The problem with talking about “the poor” is that they are viewed as an undifferentiated mass. They are not.

There are the poor who didn’t used to be. Mostly, they won’t be poor for that long, but occasionally circumstances are so severe that it will take awhile, if ever.

There are the poor who come from a background of poverty, but are doing things that will help them get out of it. They, also, won’t be poor for long, again barring unforeseen circumstances.

There are the poor who are on the wrong end of a multigenerational pattern of poverty. The children in this group deserve our compassion. The adults in this group deserve to feel whatever shame is involved in recognizing their own contributions to the situation, and their own PERSONAL responsibility to do something about it, even if only for their children’s sake.

If you finish high school, don’t make babies till you’re married, stay married, stay out of jail, and don’t get addicted, you will not stay poor for long in the USA, unless you simply refuse to try. For sure, your *children* won’t be poor, if they stay with the pattern of decent behavior you’ve established.

Multigenerational poverty *in the USA* is mostly a values problem, transmitted from generation to generation. Nothing will fix it except attention to those values just listed in the previous paragraph. When someone is bleeding internally, you start an IV, maybe transfuse, but you do what you must to stop the bleeding. Virtually all government based solutions are largely of the bandaid/transfusion variety because they do not address values.

We need to be willing to “provide transfusions” as long as it takes for the people who really have no way of taking care of themselves, the mentally ill and disabled, etc. And helping people who have fallen on hard times, temporarily, is only being a decent neighbor.

But when poverty activists fail to differentiate the causes of poverty for different populations claiming services, fail to acknowledge the need for personal responsibility in alleviating poverty, and advocate programs that co-dependently help poor people stay poor, the rest of us are justified in looking askance.

As always, the children suffer. The solution is not to hand money to the poeple who put them in the situation, and who keep them there, and who train those same children to do it again to the next generation.

Much of your article seemed to be saying that conservative-types want to heap shame upon those whom they purport to help – and when that is applicable, your point is well made.

Now if only you can get the liberals to stop using “shame” as a tactic to raise even higher taxes for the ineffective welfare systems that the Federal Government has no business running.

Poverty is motivation enough to get out of poverty.

Anyone who thinks that people need to be shamed out of poverty should live a poor person’s life for awhile.

And anyone who thinks that a poor child should be shamed for being poor needs their mouth sewn shut.

I’m going to link to this from my blog. It should be spread around.

(note for the irony-impaired: you should feel ashamed if you think I’m serious. Not getting a joke is almost as sinful as being poor. Also, God hates people whose sports teams beat mine, and He should smite those in front of me in line. Any line, anywhere, any time.)

Can we afford to eliminate poverty? I think so: I’ve heard so many paeans to the amazing productivity of the Free Market, much of which seem true to me, that I think it can stand a little bleed-off—or, as tech improves, a lot—to put a comfortable floor below it (or, if you prefer, a gymn mat below the ladder of success). It also seems to me that if The Market is so unstable against perturbation that _any_ Gummint Interference will ruin it, then it is so unstable that it represents an unknowable ideal—anything that can only work if everything needed for it to work goes _just_ right should only be taken seriously by stoned college students (see: the invasion of Iraq as gateway to a democratic Middle East—that whole plan reeked of a dorm room at 3a.m.).

Should we eliminate poverty? Morality differs from person to person, but I think so: I think suffering is worthless, and I don’t want to live in a world based on reducible fear. I don’t like being afraid, and I think people act more irrationally when they ‘re afraid (see: the popularity of the Hell-believing faiths). For all its faults, I think “the Sixties” were a good thing, and were primarily conditioned by a wave of prosperity that made people less afraid, and less willing to kow-tow to authority. There was a report (I believe by Rand Corp.) in the early Seventies that believed so, which excites my paranoia a little, but I think our no longer being the only non-destroyed major industrial power had more to do with our troubles since than any conspiracy to keep our population docile through fear, though the latter effect probably gave some postive feedback to our owners and rulers….

I believe that Libertarians are sincere when they say (if they do, not all do) that their vision for the future would create, in effect, “prosperity too cheap to meter”, but I’m concerned that the attitudes they promulgate will result in our metering it anyway….

It feels to me like Seargent E is mistaking poverty for misery.

Misery as in not being able to provide for oneself, period. The endless procession of people slowly starving to death, working harder than their body can sustain for next to nothing, exhaustion to the point of not being able to think and the abortion of smiles.
Misery is the horror of the not enough.

Poverty is a very different beast. Poverty is three people coming back in their dilapidated home with some lower-end pre-cooked 4 portion food – one of those where “4 portion” means “barely enough for two” – their silence after each has eaten, still hungry, but unwilling to claim the last remaining portion – because then it would mean becoming the cause of the other two’s hunger – and their quiet powerless anger as they go to bed, filled but unsatiated.
Poverty is the relentless nagging of the barely enough. Poverty is fear of tomorrow and constant anxiety.

From my personal experience, and by that peculiar definition: misery’s, though always unbearable, could be said worst in poor countries (because when it hits, it hits harder and at whole populations), but poverty happens to be worse in rich countries (because the discrepancy between what one needs and one must/should have to live decently with the rest of the population is much wider).

(Oh, and a quick hello to Mr. Vos Post. Long time no see. Hope you’re doing ok.)

Structural unemployment, as those who take intermediate macroeconomics (that is, the beginning of the economics-that-only-economists-take-in-college part of the curriculum), is unemployment that is built in by various inefficiencies of the market system.

Actually, grad level social workers study that kind of stuff too! It’s mandated by the group that regulates social work education. So, you know, even though some people perceive that we are just touchy feely do-gooders without a brain cell to spare, as a profession we have a good understanding of what causes poverty and what might fix it. Problem is, social policy making (i.e. Congress and President, states) are slaves to misguided public opinion.

Seargent E and company, the reason you should help the [people living on an income at or under what is defined by the U.S. census as poverty levels] of America is because once they are no longer dying of starvation, cold, or untreated medical conditions between their nice solid four walls (well, solid until the next leak in the roof causes drywall damage and insulation rot, or a window breaks, and there’s no spare cash to fix that), then they will be much better able to help you with your saintly work of helping the poor in third world countries.

There. That motivation enough for you?

Also: Someone way way way upthread spat out some rhetoric along the lines of “Fine, give your money to those lazy poor people–but not taxes! That’s not your money!” Taxes are, indeed, my money, to the extent that I freakin’ pay them. I want my tax dollars to go towards helping people to stay alive and healthy. You say you pay taxes, too, and you only want to see them being doled out on megacorps and foreign wars? Ooh, that’s a conflict, that is! Too bad we don’t have a system of representative legislation to address it…. wait.

Finally: “Bootstrapping.” There’s a term that gets abused. “Why don’t you just pull yourself up by your own bootstraps?” people tell the poor, as though it were easy. Ever tried it? Do it now. Bend over, grab your shoelaces, and pull. Get back to me when you succeed at levitating.

My point is, the phrase “pulled himself up by his own bootstraps” was originally to express admiration at the heroic, near-superhuman effort a person put forth to extricate himself from dire circomstances. When the hell did it become a description of just having a basically decent work ethic? A decent work ethic is admirable, but distressingly often, it’s not nearly enough to put a happy ending on stories such as those told here by, say, my friend Bob Sloan.

{{Whom I have not spoken with for some very long time, regretfully. Did I ever mention I finally managed to make good on your excellent advice to visit Vaughn’s of a Thursday? Only we were unable to stay long enough for the red beans & rice. Next time, next time…}}

What would I like? I’d like charity options that are local, focused, and aimed at showing someone who is poor true options, instead of throwing a bunch of paperwork at their heads. What I’m likely to get is some weird hodgepodge of government regulations and departments where the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.

I completely agree. I’m the Director of a program serving the homeless in a relatively affluent area of suburban Chicago. Recently, we were just notified that assistance for food (LINK card, formerly food stamps) is limited to three months in a three year period in our area for specific clients. This regulation has been on the books since 96, but has been waived for a while.

However, this limit doesn’t apply if you engage in enough approved work or work-related activities. I will be the first social worker to admit that some of my clients could be working and are not, and that some fraud occurs. But for the vast majority, mental illness, substance use, and trauma are making it extremely difficult for them to meet these expectations.

Fortunately, my agency has food pantry access with the only regulations that clients fill out our application form and don’t get violent on premises. We are local and focused, and divorced from a lot of regulation. But it isn’t nearly enough!!! I am grateful for all the help we do get, but without the government grants we have received, we wouldn’t have stayed open. We need both private giving and tax revenue!! Private giving alone is not cutting it.

Come on people. This is food for the hungry we are talking about!!! Why did we attach regulations like this to it!!! I anticipate running out of food in part because of this change. It’s just so sad that we can’t say to ourselves “Just because a small minority of clients use the system, it won’t stop us from getting food to the hungry quickly and easily.”

Oh yeah and shaming the poor – would you do it to someone knowing they had been repeatedly raped as a child and teenager, and because of that, had some issues with authority and keeping jobs? You don’t really no the stories behind poverty unless you really talk to people, and frankly, most of being affluent is luck and who you know.