Poverty hurts children in ways we're beginning to understand(lithub.com)
lithub.com
Poverty hurts children in ways we're beginning to understand
https://lithub.com/poverty-hurts-children-in-ways-were-just-beginning-to-understand/
138 comments
More and more research is showing that poverty has a severe impact on the brain, and left unchecked it can become nearly unbreakable.
Many of the decisions made by impoverished people are either somewhat sensible for their situation in the short-term (e.g., asking a 16 or 17 year old child to drop out and start working) or are sensible when viewed through certain forms of skewed perspectives (e.g., spending a small windfall immediately because 'that money will just be gone soon anyway'). Children of impoverished parents overwhelmingly learn these lessons, and the stress of poverty is an ever-present part of their lives, so they are often debilitated by it from the very start.
Many of the decisions made by impoverished people are either somewhat sensible for their situation in the short-term (e.g., asking a 16 or 17 year old child to drop out and start working) or are sensible when viewed through certain forms of skewed perspectives (e.g., spending a small windfall immediately because 'that money will just be gone soon anyway'). Children of impoverished parents overwhelmingly learn these lessons, and the stress of poverty is an ever-present part of their lives, so they are often debilitated by it from the very start.
Or perhaps some decisions are just depressingly sensible given the odds of actually escaping poverty. Having your near dropout 16 year old enter the workforce is perhaps a better bet for their future than letting them drop out and associate with malevolent role models who prey on kids like this.
I think one problem is that there isn't a real distinction between childhood poverty and poverty. There is no way to solve childhood poverty that doesn't also improve the parents' situation. As such, any solution to poverty then enables, for a certain segment of the population, a minimum level of poverty that they can choose to not fall below by having children.
Think about it like how the courts view jury nullification. They really don't like that the idea exists, but because it is a natural consequence of principles they follow concerning a jurors right to vote how they feel, they cannot stop it as long as the juror doesn't openly admit to it.
In the same way, a solution to childhood poverty has to be a solution to poverty for a portion of the population, and thus one has to accept a bias in which adult we solve poverty for or extend the solution to all adults, at which point we are now discussing general solutions to poverty.
Think about it like how the courts view jury nullification. They really don't like that the idea exists, but because it is a natural consequence of principles they follow concerning a jurors right to vote how they feel, they cannot stop it as long as the juror doesn't openly admit to it.
In the same way, a solution to childhood poverty has to be a solution to poverty for a portion of the population, and thus one has to accept a bias in which adult we solve poverty for or extend the solution to all adults, at which point we are now discussing general solutions to poverty.
You are talking about going above the baseline poverty level, but right now having a child is a strain (not just in poverty, but broadly across the working class as well), when that could at least be made inconsequential to your personal economic situation.
We also have no requirement to become a parent. No education requirement once you become pregnant or a parent from the local schools or clinics. Good parenting is not just some "God given talent", but can be improved through education to help parents of all wealth levels. If you want to raise the "potential of the country", help with sex education and parental education.
Honest question for you: are you doing that? If not, why not? If so, can you share the successes and failures?
I agree with you 100%.
I agree with you 100%.
Make contraception as common and mandatory as school vaccination programs. Vasagel exists for males (and more technologies will show up down the line) and female contraception is relatively mature. Have the implants tied to RFID with expiry dates signed by manufacturers. Verifiable chain of trust. Make having babies similar to driving licenses. Whitelisting instead of trying to prevent it from occuring after the fact. The technology is there, just that everyone would hate the idea and implementation. Not to mention the societal ramifications.
What will you do when someone eventually breaks the law?
> for making bad choices and choosing to have children they couldn't afford/care for/want
Also, this belittles the cases where one parent was making a great choice, by leaving the other.
Also, this belittles the cases where one parent was making a great choice, by leaving the other.
That doesn't correct the problems caused by making the worse choice of having children with that unsuitable parent in the first place.
What awful point of view.
What's the consequence for being deemed unsuitable? Who determines that you are unworthy of reproduction? What other fundamental rights should unsuitable people be deprived of?
What's the consequence for being deemed unsuitable? Who determines that you are unworthy of reproduction? What other fundamental rights should unsuitable people be deprived of?
How is having children a fundamental right? It's a hobby. In fact, in this case I'd consider it worse than many other hobbies because you are making another person, statistically speaking, suffer because you want to have a pet project that you cannot afford.
You're just making things up. Once that child grows up it's no longer a "pet project" and contributes to the continued existence of society. Spending resources on the child is an investment into the future productivity of that child when it enters the workforce. The idea that such a logical investment is considered uneconomical is a fatal flaw in modern society.
When you consider that the type of family (highly educated) that can actually afford to have children is deciding against having children then your proposal to consider every child as a hobby is just plain stupid. Who's going to have children then? Not the upper class? not the middle class? Not the poor? Nobody?
When you consider that the type of family (highly educated) that can actually afford to have children is deciding against having children then your proposal to consider every child as a hobby is just plain stupid. Who's going to have children then? Not the upper class? not the middle class? Not the poor? Nobody?
Well, if we are talking about poverty and inequality, the child may be a net negative for society, even on the ongoing basis before you consider the initial investment.
Plenty of people are still going to have children, anyway; if we at some point find ourselves short of children, we can bring the incentives back (or just have more immigration). But I don't think it's likely to happen over the long term... the days of needing to make the maximum number of factory workers and cannot fodder for the motherland are over, at least for a time. Having children is totally a hobby.
Plenty of people are still going to have children, anyway; if we at some point find ourselves short of children, we can bring the incentives back (or just have more immigration). But I don't think it's likely to happen over the long term... the days of needing to make the maximum number of factory workers and cannot fodder for the motherland are over, at least for a time. Having children is totally a hobby.
Oh yes, lets get back to discussing eugenics instead of discussing our slow descent back into feudalism which creates such issues in the first place.
This discussion has already made good progress 100 years ago. Then something happened and suddenly stopped it. Don't remember what it was...
What the heck does this have to do with eugenics or feudalism? If you want to practice horse archery, all power to you, but you better find the money to pay for it. It's inane to claim the right to be a horse archer with government support, or blame the lack of means for a good warhorse on increasing inequality.
Now, if the government/society at large feels our light cavalry reserve is critically low given all the Canadian heavy infantry, it would be a-ok for the society to subsidize aspiring horse archers to a necessary extent. Then, and only then. Otherwise, you are free to pay for it yourself - all power to you!
The same exact reasoning applies to having children. I don't see any good explicit reason to produce more children across the board, in fact I see the reverse (be it global warming and the per capita emissions in the first world, the recent electoral successes based on the plight of poor workers suffering due to globalism, automation, whatever); plus there's also plenty of willing immigrants that would solve the governments/societies problem, if there even was one. So, the government has no good reason whatsoever to subsidize child-making. If someone wants to do it as a hobby, all power to them!
The same exact reasoning applies to having children. I don't see any good explicit reason to produce more children across the board, in fact I see the reverse (be it global warming and the per capita emissions in the first world, the recent electoral successes based on the plight of poor workers suffering due to globalism, automation, whatever); plus there's also plenty of willing immigrants that would solve the governments/societies problem, if there even was one. So, the government has no good reason whatsoever to subsidize child-making. If someone wants to do it as a hobby, all power to them!
What could possibly correct that mistake?
A systemic answer is required to improve this case. I very much doubt there is any single magic bullet thing that will make the problem better.
There is one:
Treat every child in poverty as a societal responsibility. Everything will stem from there.
a.k.a. start with societal empathy.
Treat every child in poverty as a societal responsibility. Everything will stem from there.
a.k.a. start with societal empathy.
By everything you mean solutions such as what? State paid orphanages? Free best education? Then free healthcare on top of that right? Let's continue with cheap and nutritious enough free food, likewise housing.
Where will you find enough qualified teachers and nursing staff as the parents are obviously unsuitable? Cooks? Farmers? State would literally have to order at least some of those people to take such jobs.
Maximum of factor is perhaps 10 per person, likely much less than that to provide proper quality. Unless you will invest heavily in teaching and nursing staff.
It is an interesting model of a society halfway ran like military. Ultimately not too bad and orderly, but the problems of allocation are hard to solve and corruption is still likely.
The old adage is that the more you want to control, the more you have to control. (Providing strong incentives might be enough.)
Mind you EU socialdemocratic model is only halfway there, and thus limited in results. (Orphanages and nursing are too few, poor people are not relieved off parenthood. Free housing and food is very limited using merit as allocation through social services.)
Where will you find enough qualified teachers and nursing staff as the parents are obviously unsuitable? Cooks? Farmers? State would literally have to order at least some of those people to take such jobs.
Maximum of factor is perhaps 10 per person, likely much less than that to provide proper quality. Unless you will invest heavily in teaching and nursing staff.
It is an interesting model of a society halfway ran like military. Ultimately not too bad and orderly, but the problems of allocation are hard to solve and corruption is still likely.
The old adage is that the more you want to control, the more you have to control. (Providing strong incentives might be enough.)
Mind you EU socialdemocratic model is only halfway there, and thus limited in results. (Orphanages and nursing are too few, poor people are not relieved off parenthood. Free housing and food is very limited using merit as allocation through social services.)
i.e. the tax payer's responsibility?
It's hard to impossible to figure out the "suitability" of a person for something until they actually did that thing, in this case become a parent. Just like dating and marriage can be very different. Hindsight is 20/20.
Come on, you can easily determine most of the time that a person is too poor to have a kid. (The other cases are usually an exception.)
You missed my point. You can become poor after having a child, due to good choices.
A perfect example is when one of the parents succumbs to addiction that wasn't present before the child.
A perfect example is when one of the parents succumbs to addiction that wasn't present before the child.
You cannot rationally hold the belief that people can be allowed to have as many children anytime they want and that all children will be provided for regardless of the ability of their individual parents to provide for them. Such parents have shown they have no limiting factor, so the end result is that all children will be poor as you divert greater and greater resources from parents who act in more responsible ways to those who don't.
It's also a curious way to characterize it that "we're consistently condemning the children for the sins of their parents." Seeing as "we" had nothing to do with creating the plight of these children, "us" not acting to change it is not us condemning them. That's like saying "we" are responsible for that child that fell into the well and drowned recently as we didn't save him. Or that "we" are condemning that fat guy to an early death because "we" aren't forcing him to eat salad and go to the gym.
Not to mention that for every poor kid in this country (assuming you meant the US when you said "the country") there are a five to ten in southeast Asia with a lower standard of living. How do you justify tapping the productivity of a Boeing working in Renton to provide for a poor kid in Mississippi who has no more connection to that worker than a poor kid in Cambodia, while simultaneously not ensuring that that Cambodian kid has the same standard of living and opportunities you want to give to the Mississippian?
I will agree that it's a very unfortunately situation, but I'm not going to lower the standard of living of my own family that limits their chances of having their best life so as to provide for the child of a stranger who doesn't give the same care and thought to me and mine.
It's also a curious way to characterize it that "we're consistently condemning the children for the sins of their parents." Seeing as "we" had nothing to do with creating the plight of these children, "us" not acting to change it is not us condemning them. That's like saying "we" are responsible for that child that fell into the well and drowned recently as we didn't save him. Or that "we" are condemning that fat guy to an early death because "we" aren't forcing him to eat salad and go to the gym.
Not to mention that for every poor kid in this country (assuming you meant the US when you said "the country") there are a five to ten in southeast Asia with a lower standard of living. How do you justify tapping the productivity of a Boeing working in Renton to provide for a poor kid in Mississippi who has no more connection to that worker than a poor kid in Cambodia, while simultaneously not ensuring that that Cambodian kid has the same standard of living and opportunities you want to give to the Mississippian?
I will agree that it's a very unfortunately situation, but I'm not going to lower the standard of living of my own family that limits their chances of having their best life so as to provide for the child of a stranger who doesn't give the same care and thought to me and mine.
> You cannot rationally hold the belief that people can be allowed to have as many children anytime they want and that all children will be provided for regardless of the ability of their individual parents to provide for them. Such parents have shown they have no limiting factor, so the end result is that all children will be poor as you divert greater and greater resources from parents who act in more responsible ways to those who don't.
Yes you can. Why not? Not to mention your (implicit) assertion that [poor] people, "have as many children anytime they want" is also ridiculous.
> Not to mention that for every poor kid in this country (assuming you meant the US when you said "the country") there are a five to ten in southeast Asia with a lower standard of living. How do you justify tapping the productivity of a Boeing working in Renton to provide for a poor kid in Mississippi who has no more connection to that worker than a poor kid in Cambodia, while simultaneously not ensuring that that Cambodian kid has the same standard of living and opportunities you want to give to the Mississippian?
This is true, but irrelevant to the USA's own government policies. Presumably other countries should do the same with their own children.
Of course, we can take your line of thought and cut off the supply of public services to children and adults alike. Then see how quickly your own quality of life erodes. Indeed it's this very philosophy you hold that will explain why humanity will never take action on climate change or any global scale catastrophe that isn't imminent.
Yes you can. Why not? Not to mention your (implicit) assertion that [poor] people, "have as many children anytime they want" is also ridiculous.
> Not to mention that for every poor kid in this country (assuming you meant the US when you said "the country") there are a five to ten in southeast Asia with a lower standard of living. How do you justify tapping the productivity of a Boeing working in Renton to provide for a poor kid in Mississippi who has no more connection to that worker than a poor kid in Cambodia, while simultaneously not ensuring that that Cambodian kid has the same standard of living and opportunities you want to give to the Mississippian?
This is true, but irrelevant to the USA's own government policies. Presumably other countries should do the same with their own children.
Of course, we can take your line of thought and cut off the supply of public services to children and adults alike. Then see how quickly your own quality of life erodes. Indeed it's this very philosophy you hold that will explain why humanity will never take action on climate change or any global scale catastrophe that isn't imminent.
Whether or not you believe in helping others is a personal choice. Most societies across the globe and throughout history have recognised the need for community & solidarity in order to survive & thrive.
> Such parents have shown they have no limiting factor...
You make it sound like there’s an infinite loop of childbirth which will eventually use up every last dollar in the world, but that’s not what happens in reality when people have enough money to keep having children. There are also potential options to combat this, through incentives, support, education, etc...
Your point about it being worse in other countries is common enough. My reply tends to be that for every problem in the world we don’t find the worse example out of all 7.6 billion of us and start there. We start where we can and then try to keep going as much as we can.
> I'm not going to lower the standard of living of my own family
Not everything is a zero sum game. Currently the US right seems to frame a lot of centrist/left policies as significantly detrimental to the lifestyle and income of the average person. There is plenty of economic resource out there which we can utilise before we make any significant impact on a typical taxpayer’s lifestyle. Even then it would be minimal compared to the overall improvements to the country.
> Such parents have shown they have no limiting factor...
You make it sound like there’s an infinite loop of childbirth which will eventually use up every last dollar in the world, but that’s not what happens in reality when people have enough money to keep having children. There are also potential options to combat this, through incentives, support, education, etc...
Your point about it being worse in other countries is common enough. My reply tends to be that for every problem in the world we don’t find the worse example out of all 7.6 billion of us and start there. We start where we can and then try to keep going as much as we can.
> I'm not going to lower the standard of living of my own family
Not everything is a zero sum game. Currently the US right seems to frame a lot of centrist/left policies as significantly detrimental to the lifestyle and income of the average person. There is plenty of economic resource out there which we can utilise before we make any significant impact on a typical taxpayer’s lifestyle. Even then it would be minimal compared to the overall improvements to the country.
>You make it sound like there’s an infinite loop of childbirth which will eventually use up every last dollar in the world,
It's not infinite, but we cannot provide every child in the world with the same standard of living as that had by the average Norwegian, for example. And given that a couple chose to give birth to a kid even though they could easily see that they can't provide for the child and society can't provide for the child. E: It shows they don't have a limiting factor.
>Not everything is a zero sum game. Currently the US right seems to frame a lot of centrist/left policies as significantly detrimental to the lifestyle and income of the average person. There is plenty of economic resource out there which we can utilise before we make any significant impact on a typical taxpayer’s lifestyle.
Life is certainly zero sum in many ways. If you take ten thousand dollars from me this year and pay it back to me fifteen years later by saying "hey, the average productivity, prosperity, happiness went up by 30%" that doesn't undo the fact that you prevented me from sending my child to a better school. I will never have the opportunity again to send my five year old to a great preschool because next year that kid will be six and that one year of more nurtured development will never be able to be regained.
Currently the US doesn't pay for everything it does on an annual basis. Approximately 25% of spending is borrowed. And of the total four trillion dollars in spending, around sixty percent of that is for social security, medicare, medicaid, social safety net programs, chip, snap, and etc. Additionally, less than 40% of households are net tax payers. You really can't make dramatic changes in social programs without also dramatically impacting people's lives.
It's not infinite, but we cannot provide every child in the world with the same standard of living as that had by the average Norwegian, for example. And given that a couple chose to give birth to a kid even though they could easily see that they can't provide for the child and society can't provide for the child. E: It shows they don't have a limiting factor.
>Not everything is a zero sum game. Currently the US right seems to frame a lot of centrist/left policies as significantly detrimental to the lifestyle and income of the average person. There is plenty of economic resource out there which we can utilise before we make any significant impact on a typical taxpayer’s lifestyle.
Life is certainly zero sum in many ways. If you take ten thousand dollars from me this year and pay it back to me fifteen years later by saying "hey, the average productivity, prosperity, happiness went up by 30%" that doesn't undo the fact that you prevented me from sending my child to a better school. I will never have the opportunity again to send my five year old to a great preschool because next year that kid will be six and that one year of more nurtured development will never be able to be regained.
Currently the US doesn't pay for everything it does on an annual basis. Approximately 25% of spending is borrowed. And of the total four trillion dollars in spending, around sixty percent of that is for social security, medicare, medicaid, social safety net programs, chip, snap, and etc. Additionally, less than 40% of households are net tax payers. You really can't make dramatic changes in social programs without also dramatically impacting people's lives.
> we cannot provide every child in the world with the same standard of living as that had by the average Norwegian,
That's a straw man - that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about much more achievable aims, such as children not being hungry and not living in unhealthy housing. Many interventions to reduce poverty are relatively low cost. We’re certainly not talking Teslas & Scandinavian design for all.
On zero sum games, you’re talking about economics here and if anything is an example of non-zero-sum game, it’s economics and monetary theory. Large amounts of wealth and economic potential are created pretty much every minute.
Your example of sending your child to a better school isn’t really accurate for a few reasons. There is a practical, real world limit on school fees. At a certain level of income you would have been able to afford the best school possible, hired tutors, etc… and any further earning would not make a difference. You personally might not be at that level, but a lot of the progressive ideas for taxation target those who are exactly in that situation.
The wealth taxes being proposed by a couple of the US Democratic nominees would kick in at the level of millionaires, who are far removed from scraping together every last dollar for the college fund. Other tax changes would certainly not have “dramatic” negative impacts on tax payers, many might see gains.
The preschool/school example is great, especially as you brought up Norway! You have a problem of having to pay to send children to school. That’s the problem, not that any tax changes might jeopardise that. So let’s solve that problem!
In Norway you wouldn’t have to worry about affording preschool as they are all state funded, even the private ones. You pay a small additional contribution at most, if you can afford to, but that’s capped by the local government and about $350 a month. The schools are free (you pay a similar amount for after school babysitting if you need it) and all roughly a similar good standard. University is similar. So your problem of having to afford 20 years or so of education disappears entirely. Which is pretty awesome, plus your healthcare costs also don't exist and you have much more money for discretionary spending. A lot of Norwegians have cabins in the mountains and boats in the fjords, and it's not because they pay low taxes and ignore child poverty.
That's a straw man - that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about much more achievable aims, such as children not being hungry and not living in unhealthy housing. Many interventions to reduce poverty are relatively low cost. We’re certainly not talking Teslas & Scandinavian design for all.
On zero sum games, you’re talking about economics here and if anything is an example of non-zero-sum game, it’s economics and monetary theory. Large amounts of wealth and economic potential are created pretty much every minute.
Your example of sending your child to a better school isn’t really accurate for a few reasons. There is a practical, real world limit on school fees. At a certain level of income you would have been able to afford the best school possible, hired tutors, etc… and any further earning would not make a difference. You personally might not be at that level, but a lot of the progressive ideas for taxation target those who are exactly in that situation.
The wealth taxes being proposed by a couple of the US Democratic nominees would kick in at the level of millionaires, who are far removed from scraping together every last dollar for the college fund. Other tax changes would certainly not have “dramatic” negative impacts on tax payers, many might see gains.
The preschool/school example is great, especially as you brought up Norway! You have a problem of having to pay to send children to school. That’s the problem, not that any tax changes might jeopardise that. So let’s solve that problem!
In Norway you wouldn’t have to worry about affording preschool as they are all state funded, even the private ones. You pay a small additional contribution at most, if you can afford to, but that’s capped by the local government and about $350 a month. The schools are free (you pay a similar amount for after school babysitting if you need it) and all roughly a similar good standard. University is similar. So your problem of having to afford 20 years or so of education disappears entirely. Which is pretty awesome, plus your healthcare costs also don't exist and you have much more money for discretionary spending. A lot of Norwegians have cabins in the mountains and boats in the fjords, and it's not because they pay low taxes and ignore child poverty.
Let's look at this as someone from a higher socioeconomic level than you may do. Maybe you should have taken having a child more seriously. Anyone who decided to have children (or had an unplanned pregnancy) six years ago should have been smart enough to have saved up more money so that a single unplanned $10,000 expense would not wreck his child's academic chances.
> How do you justify tapping the productivity of a Boeing working in Renton...
Well, the direct answer is: these are all Americans, and all pay some kind of tax to their city, county, state, and ultimately the country, in theory so they can draw on the shared resources of the nation. That's how you justify supporting the kid in Mississippi and not the kid in Cambodia.
As for rationally holding the belief that people can have as many kids as they want, and those kids will be cared for, yes, you can hold those simultaneously. I don't want any kids in my country to go hungry; how many siblings they have or what choices their parents have made are irrelevant to those individual kids' needs being met. There's no conflict there.
We live, as they say, in a society.
Well, the direct answer is: these are all Americans, and all pay some kind of tax to their city, county, state, and ultimately the country, in theory so they can draw on the shared resources of the nation. That's how you justify supporting the kid in Mississippi and not the kid in Cambodia.
As for rationally holding the belief that people can have as many kids as they want, and those kids will be cared for, yes, you can hold those simultaneously. I don't want any kids in my country to go hungry; how many siblings they have or what choices their parents have made are irrelevant to those individual kids' needs being met. There's no conflict there.
We live, as they say, in a society.
We don't live in a post scarcity society. As such it's not possible to support every kid to a high standard of living unless you limit the number of kids.
I also want to point out that they don't pay taxes to their city, county, state, and country. There have been several studies by the CBO[0 - see the chart on page 31] that show that the lower 60% of households are not net tax payers at the federal level to such an extent that their entire non-federal tax payments offset by the transfers and benefits they receive from the federal government.
0 - https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-...
I also want to point out that they don't pay taxes to their city, county, state, and country. There have been several studies by the CBO[0 - see the chart on page 31] that show that the lower 60% of households are not net tax payers at the federal level to such an extent that their entire non-federal tax payments offset by the transfers and benefits they receive from the federal government.
0 - https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-...
I don't know why you decided to contradict yourself. You say they don't pay taxes and then the taxes they pay don't offset the benefits they receive which are two completely different things. Clearly they are paying taxes and a redistribution scheme takes money from the top income and transfers it to lower income by definition. There is nothing surprising about this.
You're also forgetting that those workers exist. Beyond taxes the benefit of workers is also in the products and services they provide. When you're a retiree you still need someone to stock shelves in the supermarkets and sit in front of the cash register or someone to work on a farm and pick up the harvest.
You're also forgetting that those workers exist. Beyond taxes the benefit of workers is also in the products and services they provide. When you're a retiree you still need someone to stock shelves in the supermarkets and sit in front of the cash register or someone to work on a farm and pick up the harvest.
When I was a child my parents would give me $20 to go to the movies. I would go purchase the ticket from the cashier. I was literally the ticket buyer, but I was not the ticket payer.
We do not live in a post-scarcity society, but the US is rich enough to guarantee every child a standard of living that includes adequate food, shelter, and education.
When these discussions come up, I often think about this simple chart:
https://i.redd.it/pg5w8ws3b0o31.jpg
If the distribution of wealth, i.e. access to resources, were what 92% of Americans considered ideal, we'd need the minimal social programs you seem to want, and your low-wage worker in Renton would probably pay nothing to support a poor kid in Mississippi.
The current wealth scheme in the US is very much a consequence of US politics, i.e. taxation, wage laws, etc., it's not a natural state of being. (There is no natural state of being for a society.) What we have now is the result of choices made over a long time; getting different results, so you'd never be on the hook for someone in Mississippi, would take different choices from society, not just you declaring that we cannot afford and therefore should end social programs.
When these discussions come up, I often think about this simple chart:
https://i.redd.it/pg5w8ws3b0o31.jpg
If the distribution of wealth, i.e. access to resources, were what 92% of Americans considered ideal, we'd need the minimal social programs you seem to want, and your low-wage worker in Renton would probably pay nothing to support a poor kid in Mississippi.
The current wealth scheme in the US is very much a consequence of US politics, i.e. taxation, wage laws, etc., it's not a natural state of being. (There is no natural state of being for a society.) What we have now is the result of choices made over a long time; getting different results, so you'd never be on the hook for someone in Mississippi, would take different choices from society, not just you declaring that we cannot afford and therefore should end social programs.
How do you propose changing the wealth distribution?
Changing post-tax income distribution is fairly straightforward (in theory), but it's less clear to me how to change wealth distribution.
Changing post-tax income distribution is fairly straightforward (in theory), but it's less clear to me how to change wealth distribution.
Great arguments, the number of people in society lacking basic economic understanding is astounding.
> I will agree that it's a very unfortunately situation, but I'm not going to lower the standard of living of my own family that limits their chances of having their best life so as to provide for the child of a stranger who doesn't give the same care and thought to me and mine.
Where does this argument end? For example if you end up needing to live in a rest home and your family can't afford or refuses to take care of you, why should my tax dollars go to help you out? You should just be thrown out into the streets until you die to reduce the burden you put on society.
As many countries have justifiably chosen, they consider this to be an extremely barbaric approach.
Where does this argument end? For example if you end up needing to live in a rest home and your family can't afford or refuses to take care of you, why should my tax dollars go to help you out? You should just be thrown out into the streets until you die to reduce the burden you put on society.
As many countries have justifiably chosen, they consider this to be an extremely barbaric approach.
>For example if you end up needing to live in a rest home and your family can't afford or refuses to take care of you, why should my tax dollars go to help you out?
Your tax dollars shouldn't. I would have to be a real asshole who has no empathy and care for you to live my life in a way that I end up destitute in my old age and expect you to sacrifice your family's well being so I can live my life selfishly and greedily.
>As many countries have justifiably chosen, they consider this to be an extremely barbaric approach.
You might phrase it like that, but every single day in every single country that provides a generous safety net someone dies whose life could have been extended by some amount of time if only the country had spent more money on doing so.
Your tax dollars shouldn't. I would have to be a real asshole who has no empathy and care for you to live my life in a way that I end up destitute in my old age and expect you to sacrifice your family's well being so I can live my life selfishly and greedily.
>As many countries have justifiably chosen, they consider this to be an extremely barbaric approach.
You might phrase it like that, but every single day in every single country that provides a generous safety net someone dies whose life could have been extended by some amount of time if only the country had spent more money on doing so.
> You might phrase it like that, but every single day in every single country that provides a generous safety net someone dies whose life could have been extended by some amount of time if only the country had spent more money on doing so.
This is a nonsensical argument. Said safety net is often the reason why people don't die, because as a whole it's cheaper to prevent people from getting to the point of destitution than it is to pull them out of it.
And your first argument is nonsensical too. Because a lot of the time it's simply a roll of the dice whether or not our health nosedives. By your argument if you get in an accident, you would be an asshole to expect other people to help you out in a time of crisis.
That's not having no empathy, that's having a nihilistic worldview and expecting everyone to subscribe to your 'every person for themselves' mentality.
This is a nonsensical argument. Said safety net is often the reason why people don't die, because as a whole it's cheaper to prevent people from getting to the point of destitution than it is to pull them out of it.
And your first argument is nonsensical too. Because a lot of the time it's simply a roll of the dice whether or not our health nosedives. By your argument if you get in an accident, you would be an asshole to expect other people to help you out in a time of crisis.
That's not having no empathy, that's having a nihilistic worldview and expecting everyone to subscribe to your 'every person for themselves' mentality.
scrollbar(2)
There are many times the number of people that can sustainably live on earth at the moment (something like an order of magnitude). You can see consequences of this by looking at much more overpopulated areas in the middle east, Africa, or India where starvation is much more a part of life. This is a huge problem in more developed areas as well, with environmental degradation, pollution, and the land made poorer by only a small fraction being wilderness.
A naive idea is, have a baby penalty. A baby penalty would make would be parents think twice about having children, and more about family planning and contraception. It would suck to be a child in a family that cannot afford to raise children (this really needs to be emphasized). To offset this people can be paid to bring up a child that their parents cannot afford, this works great as the people who raise the other parents children are less likely to have children themselves. Now this is naive, is not fleshed out, and has all sorts of things that can go wrong, but conversations about these things has to start. Take China, without their 'Family Planning Policy", the place would be a much worse place to live in than today. What was described is something much softer than the Family Planning Policy, but countries may have to move to something like China's policies to have any hope.
"We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now." - David Attenborough
A naive idea is, have a baby penalty. A baby penalty would make would be parents think twice about having children, and more about family planning and contraception. It would suck to be a child in a family that cannot afford to raise children (this really needs to be emphasized). To offset this people can be paid to bring up a child that their parents cannot afford, this works great as the people who raise the other parents children are less likely to have children themselves. Now this is naive, is not fleshed out, and has all sorts of things that can go wrong, but conversations about these things has to start. Take China, without their 'Family Planning Policy", the place would be a much worse place to live in than today. What was described is something much softer than the Family Planning Policy, but countries may have to move to something like China's policies to have any hope.
"We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now." - David Attenborough
>To offset this people can be paid to bring up a child that their parents cannot afford, this works great as the people who raise the other parents children are less likely to have children themselves.
You didn't think that through. They are less likely to have children because they have decided against children. A female lawyer isn't going to give up her career to take care of other people's children. She has much better options.
What may happen is that poor people get their children taken away and sent to another poor family that now gets paid for taking care of the child. It's basically a very "unorthodox" form of childcare/adoption without class mobility.
You didn't think that through. They are less likely to have children because they have decided against children. A female lawyer isn't going to give up her career to take care of other people's children. She has much better options.
What may happen is that poor people get their children taken away and sent to another poor family that now gets paid for taking care of the child. It's basically a very "unorthodox" form of childcare/adoption without class mobility.
> In discussions about low income families I often see somebody comment along the lines of blaming the parents for making bad choices and choosing to have children they couldn't afford/care for/want.
So just to be clear on some points before I get accused of holding positions I do not hold. I am all for helping children who were let down by their parents. I don't think they should be condemned. I also grew up very poor, my parents had to go into debt to buy basic necessities and I still have to support my parents financially and will likely always have to do this.
When it comes to this issue, you need to pick a lane and stay in it. Either people have agency and are responsible for their actions and ultimate responsibility lays with the parents - or people do not have agency and nobody is responsible for anything and concepts like democracy makes no sense.
I personally pick the lane that people do have agency and do bear ultimate responsibility for their actions. I do make exception for those who are severely mentally ill but this is not the root of poverty.
Consequently, while social support for those who were let down by their parents is good - this alone cannot fix all problems. Maybe in a place like Norway with very low unemployment it is enough, but it will never be able solve the problems in places like South Africa where the unemployment is ~30% (calculated in the same way as unemployment reported for US and EU economies is calculated).
So sure, lets help the children - but lets stop making excuses for those who put the children in that position to begin with. I don't think it is okay to run cover for absolutely horrible human beings who bring children into this world that they cannot adequately provide for.
So just to be clear on some points before I get accused of holding positions I do not hold. I am all for helping children who were let down by their parents. I don't think they should be condemned. I also grew up very poor, my parents had to go into debt to buy basic necessities and I still have to support my parents financially and will likely always have to do this.
When it comes to this issue, you need to pick a lane and stay in it. Either people have agency and are responsible for their actions and ultimate responsibility lays with the parents - or people do not have agency and nobody is responsible for anything and concepts like democracy makes no sense.
I personally pick the lane that people do have agency and do bear ultimate responsibility for their actions. I do make exception for those who are severely mentally ill but this is not the root of poverty.
Consequently, while social support for those who were let down by their parents is good - this alone cannot fix all problems. Maybe in a place like Norway with very low unemployment it is enough, but it will never be able solve the problems in places like South Africa where the unemployment is ~30% (calculated in the same way as unemployment reported for US and EU economies is calculated).
So sure, lets help the children - but lets stop making excuses for those who put the children in that position to begin with. I don't think it is okay to run cover for absolutely horrible human beings who bring children into this world that they cannot adequately provide for.
Either people have agency ...
This is a good point. Many aspects of our lives are under the control of others & our socio-economic system. Recessions our previously comfortable families below the breadline, where they are then judged harshly for their life choices. Many families are only a crisis or two away from homelessness, without full agency to rescue themselves.
> What if people in general have some agency, but not always enough to counteract the larger scale actions that affect them?
Would one of those actions be the urge to have sex? If not then not sure what we are talking about here.
I think the majority of people who have children they can't provide for bear the responsibility for that and I don't really see where in that you want to plug your nuance - but if you have something more than "there is nuance" I would love to hear it.
Would one of those actions be the urge to have sex? If not then not sure what we are talking about here.
I think the majority of people who have children they can't provide for bear the responsibility for that and I don't really see where in that you want to plug your nuance - but if you have something more than "there is nuance" I would love to hear it.
It is very easy to point at a poor person and make up a random reason why they are poor. (It's not like anyone will spend resources on validating your claim.)
It is very difficult to look at a random average person and predict whether they will become poor within the next 2 decades.
It is very difficult to look at a random average person and predict whether they will become poor within the next 2 decades.
Your are assuming at least two things (there are surely more) about people who are struggling to raise kids
1) They have always been struggling, a didn't have a reasonable plan originally, and/or
2) They didn't take reasonable precautions to avoid pregnancy but still end up pregnant, and believe their best option was to raise the child
Both of these assumptions are clearly false in general although I don't know enough about the issues to hesitate a guess on percentages.
I was mostly thinking about (1). Someone with a partner and a solid household income can easily become a struggling single parent, for example, without having made any obviously bad decisions.
1) They have always been struggling, a didn't have a reasonable plan originally, and/or
2) They didn't take reasonable precautions to avoid pregnancy but still end up pregnant, and believe their best option was to raise the child
Both of these assumptions are clearly false in general although I don't know enough about the issues to hesitate a guess on percentages.
I was mostly thinking about (1). Someone with a partner and a solid household income can easily become a struggling single parent, for example, without having made any obviously bad decisions.
I think we completely rule out cases where people were in a good financial position and could provide for children and cases where people were using birth control child poverty will remain virtually unchanged.
https://www.businessinsider.com/parents-determine-child-succ...
> The researchers further suggest that the "fraction of children living in single-parent households is the strongest correlation of upward income mobility among all the variables we explored."
See also: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/single-mothers-new-yo...
https://www.businessinsider.com/parents-determine-child-succ...
> The researchers further suggest that the "fraction of children living in single-parent households is the strongest correlation of upward income mobility among all the variables we explored."
See also: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/single-mothers-new-yo...
It's a complicated issue. I don't know enough to have a strong opinion on it, but I do know enough to know that a lot of the research is contentious.
The black/white thinking espoused above, though: I doubt it leads to real insight or improvements.
The black/white thinking espoused above, though: I doubt it leads to real insight or improvements.
>When it comes to this issue, you need to pick a lane and stay in it
This is a good example where black and white thinking is dangerous. Some people have more control over their circumstances than others. That includes parents providing (or not) for their children. You don't need to be an apologist for bad parenting to acknowledge that human circumstances are due to some combination of choices, intrinsic nature, and environment.
This is a good example where black and white thinking is dangerous. Some people have more control over their circumstances than others. That includes parents providing (or not) for their children. You don't need to be an apologist for bad parenting to acknowledge that human circumstances are due to some combination of choices, intrinsic nature, and environment.
> Some people have more control over their circumstances than others. That includes parents providing (or not) for their children.
I don't think the majority of the poverty problem comes from otherwise well to do parents falling on hard luck. At least in South Africa and I would think most of the rest of Africa this is not the case. If people just made sure to be in a position where they have the capability to provide for children at the point in time when they have them the poverty issue will be almost entirely gone.
And already just something as simple as providing a two parent household and not having children before 25 already virtually guarantees that they will not be impoverished:
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-deny-the-link-b...
- https://www.businessinsider.com/parents-determine-child-succ...
I don't think the majority of the poverty problem comes from otherwise well to do parents falling on hard luck. At least in South Africa and I would think most of the rest of Africa this is not the case. If people just made sure to be in a position where they have the capability to provide for children at the point in time when they have them the poverty issue will be almost entirely gone.
And already just something as simple as providing a two parent household and not having children before 25 already virtually guarantees that they will not be impoverished:
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-deny-the-link-b...
- https://www.businessinsider.com/parents-determine-child-succ...
>I don't think the majority of the poverty problem comes from otherwise well to do parents falling on hard luck
I don't disagree - competent people, who have learned successful strategies, are unlikely to be reduced to permanent poverty except in extreme cases.
However, for those born into poverty, growing up surrounded by ignorance and lack of stimulation does make it exceedingly difficult to learn necessary life strategies to begin the slow, often times multigenerational climb out of poverty. First and foremost, what no one is willing to admit, combating poverty, at least in first world nations, really comes down to combating culture. And because a large proportion of certain (not all) minorities live within this culture, the idea of changing their way of life, even if you think it's ostensibly for the better, is understandably a sensitive subject.
But the way we dance around it isn't doing anyone any favors.
I don't disagree - competent people, who have learned successful strategies, are unlikely to be reduced to permanent poverty except in extreme cases.
However, for those born into poverty, growing up surrounded by ignorance and lack of stimulation does make it exceedingly difficult to learn necessary life strategies to begin the slow, often times multigenerational climb out of poverty. First and foremost, what no one is willing to admit, combating poverty, at least in first world nations, really comes down to combating culture. And because a large proportion of certain (not all) minorities live within this culture, the idea of changing their way of life, even if you think it's ostensibly for the better, is understandably a sensitive subject.
But the way we dance around it isn't doing anyone any favors.
Don't forget luck, it's a pretty important factor.
> In discussions about low income families I often see somebody comment along the lines of blaming the parents for making bad choices and choosing to have children they couldn't afford/care for/want. This is used as a reason not to provide any social support to those families as they see it as rewarding bad behaviour. But these children didn't make those choices and they now exist in their circumstances through no fault of their own.
Is it really unexpected/surprising?
Ever since population sizes grew large enough for paternity to matter, where children didn't just fall into a common pool, we've cared more about our resources contributing to our own children's outcomes and not those of others.
Children born in poverty are just at the extreme low end of the spectrum, but anywhere on that spectrum there's economic disparity between families affecting the probabilities of outcomes for their respective children.
It's arguably irrational to care about someone else's children in this scenario, when you have your own. They're competitors, you want to give your children as much advantage as possible and disadvantage everyone else's, if you're playing aggressively. As the population continues to grow larger, there's only increasing pressure on parents to be aggressive, if they're paying attention.
Is it really unexpected/surprising?
Ever since population sizes grew large enough for paternity to matter, where children didn't just fall into a common pool, we've cared more about our resources contributing to our own children's outcomes and not those of others.
Children born in poverty are just at the extreme low end of the spectrum, but anywhere on that spectrum there's economic disparity between families affecting the probabilities of outcomes for their respective children.
It's arguably irrational to care about someone else's children in this scenario, when you have your own. They're competitors, you want to give your children as much advantage as possible and disadvantage everyone else's, if you're playing aggressively. As the population continues to grow larger, there's only increasing pressure on parents to be aggressive, if they're paying attention.
It’s the recurrent “blame the user, not the system”.
Hey, its the Biblical way.
Okay stupid comments aside... I had a convo with a guy arguing that "I don't have kids and shouldn't pay to support the kids of others. If you can't afford to send kids to school don't have em."
Nobody thinks: "Those unschooled kids will then grab a knife or a gun and go and rob you or your very well educated kids out of desperation and end up killing occasionally." also... "why are you pro having a lifelong torturing of kids?"
People really lack empathy for the pain of others, as if their suffering will lessen one's own.
Okay stupid comments aside... I had a convo with a guy arguing that "I don't have kids and shouldn't pay to support the kids of others. If you can't afford to send kids to school don't have em."
Nobody thinks: "Those unschooled kids will then grab a knife or a gun and go and rob you or your very well educated kids out of desperation and end up killing occasionally." also... "why are you pro having a lifelong torturing of kids?"
People really lack empathy for the pain of others, as if their suffering will lessen one's own.
What programs tackle child poverty?
I used to work for a company that partnered with (and is now owned by) a non-profit called Youth Villages. They focused on in-home rehabilitation to help avoid having kids enter into foster care by working with the parents. There are a few foster care programs that target poor youth and aim to provide them with more resources and opportunities. I am not sure what other types of programs would focus specifically on childhood poverty.
I’m not sure which country you’re in, but I would argue a significant part of our socioeconomic structure is aimed at that, and has been since whenever schooling became mandatory.
It’s not perfect, and I don’t think “fix poverty” is necessarily main reason for the plans, but the effect has been to reduce it greatly compared to bygone times.
</armchair>
It’s not perfect, and I don’t think “fix poverty” is necessarily main reason for the plans, but the effect has been to reduce it greatly compared to bygone times.
</armchair>
SNAP and WIC are one of the first to come to mind. The effect of poor early life nutrition can have a measurable impact throughout a person's life.
wonderwonder(1)
Unfortunately the resources to resolve the issue are rival and limited.
This ultimately means that giving to the poor deprives another.
The question then becomes should the parents and children of parents who make more sustainable choices be forced to support the parents and children those who don't. This is generally the current state of our welfare system. Tax burden and impact is predominantly on the middle class.
The result is dysgenic, i.e. Better outcomes are punished, worse outcomes are rewarded.
Its also a classic trolley problem, and thus both action (wealth distribution) and inaction are immoral.
The next argument will be that we should lift everyone to a minimum standard. However this still fails the test above and fails to realise that wealth is unfortunately relative.
Couple that with the dead-weight loss of the tax system and you actually create a spiral of poverty that starts to consume all except the richest.
This ultimately means that giving to the poor deprives another.
The question then becomes should the parents and children of parents who make more sustainable choices be forced to support the parents and children those who don't. This is generally the current state of our welfare system. Tax burden and impact is predominantly on the middle class.
The result is dysgenic, i.e. Better outcomes are punished, worse outcomes are rewarded.
Its also a classic trolley problem, and thus both action (wealth distribution) and inaction are immoral.
The next argument will be that we should lift everyone to a minimum standard. However this still fails the test above and fails to realise that wealth is unfortunately relative.
Couple that with the dead-weight loss of the tax system and you actually create a spiral of poverty that starts to consume all except the richest.
Housing is an enormous tax, and rent seeking just transfers money from the poor to the rich. Rather than giving everyone money, I would prefer to see a market solution where we greatly lower the costs for things at the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid.
This.
I grew up on welfare, and I can't tell you how often my mom would talk about section 8 housing and how that would change everything. Having to move was my parents greatest nightmare - they would barely afford day-to-day things, nonetheless first/last/deposit.
I grew up on welfare, and I can't tell you how often my mom would talk about section 8 housing and how that would change everything. Having to move was my parents greatest nightmare - they would barely afford day-to-day things, nonetheless first/last/deposit.
> section 8 housing and how that would change everything
Sorry can you clarify - do you mean she wanted to be eligible? Or was eligible but couldn't find a suitable place. I've always wondered if buying a property to rent to section 8 tenants is a good idea or not. (investment wise or charity wise)
Sorry can you clarify - do you mean she wanted to be eligible? Or was eligible but couldn't find a suitable place. I've always wondered if buying a property to rent to section 8 tenants is a good idea or not. (investment wise or charity wise)
Relative did this and found it was not a good move. Usually the types of places that rent to section 8 tenants have very high cap ratios assuming you collect rent every month... just think for a bit why other investors leave those on the table considering how financially advantageous that would be.
Ok I’ll spoil it a bit: first, you still have to do maintenance on these places like fixing the roof, plumbing, etc. and it doesn’t matter if you bought it for pennies, it still has to be livable to rent. Second, section 8 doesn’t cover everything (at least for some) so your tenants will often not make rent: the decision whether to continually take losses on renting or to evict a family (possibly making them homeless) is up to you. And among poor people you will have higher rates of things like hoarding or drugs so your likelihood of dealing with that is high (approaching near certainty as number of properties grows).
He ended up selling off his real estate “empire” in less than 5 years after being threatened with a gun, evicting a family, and having one house get entirely gutted one night (including wires and toilets)
Ok I’ll spoil it a bit: first, you still have to do maintenance on these places like fixing the roof, plumbing, etc. and it doesn’t matter if you bought it for pennies, it still has to be livable to rent. Second, section 8 doesn’t cover everything (at least for some) so your tenants will often not make rent: the decision whether to continually take losses on renting or to evict a family (possibly making them homeless) is up to you. And among poor people you will have higher rates of things like hoarding or drugs so your likelihood of dealing with that is high (approaching near certainty as number of properties grows).
He ended up selling off his real estate “empire” in less than 5 years after being threatened with a gun, evicting a family, and having one house get entirely gutted one night (including wires and toilets)
I am constantly thinking about ways to find a satisfying solution to these problems. I feel like China is one of the few countries that actually managed to do it. It's not just about having an export surplus. Before they could export anything they still had to build the factories and get workers to move there.
I think the answer is to find a way to drag up a limited group of people as high as possible and then use the gains from those people to drag up the rest to a medium level of wealth. The conventional theory of trickle down economics completely ignores the second step. It's just an excuse to not do anything.
From what I can tell changing an existing community gradually is possible but it will take much longer than creating an entirely new but also well designed community. Find (or slowly create) a highly successful city and try to build another city that follows the same success model. This is probably a good answer for many developing countries but may not be enough in an already developed country.
I think the answer is to find a way to drag up a limited group of people as high as possible and then use the gains from those people to drag up the rest to a medium level of wealth. The conventional theory of trickle down economics completely ignores the second step. It's just an excuse to not do anything.
From what I can tell changing an existing community gradually is possible but it will take much longer than creating an entirely new but also well designed community. Find (or slowly create) a highly successful city and try to build another city that follows the same success model. This is probably a good answer for many developing countries but may not be enough in an already developed country.
Ohh, la estrategia del caracol.
Section 8 has a years-long waiting list, and it's basically a lottery for the vouchers when I was growing up.
As a landlord [0], I totally agree that housing is overpriced and society can and should make it affordable for all.
[0] not American, so I had to Google “section 8 housing”
[0] not American, so I had to Google “section 8 housing”
For all 'basic needs' there should guaranteed competition in the market. Either the government directly (or more likely) low / not profit companies that get created by prospective business leaders with government backed loans for plans believed to benefit the public good.
This would be much less crazy than it sounds if we also required open financial records and publicly registered contracts for all businesses.
This would be much less crazy than it sounds if we also required open financial records and publicly registered contracts for all businesses.
How do you lower the costs when the market is being successfully cornered? The people striking down housing density bills are the people who stand to profit the most from their actions. The market can't be trusted to be benevolent and leave money on the table.
There needs to be a large scale public working class housing build, taking profit margin out of the equation. The market hasn't built new working class housing stock since the roll out of suburbia nearly a century ago, and can't be expected to do so anytime soon if it stands to amass profit from the status quo.
There needs to be a large scale public working class housing build, taking profit margin out of the equation. The market hasn't built new working class housing stock since the roll out of suburbia nearly a century ago, and can't be expected to do so anytime soon if it stands to amass profit from the status quo.
It appears that we have plenty of money to subsidize farming for both ethanol and tariffs, seems like we could go a step further and work on greatly reducing the cost of food. We would need to do so in such a way that all of the funds are not just going to massive corporations that just swallow the funds, something we don't really seem to be able to do currently.
We have subsidize the right food though. Otherwise obesity and associated diseases will keep growing.
Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I find it hard to believe that the cost of healthy food is a terrible problem these days with poverty. (In the US.) Housing, heating, clothing, education, living in a community that fosters wellbeing, etc., sure!
But food? Rice and beans is one of the healthiest things you can eat, and it's very cheap.
Okay, well rice and beans might bore you to death, but you won't starve. Add some frozen vegetables and fruit and I should think that most people would do just fine nutritionally.
Of course, a lot of people might not know this, and that could be a problem.
But food? Rice and beans is one of the healthiest things you can eat, and it's very cheap.
Okay, well rice and beans might bore you to death, but you won't starve. Add some frozen vegetables and fruit and I should think that most people would do just fine nutritionally.
Of course, a lot of people might not know this, and that could be a problem.
It's not just knowledge, but availability. Food deserts are a real thing, as are crap apartments with dysfunctional appliances (freezers can save you a bunch of money, but only if they work reliably), etc.
I was responding to the claim that subsidies to grow the right kind of food, rather than corn, etc., might help.
I mentioned the issues of housing and community, etc., that are required to actually obtain and cook food. I don't see how subsidies to farmers to grow healthier foods are going to solve the problems that you mention.
I.e., I'm not denying that people living in poverty don't end up malnourished, but that would seem to stem from lack of good housing and community, not with healthy food itself being too expensive.
I mentioned the issues of housing and community, etc., that are required to actually obtain and cook food. I don't see how subsidies to farmers to grow healthier foods are going to solve the problems that you mention.
I.e., I'm not denying that people living in poverty don't end up malnourished, but that would seem to stem from lack of good housing and community, not with healthy food itself being too expensive.
The issue with food deserts isn't lack of available food, it's lack of good options being for a number of connected reasons. I'm suggesting that providing more "right kinds" of food at the source (e.g. farms) is perhaps not enough to shift this dynamic.
I was more thinking about reducing existing subsidies for unhealthy foods like sugar and corn syrup. That stuff is cheap partially because of subsidies so it gets added to everything.
When I go shopping for example apples are quite expensive compared to a bag of frozen French fries. Lettuce is also very expensive. We could change this with smarter subsidies.
When I go shopping for example apples are quite expensive compared to a bag of frozen French fries. Lettuce is also very expensive. We could change this with smarter subsidies.
Fresh fruit can surely be expensive. I doubt that frozen fruit is that bad. Maybe more than frozen french fries, but if you can cook frozen french fries, I should think that you can also cook beans.
Regarding corn syrup being put into everything, this seems to be a much more general health issue than for the poor alone. Obesity in the US is an epidemic that is much more widespread than amongst just the poor.
I agree that this means that surely we are doing something very wrong in this country!
Regarding corn syrup being put into everything, this seems to be a much more general health issue than for the poor alone. Obesity in the US is an epidemic that is much more widespread than amongst just the poor.
I agree that this means that surely we are doing something very wrong in this country!
Part of it is also the time it takes to eat healthy. Cooking for me is 20 minutes cooking and prepping, 20 minutes eating, and 20 minutes cleaning up.
I have the time to spend an hour feeding myself dinner every day, plus the time for the other meals. Not a lot of people do, however.
If you are working two jobs and have to make two shifts in a day, it's a lot easier to just grab food from the McDonalds you were passing by anyway, cram a handful into your mouth on your way home, drop a happy meal in front of the kids before changing out then in to your uniform, and heading to the next job across town, especially if the bus is slow.
I have the time to spend an hour feeding myself dinner every day, plus the time for the other meals. Not a lot of people do, however.
If you are working two jobs and have to make two shifts in a day, it's a lot easier to just grab food from the McDonalds you were passing by anyway, cram a handful into your mouth on your way home, drop a happy meal in front of the kids before changing out then in to your uniform, and heading to the next job across town, especially if the bus is slow.
The cost of food has been doing a great job of declining all on its own.
All on it's own, you know not counting the government subsidies designed for that purpose.
That's right. Because farms and delivery infrastructure use less and less people and/or pay them less.
> a market solution where we greatly lower the costs for things at the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid.
With the exception of housing and healthcare, which are supply side restricted, aren't most consumer goods already pretty fierce markets?
With the exception of housing and healthcare, which are supply side restricted, aren't most consumer goods already pretty fierce markets?
I find mention of Maslow's pyramid in these sorts of discussions interesting because people seem to forget a few specific needs ranked on it that become extremely hard to handle because the purchase of such is often illegal and the production of such cannot be made interpersonal nor automated and scaled like any other need can be. It is so controversial that if you go check the wikipedia article, they don't even rank that specific need on the level that Maslow and there is a dedicated controversy section.
>I find mention of Maslow's pyramid in these sorts of discussions interesting because people seem to forget a few specific needs ranked on it
So why don't you remind us specifically which needs you're talking about? Then it becomes "that specific need".. Strange you didn't mention what it is. Why?
So why don't you remind us specifically which needs you're talking about? Then it becomes "that specific need".. Strange you didn't mention what it is. Why?
Why? Why does someone allude to a point without saying it. Perhaps because even mentioning it brings with it a certain level of controversy and thus speaking about it indirectly allows more focus on the topic at hand. Also, while there is one in particular, there are other needs listed that are often not given the full consideration (though the others rank higher of the hierarchy, and thus if the discussion is only on ensuring people have the lowest level met, the other needs aren't within scope).
Your comments are vague to the point of being useless.
I even went to the bother of trying to look up what it is you'd be referencing, and came up blank.
I think you are severely overestimating the likelihood that anyone knows what you are talking about.
I even went to the bother of trying to look up what it is you'd be referencing, and came up blank.
I think you are severely overestimating the likelihood that anyone knows what you are talking about.
I'm fairly sure they're talking about sex or intimacy, which Maslow had at the base of his hierarchy of needs
> I would prefer to see a market solution where we greatly lower the costs...
This doesn’t work and Europe already figured out social democracy. Trying to reinvent the wheel with the “more Capitalism” approach is why poverty persists like it does in America.
This doesn’t work and Europe already figured out social democracy. Trying to reinvent the wheel with the “more Capitalism” approach is why poverty persists like it does in America.
On some level you almost want to say "duh.", but having grown up in a very lower-middle class household and being on the high side of middle class now, the difference in how I was raised and how my kids are being raised is fairly vast. I'm sometimes jealous of how easy my kids have it compared to me, to be honest. I can only imagine where i'd be now if I had parents who were able to provide the resources that I can give to my kids, in terms of connections and education.
I agree with you but it’s more complicated.
Not all kids want to grow up and be something. There used to be an avenue (future) for those kids. I don’t think that exists much any more.
What I mean is a blue collar family could provide enough to produce another content blue collar worker. If you graduated high school today to be a content blue collar worker your options are kind of limited.
I think some of this structural reality results in the appeal of Bernie to many young voters.
Not all kids want to grow up and be something. There used to be an avenue (future) for those kids. I don’t think that exists much any more.
What I mean is a blue collar family could provide enough to produce another content blue collar worker. If you graduated high school today to be a content blue collar worker your options are kind of limited.
I think some of this structural reality results in the appeal of Bernie to many young voters.
Yup. Both Bernie and Trump came up because of a dissatisfaction with the status quo amongst blue collar workers (Trump's slogan definitely conjures up images of a time when blue collar workers had relatively comfortable lives).
absolutely, same boat. I have to think that my kids just not having to listen to their parents constantly fight about money like I did has to go a long way. Going to the store with friends and your parents have to pay with food stamps carries a certain stigma. I had good parents who always worked hard (not necessarily smart) and did the best they could for us, so I have no other complaints but I was definitely very aware of being poor.
Why were they fighting if they were good parents? My parents were poor but didn't fight. They just didn't buy much and they both accepted that and tried hard to improve things.
“Fighting” can cover a large range of actions, from arguing to violence.
If it’s the former, I can understand — e.g. frustration from a personality difference where one of them wanted to spend money on something nice so that life wasn’t just an endless pointless slog of dull grey, while the other wanted to save the money for an emergency.
If it’s the former, I can understand — e.g. frustration from a personality difference where one of them wanted to spend money on something nice so that life wasn’t just an endless pointless slog of dull grey, while the other wanted to save the money for an emergency.
Is your comment really that because my parents argued about money they were bad parents?
Your parents likely fought more than you'd be aware of, in the argumentative sense. Unless you're trying to claim you were raised in the first household in history with absolutely no conflict? Your binary viewpoints belie the superiority you're projecting.
Fighting over money is because of personality and disagreement, not the amount of money. You can fight at any level of wealth.
For the rich, spouses can fight over the choice between buying a pro sports team and buying a private island, or between buying a customized 747-8 and buying a made-to-order yacht with helipad.
For the poor, spouses can be in full agreement that dinner is soup made with ketchup packets, slugs, and dandelions.
For the rich, spouses can fight over the choice between buying a pro sports team and buying a private island, or between buying a customized 747-8 and buying a made-to-order yacht with helipad.
For the poor, spouses can be in full agreement that dinner is soup made with ketchup packets, slugs, and dandelions.
If you think that a couple arguing over which sports team to buy is the same as arguing in frustration over how to make rent is the same, you are incorrect. Stress leads to arguments and people not being at their best; there are few things more stressful than not having the funds for basic necessities.
The solution is not for the poor to eat slugs...
The solution is not for the poor to eat slugs...
I see so many kids with high school grades are completely useless as at life. I wonder which is worse.
I just listened to an episode of the Hidden Brain podcast from last May: https://www.npr.org/2019/05/09/721733303/whats-not-on-the-te...
The subject being interviewed is a Nobel Prize winning economist, James Heckman. The starting point was noting that people who get a GED (on average) score just as well on IQ tests as those getting an ordinary HS diploma. However, their life outcomes tend to be much worse than those who got a HS diploma the ordinary way. Why?
The economist said that 150 years ago schools taught reading, writing, and arithmetic, but spent as much time on "character building" lessons: diligence, persistence, working well with others, etc, but that mostly was removed by the mid 20th century for a couple of reasons. One was that the character building exercises were cast in terms of Protestantism, and as the US became more diverse, there was a push against it. Second, psychology was in the thrall of things that could be machine scored like IQ tests and looked down on squishy character traits.
Anyway, although the GED students did as well on IQ tests, they did substantially worse than normal HS graduates when scored on those other personality skills (not traits, the economist said, since those things can be taught to a large degree).
In the mid 60s a controlled experiment was run where a preschool for impoverished kids were split into the treatment group and the control group. The treatment group's teachers did non-standard stuff, eg, simply exposing the kids to the larger world by taking them on field trips to parts of the city they would never otherwise experience. They were read stories with those character building traits about fairness, persistence, etc. The teachers built relationships with the parents and emphasized how important the parent-child relationship was and not to expect that learning is simply the teacher's job. They provided child care for single/working mothers. This intervention lasted two years of preschool, so basically ages 3-5.
The kids were tested at age 10 and everyone was disappointed that there was no difference. But the economist (and others) revisited the test subjects decades later and found there was a profound difference in outcomes. The treatment group attained higher levels of education, had better incomes, better health, and lower crime involvement. The children of the treatment group were substantially better off in those regards than those of the control group.
The subject being interviewed is a Nobel Prize winning economist, James Heckman. The starting point was noting that people who get a GED (on average) score just as well on IQ tests as those getting an ordinary HS diploma. However, their life outcomes tend to be much worse than those who got a HS diploma the ordinary way. Why?
The economist said that 150 years ago schools taught reading, writing, and arithmetic, but spent as much time on "character building" lessons: diligence, persistence, working well with others, etc, but that mostly was removed by the mid 20th century for a couple of reasons. One was that the character building exercises were cast in terms of Protestantism, and as the US became more diverse, there was a push against it. Second, psychology was in the thrall of things that could be machine scored like IQ tests and looked down on squishy character traits.
Anyway, although the GED students did as well on IQ tests, they did substantially worse than normal HS graduates when scored on those other personality skills (not traits, the economist said, since those things can be taught to a large degree).
In the mid 60s a controlled experiment was run where a preschool for impoverished kids were split into the treatment group and the control group. The treatment group's teachers did non-standard stuff, eg, simply exposing the kids to the larger world by taking them on field trips to parts of the city they would never otherwise experience. They were read stories with those character building traits about fairness, persistence, etc. The teachers built relationships with the parents and emphasized how important the parent-child relationship was and not to expect that learning is simply the teacher's job. They provided child care for single/working mothers. This intervention lasted two years of preschool, so basically ages 3-5.
The kids were tested at age 10 and everyone was disappointed that there was no difference. But the economist (and others) revisited the test subjects decades later and found there was a profound difference in outcomes. The treatment group attained higher levels of education, had better incomes, better health, and lower crime involvement. The children of the treatment group were substantially better off in those regards than those of the control group.
Sounds like a lot of variables to say that any one thing was what made that experiment a success. Similarly I've heard that focus in preschool years can have a very good pay back later on which supports what you say in a general way.
In the US, conversations about poverty frequently appear to depict poverty as a choice, i.e. people bear moral responsibility for their poverty because their decisions ostensibly produced it. In this thread, multiple comments take this assumption for granted and embrace the goal of reducing poverty primarily for the sake of impoverished children - who bear no responsibility for their position. This approach seems incredibly primitive to me for a number of reasons. First of all, show me an adult that wants to live in poverty. Secondly, where do we draw the line between childhood and adulthood?
Does an impoverished 17 year old assume responsibility for their poverty on their 18th birthday? What about their 20th? 25th? At what age can we expect their lifetime of accumulated knowledge, experience, habits, etc. to deliver them from poverty? Is it simply the age when they decide that they no longer want to be poor and, thus, take the requisite actions to ensure their escape from poverty?
Instead of basing our (American) assumptions about moral responsibility, as it relates to poverty, on our religious heritage (i.e. the atavistic Protestant ethic), why don’t we abandon our assumptions altogether and simply consult the data (as the author of the linked book excerpt suggests)?
Emergent fields of research such as neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, behavioral economics, and so forth offer a far different perspective than the simplistic view I alluded to above. It’s understandable that some might prefer a worldview that justifies the status quo and assuages the cognitive dissonance associated with life in a highly stratified society, but that’s no longer an empirically-defensible position. We should all work to make that fact known, as is the OP’s source.
Does an impoverished 17 year old assume responsibility for their poverty on their 18th birthday? What about their 20th? 25th? At what age can we expect their lifetime of accumulated knowledge, experience, habits, etc. to deliver them from poverty? Is it simply the age when they decide that they no longer want to be poor and, thus, take the requisite actions to ensure their escape from poverty?
Instead of basing our (American) assumptions about moral responsibility, as it relates to poverty, on our religious heritage (i.e. the atavistic Protestant ethic), why don’t we abandon our assumptions altogether and simply consult the data (as the author of the linked book excerpt suggests)?
Emergent fields of research such as neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, behavioral economics, and so forth offer a far different perspective than the simplistic view I alluded to above. It’s understandable that some might prefer a worldview that justifies the status quo and assuages the cognitive dissonance associated with life in a highly stratified society, but that’s no longer an empirically-defensible position. We should all work to make that fact known, as is the OP’s source.
My dad was a very blue collar banker without a college degree at Bear Stearns, and we went bankrupt when 08 bubble burst.
We moved from our multi million dollar house to live in a trailer park where I slept in a bed with my brother and ate shitty food throughout middle and high school.
I would be really interested to have someone study the long term effects of it on me, because I think it's actually made me extremely ambitious and a little crazy. I'm the only person who made it out of that shithole, and I have very high standards for myself now. I just never stopped fighting, and probably will never stop. I'm 22 and my blood pressure is off the charts, but I guess that's the price you pay!
I guess I wonder how situational poverty (rich -> poor) affects you differently than just normal poverty. I've never met another person in a similar situation. Can anyone else relate?
We moved from our multi million dollar house to live in a trailer park where I slept in a bed with my brother and ate shitty food throughout middle and high school.
I would be really interested to have someone study the long term effects of it on me, because I think it's actually made me extremely ambitious and a little crazy. I'm the only person who made it out of that shithole, and I have very high standards for myself now. I just never stopped fighting, and probably will never stop. I'm 22 and my blood pressure is off the charts, but I guess that's the price you pay!
I guess I wonder how situational poverty (rich -> poor) affects you differently than just normal poverty. I've never met another person in a similar situation. Can anyone else relate?
I can relate, somewhat.
My ambition is (was) borne out of my absolute drive to never be in the same situation I was when I was younger. Also allowed me to dig myself unapologetically into my work and it was a way of escaping when I was younger too.
But I’m 30 now, my ambition is waning. And a lot of what I learned during my “hot passion” years is already sort of old and nothing is truly fundamental in my area (devops/SRE/sysadmin).
If I had one bit of advice, it would be to try pacing yourself and think long term, I wish I’d done university and bitten the bullet of it. I recently failed a google interview for instance because I didn’t think about something foundational in sorting. And that really struck me hard. If I’d gone to university and actually focused on studying I would have been much better. But I’m so risk averse that I would never risk taking time off working to study.
I think eventually you’ll settle. Based on my single data point. I’d prepare for that.
My ambition is (was) borne out of my absolute drive to never be in the same situation I was when I was younger. Also allowed me to dig myself unapologetically into my work and it was a way of escaping when I was younger too.
But I’m 30 now, my ambition is waning. And a lot of what I learned during my “hot passion” years is already sort of old and nothing is truly fundamental in my area (devops/SRE/sysadmin).
If I had one bit of advice, it would be to try pacing yourself and think long term, I wish I’d done university and bitten the bullet of it. I recently failed a google interview for instance because I didn’t think about something foundational in sorting. And that really struck me hard. If I’d gone to university and actually focused on studying I would have been much better. But I’m so risk averse that I would never risk taking time off working to study.
I think eventually you’ll settle. Based on my single data point. I’d prepare for that.
That's good advice, interesting you didn't finish college. I'm working full time as a Software Engineer now, I just kind of "worked" my way out of school. I would bet this is pretty common among people who grew up poor.
I never understood the hate on people becoming parents before they are financially ready. There is a reason why the demographic shift is happening. I was born when my mom was in her late 30s. My grandmother died in her 80s before I even hit 18. How exactly are we supposed to maintain a stable population in these circumstances?
Having children suddenly became unreasonably expensive but yet we pretend as if the parents are the ones who did something wrong if they have children before their 40s. The situation is basically a reverse tragedy of the commons. The individual is bearing the entire cost of having children but then gets blamed despite the fact that the public benefits from a stable population.
"Being rich is nice". No kidding.
Poor people need more money.
There is nothing else to this article other than this tautology.
There is nothing else to this article other than this tautology.
I would love to see a universal basic income for families with children. My only question is how to change the incentives so kids don't just become a paycheck?
What does poverty mean in our world? I would think the poorest person in any western nation has more money and access to more resources than pretty much anyone in prior history. Also goes for many developing nations, too. Is there something else going on with poverty besides only amount of money on hand?
Relative poverty is really a proxy for social exclusion/marginalization. You don't solve "poverty" by giving people more money, you solve it by strenghtening local communities, building solid institutions and enhancing social capital. This is the best foundation for solid middle-class values, which in turn are the catalyst for self-sustaining growth in incomes.
(Of course meaning "poverty" in this relative sense, as opposed to the very real material deprivation that's common in least-developed countries, which often is addressed to a surprising extent simply by providing more financial capital.)
(Of course meaning "poverty" in this relative sense, as opposed to the very real material deprivation that's common in least-developed countries, which often is addressed to a surprising extent simply by providing more financial capital.)
What does this mean in practice? In Los Angeles, local communities are some of the strongest in the world. No one would say that poverty is solved, this city is known as the city of the working poor.
Do they have stable, two parent families? That seems to be one of the most significant pillars of functioning society.
It may sound obvious but why not build a second Los Angeles?
Well, there are about 60,000 people in LA county who can answer that question for you, and probably another half a million who are a couple hundred dollars or less away from reckoning with the harsh truths about that question.
mynameishere(3)
We're consistently condemning the children for the sins of their parents to appease this view and severely reducing these children's potential, and in doing so reducing the potential of the country. As this article shows, the cost to a country's society and economy of poverty and low standards of living is very large and over a long time span. Our governments should be doing more to tackle child poverty as whilst it's not as bad as it used to be, we can certainly do better.