 (essentially the clinton era) ...

The current child poverty rate (UNICEF) in the US is 22%, I believe. The actual stat using poverty lines instead of medians is roughly 18%, I think.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Sigh.....

Money is not a cure all people. It is not pixie dust. If you simply hand it out to people, "regardless of their" worth, that money will only end up being worth what those people are worth. And that means if you're handing out to people with no skills who provide no tangible benefit to society, that money will end up being worth no more than the paper it's printed on.

You are correct. Money is not a cure all. It does not solve the underlying and actual problems. What would you suggest in terms of problem solving?

Also can you define "tangible benefit to society"? How many people do you know, or have you personally known who have absolutely no skills, just out of curiousity?

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

The current child poverty rate (UNICEF) in the US is 22%, I believe. The actual stat using poverty lines instead of medians is roughly 18%, I think.

if that is the case - then you are on an upward trend ...

either way - there is a correlation between social spending and child poverty rates ... for one of the richest countries in the world to have a child poverty rate close to mexico is embarassing is it not?

i don't think it is necessarily a function of increasing spending but clearly what is being done now is not nearly enough unless a stat like this is acceptable to people ...