View Full Version : A New Definition of Poverty?
NPR had a short story (http://www.npr.org/2014/01/13/261393781/poverty-as-a-social-condition?utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=nprfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook) this morning that touched on how we (in the US anyway) define poverty and suggested that the definition is antiquated. I have to agree. The current definition is food based with general allowances for shelter, clothing and a couple other necessities. My take was that the author is suggesting we move to a more participation based definition, as in whether or not a person is able, at their income level, to participate in some of the basic elements of society that most of us take for granted.
They mentioned things like TV and cell phones. I'm one who mostly sees the dark side of media controlled information streams and so for the most part avoid TV, but I can see how not watching because you can't afford it is far different socially than not watching by choice. Most of our friends just think I'm eccentric because I made the choice to pull the plug, but none of them pity me because of my viewing habits. I'm not branded as "poor Gregg" because I don't have cable. Maybe even more importantly I don't think of myself that way either.
Similar story with cell phones, and in the current age specifically smart phones. No, I don't think having a phone is an inalienable right and I'm not convinced that "Obama-phones" and similar measures are logical, but I do agree that anyone without the knowledge of and access to a smart phone is already handicapped and in danger of being left out of our society.
LBJ's war on poverty hasn't been without some victories, but we're not living in the 1960s any more so I have to agree its time to bring the battle into the 21st century. The solution, as always, boils down to opportunity, or lack thereof, and how we provide that to as many people as possible. What was interesting to me is the notion of starting with a completely different definition of the problem. Maybe a new marketing campaign like that would be enough to help us move from the 'give a man a fish' mentality toward teaching a time where we give people a chance to learn how to fish.
I've often thought about the question "What is poverty"? Numbers, such as amount of income, play a part, but that's just one piece of it. I think it's more to do with access, choice, and rights to basic human needs. It also has to do with context. UNESCO says this:
Today it is widely held that one cannot consider only the economic part of poverty. Poverty is also social, political and cultural. Moreover, it is considered to undermine human rights - economic (the right to work and have an adequate income), social (access to health care and education), political (freedom of thought, expression and association) and cultural (the right to maintain one's cultural identity and be involved in a community's cultural life).
You raise interesting points, Gregg. It all points to the fact that throwing money at the problem without looking at the root cause will do no good.
I didn't listen to the program but read the highlights and attached comments. Where does one draw the line between poor and desperately poor?
I don't know as I have been poor and did without at times but came out middle class at the end of my working career. A lot of luck and timing as well as effort and frugal living made it possible.
If you want to see the really poor, talk to a single woman in her 60's or older who stayed home to raise the family, her husband required long-term care and now the funds remaining are very limited. Her kids had jobs that have been downsized and are struggling themselves.
To me, it's almost like you are on an air mattress in the middle of the sea. The air mattress is made up of about seven different compartments, each which need to be filled separately in order to stay afloat. So say your "education," "culture," "social net," "health," "relationships" and "work experience" compartments are all filled, but your cash on hand compartment is deflated. ALL those other compartments will keep you afloat. But then say, you lose all the air in your "health compartment" and then your "work" compartment--you're still on the mattress, but it's harder to hold on. Some people have no air in their air mattress and they are drowning. If we can start filling up even one of those compartments, they'll have a fighting chance, but it's still going to be hard.
I wonder which "compartment" is best able to keep the mattress afloat and the person from drowning?
ETA: I've spoken here about my mother who lost everything at the age of 50--her health, her husband, her home, and all her possessions. She lived in assisted living after that until she died at age 69. One of the things she said ALL the time was "I love choice." That was the one thing she missed most at that point in her life.
flowerseverywhere
1-14-14, 3:14pm
Gregg, what do you mean by Obamaphone? There have been lifeline phones for $10 per month limit one per household available if you meet certain guidelines for a while. They are not smartphones.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
i for one am perplexed if all these social programs increase dependency or actually help people move up out of poverty.
ApatheticNoMore
1-14-14, 3:27pm
T.V. and cell phones are a pretty odd definition of participation. Alienation is the new participation apparently :). But sitting around watching t.v. is in many ways not being involved in any type of social participation. I guess I'd see things like the ability to get a job IF ONE WANTS TO as being a far more central way to participate in society than that. Not because everyone's job is saving the world or even worthwhile (it may be pointless), but just because we live in a society with certain social values, that is heavily oriented around work, etc.. That's participating. Then I guess you could see things like community work as participation. You could see political participation as participation. You could even see having a social life as some level of participation.
I define poverty as: being treated like @#$# by society. Is that a good suggested working definition? You might live in a poor neighborhood if: the toxic waste is always disposed in your neighborhood, the dump site is slated for your neighborhood, your neighborhood stands on top of industrial or other waste, the cops don't come when you need them and when they do come you rationally fear them, the potholes never get fixed in your neighborhood, it's a food desert, the schools are particularly aweful (true for the non-poor sometimes but always true for the poor). You might be poor if: you use the same drugs as people much richer and face time in the slammer for it while they walk, your boss is not just annoying but treats you geniunely badly (even call center employees where I've worked were treated much worse than say the tech people - it's not just that they were paid less which is expected - it's about treatment). You're treated badly. Now there are abusive bosses for people that are not at all poor, anyone can end up with one, it's just in general lower wage jobs are treated worse overall, it's a class based discrimination where a middle class person probably just feels that they happen to work for a jerk. Your stress levels are way more than people better off, you die sooner and have far less years of life itself even entirely *independent* of access to medical care! The mistakes you make say at work are treated with far less forgiveness than those a bit higher on the income level. I would say you have little control over your job, but quite frankly I have pretty much NEVER worked jobs where I had much control - so I'd be claiming poverty myself at that point. But yea in general you feel less over your control over your job and other things.
So not about how much income one can live on. I don't think I believe a favorable poverty, a benign poverty is even possible in the U.S. :\ Now of course a favorable living on less or voluntary simplicity if one is creative is possible, but that doesn't say anything about how many assets one may have, and other middle class opportunities one may have etc..
i for one am perplexed if all these social programs increase dependency or actually help people move up out of poverty.
I think you can measure society by how few people need social programs, not by how much money is in the social program pot to help people out.
T.V. and cell phones are a pretty odd definition of participation.
That was my gut reaction, too, ANM. I'm trying to get my head around it, but what I think the author means is this... Say a bunch of people are gathered around talking about whatever the big event was on TV last night that the whole group was interested in. If you don't have cable & a TV you couldn't have watched it. If you don't have those things because you can't afford them and (apparently) everyone else can it would be pretty natural to feel ashamed of your situation. I would. I think its a matter of introducing more aspects of what poverty is and its effects into the conversation that for most of my life has centered strictly on the economic component. I've intuitively always known that our programs have never been designed to solve the issue of poverty, only to provide a subsistence level of life for those that get stuck in them. That's as far a simple funding will take it. The TV example is less about having what can be legitimately labeled a luxury item and more about people being included in the ebb and flow of modern life. My take is that its more an issue of granting people their dignity and I like that approach. YMMV.
That was my gut reaction, too, ANM. I'm trying to get my head around it, but what I think the author means is this... Say a bunch of people are gathered around talking about whatever the big event was on TV last night that the whole group was interested in. If you don't have cable & a TV you couldn't have watched it. If you don't have those things because you can't afford them and (apparently) everyone else can it would be pretty natural to feel ashamed of your situation. I would. I think its a matter of introducing more aspects of what poverty is and its effects into the conversation that for most of my life has centered strictly on the economic component. I've intuitively always known that our programs have never been designed to solve the issue of poverty, only to provide a subsistence level of life for those that get stuck in them. That's as far a simple funding will take it. The TV example is less about having what can be legitimately labeled a luxury item and more about people being included in the ebb and flow of modern life. My take is that its more an issue of granting people their dignity and I like that approach. YMMV.
Our TV broke when I was about 4 yo and my parents just never replaced it. The other children in grade school would talk about things they saw on tv and play "Little House on the Prairie" at recess. I was the freak because I had no idea what they were doing, never heard of the show, I had no idea how to play any games that were part of pop culture references.
Even a game of football. I had only ever heard it on the radio so I didn't know how to play in real life with the other kids.
This created a very socially awkward situation for me growing up and I am so very, very glad others are also speaking up to say these things are also important to be an active participant in society.
Knowledge does have power, even if it is 'just' pop culture.
ApatheticNoMore
1-14-14, 7:01pm
Well I didn't always get some of the references but that's because my parents didn't ALLOW much t.v.. It wasn't about poverty as many of my classmates came from poorer families (we weren't poor - heck they had advanced degrees and professional jobs, my classmates would talk about their landlords I wondered if we had a landlord. We didn't of course as they had a 15 year mortgage on a house) and we owned a t.v. (often several).
I guess if you can't afford t.v. it's one thing (not even free stations on a thrift shop t.v.?) But beyond limitations of poverty (and most poor people actually do have tvs) such things are never about the t.v. or not t.v.. If parents miss something like that it's because they really don't have much of a relationship with their kids, I think that's what it boils down to (but of course if parents are stressed to limit just trying to keep their heads above water economically then ...).
The thing is the stuff preached by t.v. is pretty toxic, so it's a tightrope. I don't envy parents having to walk that tightrope, not in this culture, it seems a nightmare culture in which to raise kids really.
Well I didn't always get some of the references but that's because my parents didn't ALLOW much t.v..
I didn't get ANY of the references because I had zero tv. There are plenty of parents who understandably pick and choose the tv shows they feel comfortable showing their kids. That's exactly my point. Even a child safe tv show such as Little House on the Prairie wasn't available for me to watch.
Say a bunch of people are gathered around talking about whatever the big event was on TV last night that the whole group was interested in.
Seems like a group to avoid, if you are trying to get out of poverty. Maybe sidle up to the group talking about a book or something.
ApatheticNoMore
1-14-14, 8:05pm
I didn't get ANY of the references because I had zero tv.
Well I really got very few
There are plenty of parents who understandably pick and choose the tv shows they feel comfortable showing their kids. That's exactly my point.
But can't the result be exactly the same? If all the kids at school or around the 'hood are watching all the adult shows because their parents allow it, and your parents only allow seasame street or little house on the prarie or something which all your peers laugh at, aren't you EQUALLY unable to get the references when with your peers? Isn't it really the same situation, sure you both have the experience of watching t.v. as such - sitting around watching flashing lights, but still no shared references.
I don't think the U.S. really has such a thing as a SHARED culture one CAN participate in entirely. I think it's mostly a collection of subcultures for which it is EASY not to fit in (a middle class kid going to a school of kids of the 1% or a ghetto school of the poor, anyone going to a school with noone or very few people of their race, and so on. Poverty may have additional stigma of course - if one not only feels bad about not fitting in but is in addition ashamed of being poor). But one can try to figure out the shared experiences (lowest common denominator :)) in this culture: using social networking maybe, using the internet, knowing how to use a cell phone or smartphone, watching advertisements for that matter, etc.. For adults: participating in the workforce would have to be up there etc. Those are shared experiences, but there are all kinds of subcultural experiences in addition to that.
Even a child safe tv show such as Little House on the Prairie wasn't available for me to watch.
Well my parents thought pop music was bad to give you an idea, I was told it wasn't ok to like that "horrible pop music" (and this was in the 80s). So it was pretty forbidding. I eventually happened on an old radio and figured out how to listen to it very quietly in my room, afraid of getting caught :)
flowerseverywhere
1-14-14, 8:35pm
Seems like a group to avoid, if you are trying to get out of poverty. Maybe sidle up to the group talking about a book or something.
What a novel idea. Actually our library is full of people checking out dvd's and surfing the net. Luckily we have a big senior population so there are lots of good books too.
catherine, I really like the air mattress analogy. As you've said, a bad turn of health or a depleted emergency fund can put anyone on the edge of disaster.
iris lilies
1-14-14, 10:09pm
catherine, I really like the air mattress analogy. As you've said, a bad turn of health or a depleted emergency fund can put anyone on the edge of disaster.
Of course it can. But a lifetime of choices that are live-for-the-moment, and the heck with growing a career/job skills/stable family/bank account guarantees a lifetime of edge living. We all know people who have made choice after choice after choice that leads to, shall we say, instability. THose who are honest will admit it's not always just one bad thing that causes economic instability.
Some Americans have parents and other family to keep them from tottering over the edge. Many do not.
I know people in all groups: edge dwellers who have family propping them up for years, edge dwellers who pissed away hundreds of thousands and will descend at some point, edge dwellers who had one catastrophic thing happen to put them on that edge.
I have two sets of friends who pissed away about $500,000 each within the past 7 years. I watched it fly by. Still shaking my head about it. I know that one will be on the edge in old age and the other one, already signing up for as much gubmnt grab as possible, will stave off disaster if Nanny G comes through. His mother refuses to help him, but Nanny G--she's there giving handouts. I wonder who knows what's best for him.
The other thing about phones is that there's not nearly as much opportunity open to someone without regular access to one. I'll give an example from pre-cell phone days. I was in high school and had applied for a summer job busing tables at a restaurant. Had a 5 minute interview which ended with "we don't have any openings now but if we do we'll call you." About a week later our phone rang at maybe 10:30am. I answered and it was the restaurant. "One of our busboys didn't show again this morning. If you can be here by 11:00 you've got the job." Thankfully I was sitting 20 feet from the phone. If I'd been out, perhaps even interviewing for another job, I wouldn't have gotten this one. Who knows how many people they'd called before me who didn't answer the phone.
Back then that was just the way it was. Today it's not. Having a cell phone and always being available levels the playing field for opportunities like that. In my mind this is part of the teaching someone to fish side of the coin. If we actually want to help people get ahead and pull themselves up we also need to be doing other things like helping them learn how to interview, how to hold a job, assistance with daycare, etc, but without communication access it's just that much more difficult for someone to succeed.
I still base poverty on income/asset levels - which will vary depending on where you live, family size, number of dependents, etc... Obviously someone in in a one room tenement in NYC may have a much higher income then someone in a one room tenement in Nowheresville, Mississippi but both would be considered impoverished. Someone with a bunch of kids living on the same income a single working-class person is might be considered impoverished but the single person wouldn't. I would also look at what types of things they MUST have in order to get by. But that would consist of necessities like food, shelter, medicines, clothing, diapers for the babies, medical care, education, transportation (and I'm not talking about having the money to buy, insure, fuel and repair a car, but money enough to ride the bus), etc... rather than things like TV, Smart phones (although I think a regular phone - cell or landline - that is basic is needed for emergencies. I have a cheap pay-as-you-go Tracfone that costs less than $8/month) or home internet access and a computer. I do think those things are important to people and can make their lives easier and more productive, but I don't think they should be included in a calculation of "poverty" as they aren't things one needs to get by on a day to day level. And often there are ways to find access to things like computers and internet at libraries. I used it all the time (now have home internet and a computer). Or get a cheap old-stle TV and DVD player at the thirft store and borrow DVDs from the library and use an antenna for basic TV if possible. I don't have cable but use an antenna and here in the hot (85 degrees today) megalopolis of SoCal I can get oodles of channels.
The thing to keep in mind is that as technology and society have progressed generally everyone's quality of life and comfort have improved. Go back to the 1850s and all but the extremely wealthiest lived lives that today all but the extreme poorest living in the US would likely find very difficult. Even the rich didn't have hot water and heat on demand back then. Or their choice of being able to eat out of season fruits and veggies. They simply weren't available. Today those things are taken for granted by a large majority of people in America. I think this all ties back to what a previous poster mentioned, which is being able to participate in society. Yes we can probably place a dollar amount on what it takes to survive at a subsistence level in the US, but that bare minimum amount is probably below what it takes to not feel terribly impoverished in the US today, whereas 160 years ago that minimum would've been not too far out of line with how many people lived so helping people to that level would've likely allowed them to feel fully part of society. The question and eternal debate, which we've all heard both sides of thousands of times, is whether we as a society have any sort of duty to help people have lives somewhat above that subsistance level of having a roof over one's head and reasonably healthy food to eat or if our moral duty/desire ends there.
And there are programs to help the impoverished have some basic technology in their lives - low cost phone service (for cell or landline), reduced rates on utilities, free home or apt upgrades including appliances, water heaters, weatherizing, new doors and windows, etc... My library offers free week-long loans of Chromebooks that can be checked out and used at free Wi-Fi spots. The list goes on and on. So I think that the opportunity to keep somewhat current is out there if you look. There are free dental clinics and help with financial stuff, and of course food banks and food stamps and the like. As for our moral duties to help others, I agree that we should each try top help others go beyond just the basics of survival-level in whatever way we can. Giving comfort and aid is important, but helping others to find a way to get out of poverty is the best route IMHO.
Seems like a group to avoid, if you are trying to get out of poverty. Maybe sidle up to the group talking about a book or something.
Would leaving the group discussing Futurescape require a sidle up or down to the group discussing Dostoievski? What if the book club was chatting up the latest Harlequin Romance from the grocery store? Who plays the part of the judge?
I don't think any of us are qualified to determine what's best for others in terms of cultural literacy. I'm not a big hip-hop fan, but it is hugely significant to several groups within our society. Given the choice I'd rather listen to the Brandenburg Concertos, but our society would not be better off if I were king and implemented an 'all Bach all the time' ethos. Besides, how can anyone really say Jay Z is any more or less talented than JSB? It's purely subjective.
Regardless, we seem to be getting hung up on the TV thing. TV viewing is a much bigger deal in our society than it is to most of the folks participating here so our discussions tend to go the same way. What I thought was intriguing was the idea that poverty is about more than money. Its about lifestyle and lack of choices and exclusion and a host of other things that remove simple dignity and quash the human spirit. What I find most interesting about this kind of definition is that government programs are precisely NOT the way to implement solutions. IMO, its less about safety nets because the government can and does provide those (even if it could do better). Its more about trying to really understand where the floor is and how it effects people. If we can raise that proverbial floor people who haven't had a chance to participate in society will get a shot. In the end that should open up a huge pool of talent that the whole society can benefit from. That is our greatest resource and at this point in our civilization I think we need to utilize it.
catherine
1-15-14, 12:44pm
What I find most interesting about this kind of definition is that government programs are precisely NOT the way to implement solutions. IMO, its less about safety nets because the government can and does provide those (even if it could do better). Its more about trying to really understand where the floor is and how it effects people. If we can raise that proverbial floor people who haven't had a chance to participate in society will get a shot. In the end that should open up a huge pool of talent that the whole society can benefit from. That is our greatest resource and at this point in our civilization I think we need to utilize it.
+1
Yes, poverty is lack of security (food, health, etc). And what's more I think feelings of shame are a hallmark of poverty, and is part of the negative spiral of the poverty experience. I think it's hard for those who have never been there to really see it as it is. The term "wolf at the door" is very apt, because that's what it feels like, all the time. It's a very stressful experience, and this stress creates its own problems over time. So maybe the Haves can say "so what, that's their problem" but as Gregg suggests, it is in our best interest as a society to remove whatever poverty blight we can.
ApatheticNoMore
1-15-14, 12:58pm
Would leaving the group discussing Futurescape require a sidle up or down to the group discussing Dostoievski? What if the book club was chatting up the latest Harlequin Romance from the grocery store? Who plays the part of the judge?
I don't think any of us are qualified to determine what's best for others in terms of cultural literacy. I'm not a big hip-hop fan, but it is hugely significant to several groups within our society. Given the choice I'd rather listen to the Brandenburg Concertos, but our society would not be better off if I were king and implemented an 'all Bach all the time' ethos. Besides, how can anyone really say Jay Z is any more or less talented than JSB? It's purely subjective.
Well people will be free to read what they want. I think "better" and "worse" choices are often super context dependent (it's from what stems my individualism and I am an individualist - no I reject that that makes me a conservative :)). So if Ayn Rand is what you need to read now, then uh shrug? If Jay Z or even something legendary aweful like Justin Beber gives you great joy then the same. Dictating how everyone else must live every moment is really not my thing. But I'm not going to take it so far as there are no standards at all for say books being better or worse, if one is trying to understand one's society there are more and less accurate things and better and worse tools for analysis, if one is trying to understand human thought or behavior or what one should do or anything then there are, heck if one is trying to understand investments then there are better and worse books on the narrow topic even. And information asymmetry is a weapon in class and power war. :) So if you're so smart you may not be rich (sorry), but you will pay for being stupid! Information wants to be free .... and egalitarian. :) But one will probably stumble on decent stuff anyway if one is merely: relentlessly curious.
Its about lifestyle and lack of choices and exclusion and a host of other things that remove simple dignity and quash the human spirit.
I am reading a book right now by Warren Buffet's son called Forty Chances. It has some food for thought on the subject of poverty though primarily from a global perspective. One thing he says is that we are all offered our first opportunity by virtue of the "uterine lottery" of gender, race and culture that we are born into - even here in the US. And it seems that most humans tend to follow the patterns of what they have known growing up. If surviving on the backs of others is how they know best to survive, then that is what they will continue doing. Lots of bad choices because they really don't know how to make good ones. There are probably way too many people receiving public assistance because they haven't figured out any other way to survive. There seem to be so many levels of society now all operating within their own spheres that I am not sure what the great equalizer is anymore other than education.
That "Obamaphone" thing is a canard. We've had subsidized phones for the poor at least since LBJ. You can get a cell for ten dollars. I know; I have one.
ApatheticNoMore
1-15-14, 2:57pm
people do seem to be getting better deals on phones, I've always done prepaid but never that cheap.
The phone was ten dollars; the minutes cost me $100 a year.
The whole phone conversation is a strawman. Why should someone get a free (or cheap) smart phone when I have to work to pay for mine? Yada, yada, yada. Once you start down that garden path there's no turning back. The real discussion shouldn't be about a device. It should be about the human potential that could be unlocked if more people had access to things like a smart phone. There is nothing that convinces me the percentage of great thinkers or masterful composers or brilliant writers or potential Nobel prize winners of any kind is any lower in the bottom economic strata than it is at the top of the food chain. The talent is there and it exists in great numbers. For every great scholar that emerges from the top rungs of the economy there could be dozens with the same potential languishing near the bottom. Its not talent that's lacking, its the opportunity to do something with it. Shame on our society for being too shortsighted and too self-centered to recognize that.
Good essay by one of the new post-recession working poor.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-powers/the-new-working-poor_b_4591538.html
Agree with Gregg that opportunities for talent to rise should be expanded - question is, is it too late? Are we in a "Great Transition" as some are calling this new economy such that there will be rising numbers of educated adults with no work?
Good essay by one of the new post-recession working poor.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-powers/the-new-working-poor_b_4591538.html
Great story. Kind of hit home, because while I'm far from working poor, I am just a couple of freelance projects away from being so, also thanks to the recession. And like him, I'm over 60 with time definitely NOT on my side in terms of a financial recovery if things go bust.
...question is, is it too late? Are we in a "Great Transition" as some are calling this new economy such that there will be rising numbers of educated adults with no work?
Education is certainly part of the mix because in order to solve problems you have to be educated as to what the problem is and what has already been tried for a solution. But I don't think the notion of educating everyone holds any water at all. A good part of the college graduates I know could do what they do with a high school diploma and a year internship after that. No need to dump 80 grand into higher education. Most people don't have much raw talent when it comes to finding creative solutions to big problems. No shame in that, they just don't. What we need to do is find every one of the people that do have that kind of talent that we can and help them develop those skills. That's what will save the rest of us. And it only makes sense that since the lower economic classes make up the most people that those same groups would hold the most people with the potential to do great things. Its the low hanging fruit for our society if you really think about it.
I have to agree a lot with what Gregg is saying. I'd like to add that although only some people are capable of coming up with creative solutions to complex problems, most people have certain talents that could be maximized but could not be taught. Therefore, a certain type of education would be more beneficial than our current system, but just "education" is not necessarily helpful and could be expensive. In some places, the constant need for increasing education coupled with the increasing cost just leads to grade inflation and if anything, the erosion of actual good education. It's somewhat like the argument that parents shouldn't give kids everything they want because then they never learn to work hard. If teachers (or in higher ed, professors) give everyone good grades on everything and kids never reach the point where they have a lot of difficulty, they won't know what they are truly good at. Or, they will but after they've spent a lot of time and money on a degree in the wrong field. This is an especially acute problem in poverty-stricken areas, where there's this lowering of expectations to the point where a lot of times it's just the kids who keep their mouths shut who finish. Talk about squandered talent.
As for poverty, another way to look at it might be to define class as the number and type of mistakes one can make with minor vs major vs catastrophic consequences. If I'm late on a bill, it's a minor consequence. I get a ding on my credit report, I get a fine, I pay the fine and pay more attention, end of story. Or, more likely, I first call the company and get a manager on the phone and ask to have the fee waived or whatever, or I get (and see) a notification about the late bill, etc. and then there's a little bit of my time that's the only consequence. Contrast someone poor: they get a late bill possibly somewhat more frequently since they may have to choose heat vs food vs fill up the car. A late bill dings their credit also, but instead of one ding once, maybe they have multiple dings. Or they get a late fee which puts the bill out of payable reach, then get a further ding because they didn't pay the fee, and didn't pay the original bill. Maybe they tried and it overdrew their account, or worse, they went to a check-cashing place. Now they are in a hole, difficult to dig out of. Same original problem but I have the buffer of it being a minor annoyance while they go into a tailspin of further problems. Some of the folks on this board have struggled with this sort of thing, so it's not an abstract issue. The other thing about this idea of "the edge" is that it really does take mental effort to deal with it, meaning then they are working with less cognitive capacity. Again back to the squandered talent: spending lots of time thinking about whether a bill is late means it's more difficult to decide what to eat or remember to send the kids' permission slips in on time, or figure out your health care situation, or have the motivation to apply for a better job. As for how to solve it? Good question. I agree with Irislilies that some people make multiple, sort of obvious bad choices that land or keep them in poverty. Sometimes this is because they don't know how otherwise, sometimes it's not. Generational poverty can be broken and we know how (try looking up Harlem Children's Zone/Baby College) but it's a LOT of work and effort to administer. Other poverty is just people making bad choices over and over, until family is unwilling to step in any more-I have at least 3 relatives like this. I'm guessing the latter will always be around but it would be good for society to make greater efforts with the former.
iris lilies
1-16-14, 12:50am
We learn from our family of origin (which may well mean that we learn what not to do!) so much of poverty behavior is due to values that we learned at our parents' knee. And frankly, much of the behavior that leads to non-poverty is rooted in middle class values. Middle class values are derided. that boring behavior of putting off for tomorrow, etc. is made fun of. It's well known that ghetto culture takes pride in scamming the man and his values. So be it. Different values, different choices, different outcomes.
ApatheticNoMore
1-16-14, 5:25am
Not sure what is aimed at. But if one thinks one can offer something to poor children by volunteering or donating (iphones?) it's well intentioned. Programs like ipads in the schools and given to school children by schools are definitely being done by school districts (yea I'm skeptical). The rest, well if one is talking about academic achievements it's about values, although gratification may be somewhat beside the point, the value can just be: do well in school, be smart. But someone with say the internet is more likely to be exposed to different values? Sure, above a zero chance, but beyond family, school, and mainstream culture, it's serendipity.
Turning people, yes even children, into noble prize winners is a pretty high order. Why I was just arguing much more modest: treat human beings decently. Poverty is no reason poor neighborhoods should be allowed to be more polluted, poor people should be locked up more for the same crimes, lower status jobs should be treated worse (the last might be economically rational but it doesn't make it right). But those are really just basic justice issues plus treating people decently. :\
Maximizing whatever human potential may be is a pretty high order for this social system as well, the point of existing society and the school system is ultimately to fill jobs and serve the economic system, not to make sure individual potentials are maximized.
Good essay by one of the new post-recession working poor.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-powers/the-new-working-poor_b_4591538.html
Agree with Gregg that opportunities for talent to rise should be expanded - question is, is it too late? Are we in a "Great Transition" as some are calling this new economy such that there will be rising numbers of educated adults with no work?
I see a common thread in so many of these kind of articles - people saying they "did all the right things", but they are not in a good place. Like doing all the right things should be enough.
I think we've moved (back?) to a place where just doing all the right things isn't enough.
catherine
1-16-14, 10:03am
We learn from our family of origin (which may well mean that we learn what not to do!) so much of poverty behavior is due to values that we learned at our parents' knee. And frankly, much of the behavior that leads to non-poverty is rooted in middle class values. Middle class values are derided. that boring behavior of putting off for tomorrow, etc. is made fun of. It's well known that ghetto culture takes pride in scamming the man and his values. So be it. Different values, different choices, different outcomes.
IL, first of all, despite my bleeding heart, I don't completely disagree with you. I don't agree with society enabling bad behavior at all, but at the same time, I think we owe it to our citizens to try to understand in what ways society is complicit in creating a subculture that perpetrates self-defeating values and habits. Where you and I differ is in the extent we believe that are people a product of their environment vs. being free individuals who make bad choices. If we were Randolph and Mortimer Duke in Trading Places (one of my favorite all-time movies), you'd be the brother who says it's nature, and I'd be the brother who says it's nurture. I thought the social experiment in that movie played out brilliantly, albeit somewhat hyperbolically of course.
http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/51cdaf95ecad04b24b000000-480/tp49.jpg
catherine
1-16-14, 11:40am
I've been exploring the causes of poverty a bit since Gregg started this thread, and I found one paper on the internet that talked about the three overall beliefs people have about poverty: Individualistic: characteristics of the individual are to blame; Structuralist--larger socioeconomic system is the cause; and Fatalistic--luck and/or chance is the cause.
The author put together a list of specific causes, some individualistic, some stucturalistic and one fatalistic and asked people what they thought were important reasons for poverty. The paper actually analyzed differences in belief systems among whites, blacks and Latinos, and found that actually whites and blacks had similar beliefs, but blacks were somewhat more likely to attribute structural causes to poverty.
Anyway, here are the reasons and how people rated them:
More than half of the people felt the following reasons were "very important" reasons for poverty (Notice that while all three seem individualistic, at least one, lack of ability and talent, could be argued is fatalistic):
Lack of thrift and proper money management
Lack of effort by the poor themselves
Lack of ability and talent
Roughly half felt the following were "very important" reasons for poverty (Notice that one is individualistic, one is fatalistic and one is structural):
Personal irresponsibility: lack of discipline among those who are poor
Sickness and physical handicaps
Low wages in some business and industries
About a third found the following to be "very important" reasons for poverty (almost all structural)
Failure of society to provide good schools for many Americans
Failure of private industry to provide enough good jobs
Prejudice and discrimination
Just bad luck
Now keep in mind that these are NOT the causes of poverty--just what people believe to be true. So I looked at what some poverty experts believe.
Sasha Abramsky, Author of The American Way of Poverty:
What is one cause of poverty?
I would say the rampant inequality. The bottom 20 percent of the workforce has seen a real income decline by double-digit amounts since the Nixon years. The 1 percent at the top, or the 0.1 percent – or if you go even higher, the 0.01 percent, the billionaires – have seen their income increase by not just 1, 2 or 3 percent, but by thousands of percent. What it means is political access is concentrated at the top, and as soon as that happens you end up with a political class that doesn't respond to the needs of ordinary people.
Peter Edelman, author of So Rich, So Poor: Why It’s So Hard to End Poverty in America.
Four reasons: An astonishing number of people work at low-wage jobs. Plus, many more households are headed now by a single parent, making it difficult for them to earn a living income from the jobs that are typically available. The near disappearance of cash assistance for low-income mothers and children — i.e., welfare — in much of the country plays a contributing role, too. And persistent issues of race and gender mean higher poverty among minorities and families headed by single mothers.
From Princeton--The Future of Children
We conclude that although the American economy has enjoyed a healthy growth rate over the past four decades, stagnant wages among the least skilled have made it hard for people holding low-wage jobs to escape poverty. This problem has been exacerbated by changes in family composition. And government spending, which has grown rapidly, has reduced poverty less than had been hoped and in some cases may even have been counterproductive, by reducing incentives to work and supporting young women who have births outside marriage.
Very complex, but my takeaway is you can't unlink the individual from society when it comes to poverty. Reagan said that if we make the rich richer, the poor will benefit. Or, you could say, if you make the poor richer, everyone will benefit.
Turning people, yes even children, into noble prize winners is a pretty high order.
Agreed. I was just being dramatic with that, although it probably is true that there are some potential prize winners that will never realize their potential because of their environment. Just like somewhere there is probably a better natural golfer than Tiger Woods who will never swing a club. Most of the real solutions to complex problems will necessarily involve a whole lot of smaller solutions at local levels created by the people that are closest to the problems, hands on if you will. Giving those people a chance to learn their specific skills and then implement them is the real key. In that sense we mostly just need the bigger thinkers to help tie all those smaller efforts together.
On a different note I have a little bit of a problem with constantly blaming inequity. Yes, the very rich have become fantastically wealthy, but that doesn't necessarily take anything from the mouths of the poor. Wealth, as we've discussed before, isn't static. It is, however, relative which means it should be much easier to create for the poor. I don't want to give the same old opportunity stump speech, but I do believe that is what we fail to provide at almost every turn. We can revolt and overthrow the oligarchs and divvy up the spoils, but would that really gain anything or would it simply be a case of hitting the reset button? The lowest classes have always been slaves and outcasts and undesirables of all kinds. We take so much pride in having risen above such thinking, but I don't think we're really any better than the Romans or the Egyptians or the antebellum South. If we really believed that every person was valuable we'd be up in arms that someone, anyone, is denied the chance to explore their potential. But we, as a society, aren't very upset about that. Maybe that is the real shift that has to happen to solve a whole lot of nagging problems.
iris lilies
1-16-14, 12:34pm
... I think we owe it to our citizens to try to understand in what ways society is complicit in creating a subculture that perpetrates self-defeating values and habits...
Consider that your labeling this behavior (poverty lifestyle) as "self defeating" is making a middle class value judgement. Maybe theirs is a legitimate choice of lifestyle made with a set of values that are different from your own. Maybe a "nice" house in a "good" neighborhood with "good" schools and all that comes with it isn't what some urban dwellers really value and when we tell them what they "should" value, that's kinda preachy.
One discussion on this board years ago that opened my eyes was about values in borrowing and paying back money. Someone denigrated PayDay loan places and check cashing places (which we have all over here) and their high interest rates and how they take advantage of poor people, they should be outlawed! Someone else said that these loan/check places provide an important service to people who don't have the middle class markers of financial stability such as a bank account and collateral for loans. And then someone pointed out that our middle class standard, bank account and ability to get money form a bank, is just that--middle class. The wealthy look down on us little people who have to go to a bank to get a few thousand dollars, putting the equity in our house up for collateral. The truly wealthy borrow from one another in their family, keeping in all inside.
Values about money--it's all relative to the culture in which it all takes place and middle class isn't the only "right" way to do things although it is certainly most comfortable for me, those are my values.
As far as nature vs nurture: I think nurture has a big hand in it, how could it not? as values that our family and culture hand down to us. But sure, I think that nature has a lot to do with it in that really smart people are sometimes able to extract themselves from these micro-cultures of living on the societal edge. Most people including myself aren't that smart.
I too think it is very sad that so many humans never realize their potential due to a host of issues. When I mentioned education, I wasn't referring only to college or specialized education. I was also referring to providing inspirational experiences to those who might not otherwise see around their ruts. As an example of the effectiveness of such "programs", there is a local nonprofit here that takes low income minority teens and lets them participate in growing real food. They spend several hours a week away from boring classes out in the fresh air - planting, tending and harvesting produce which they then sell every weekend at local farmer's markets. Thus they have learned where food comes from and also how to market it. I have volunteered with the group and the transformation of the kids is amazing. They become involved, proud of their endeavor and develop confidence. I think every one of us can think back to a childhood incident that truly inspired us. Sadly for so many, it is a local drug dealer or something similar.
new2oregon
1-16-14, 1:03pm
Pinkytoe I like your response to this and wanted to add more on this line. When I was out of work in N.H. I saw the Food Bank was offering an 8 week Serve safe course and was able to get in. I had liked cooking and had nothing to loose by doing this. While learning this we were making we were making meals for the boys and girls club and other groups. Our class was a mix of people from 20 years old to 60 and it was fun. This program helped people at least get in the door of a job. I ended up meeting people that became my best friends. Sometimes people just need someone to give them hope.
Most people including myself aren't that smart.
Dh and I were talking about that just last night-are rich people more intelligent? It came up because where I work we are sometimes involved with "convenings of the wealthy" where they gather to discuss how to best use their vast sums on societal issues. Obviously, they know how to operate and stay within that world. Some of the very same (the wealthy) have figured out multiple ways (besides loan/check places) for the "underbanked" to access credit so their needs are served. Some would call it profiting on the backs of the unfortunate but...
ApatheticNoMore
1-16-14, 1:28pm
Dh and I were talking about that just last night-are rich people more intelligent?
no but they are usually better educated (from early on). This doesn't mean that they end up more moral or anything. And some of the smartest people I know became social drop outs :| (I mean super geeks whose smarts were all maths and thinking in that vein)
Consider that your labeling this behavior (poverty lifestyle) as "self defeating" is making a middle class value judgement. Maybe theirs is a legitimate choice of lifestyle made with a set of values that are different from your own. Maybe a "nice" house in a "good" neighborhood with "good" schools and all that comes with it isn't what some urban dwellers really value and when we tell them what they "should" value, that's kinda preachy.
So if people are engaging in behaviors that make them mentally and/or physically sick and render them incapable of acquiring basic needs for survival, is that not self-defeating? I have a brother who has been alcoholic since he was 13 years old. He just called me from Port Authority because after being sober for six months in a VA upstate, he decided to move down to Florida, had high hopes for a sober life, and got off to change busses in New York and in three hours had fallen off the wagon, blacked out, and had all of his stuff robbed. Was it his choice to take the first drink? Yes, he is totally responsible for that choice. Is he happy? Not by a long, long shot.
I believe you can make absolute statements about some behaviors being self-defeating. I love and respect everyone who finds it difficult to maintain their own well-being, and some find it more challenging than others, and I think you are the one being presumptive if you are labeling all poor people as happy as pigs in manure, just waiting for you to pay your taxes so they can pick up their government check.
I do find your comments on payday loans interesting, because that was a dinner table topic the other day. As you might imagine, I was totally against them and on the side of their being exploitative. Interestingly, DD, who is a social activist, was more on the side of the market supply and demand of these outfits, and felt that at least they give the poor SOME option. So there you go. Two different ways to think about it.
This topic came about because she is staying in Brooklyn for three months, and unfortunately her debit card was canceled because of her Christmas activity, and she couldn't get a new one because her Vermont drivers license had expired (she doesn't have a car up there). So she asked me to Western Union her some money. When she went to pick it up, she said it was the most depressing experience. The first guy came in in a wheelchair, and couldn't get his check cashed for some procedural reason--nothing that they couldn't have just bent the rules for. The guy was begging them saying that it was all he had for the next week and he had no food and needed to pay his rent but they couldn't give him the money. The second guy got his wire pick-up and went right to a phone booth and called a phone sex hotline.
And there but for the grace of God go I.
ApatheticNoMore
1-16-14, 2:01pm
I see a common thread in so many of these kind of articles - people saying they "did all the right things", but they are not in a good place. Like doing all the right things should be enough.
all I think is what a horrible crushing bores these people who "do all the right things" must be. Ok I'm pretty boring myself but even I don't wear "I did all the right things" like a badge of honor (I guess nor have done all the right things ...).
I think we've moved (back?) to a place where just doing all the right things isn't enough.
I can't imagine anyone ever thinking it was, at best I figured things like: if I go into a nice boring field like accounting or something, I'll probably (in good likelihood) get a job :) But to expect it's guaranteed even there wtf.
ApatheticNoMore
1-16-14, 2:09pm
I believe you can make absolute statements about some behaviors being self-defeating.
yea but if it stems out of deep psychological compulsion, good luck fixing it, psychology isn't actually that advanced at the current state of knowledge. And the addicts turn to meds that help them deal with the addiction better, culty groups like AA, or alternate addictions. If they are less harmful than the original addiction who am I to say either.
all I think is what a horrible crushing bores these people who "do all the right things" must be. Ok I'm pretty boring myself but even I don't wear "I did all the right things" like a badge of honor (I guess nor have done all the right things ...).
I can't imagine anyone ever thinking it was, at best I figured things like: if I go into a nice boring field like accounting or something, I'll probably (in good likelihood) get a job :) But to expect it's guaranteed even there wtf.
Go to school, learn a skill, get good grades, get a job, work hard, and it's all supposed to fall into place. It seemed to be the mantra when I was growing up. It seems like for more folks these days it doesn't matter how well they line up their ducks.
catherine,
excellent post, and agree on the complexity of this situation.
also agree that it's the reverse of what Reagan said that's actually true, and the late Congressman (name escapes me at the moment) said it best: "we all do better when we all do better."
Dh and I were talking about that just last night-are rich people more intelligent?
No. And even the value of the education they more typically have access to is only relative. Play the stereotypes all the way out. Take a top tier college graduate from an old money family and an inner-city street kid who's 3rd generation welfare eligible. Drop them both off in their underwear in the hallowed halls of Congress in Washington and my money's probably on the rich kid. Drop them off on the streets of Compton and the game changes. Street smarts, for lack of a better phrase, can save your life if you end up in the wrong spot. That same kind of resourceful thinking might be what we need to save our country.
Consider that your labeling this behavior (poverty lifestyle) as "self defeating" is making a middle class value judgement. Maybe theirs is a legitimate choice of lifestyle made with a set of values that are different from your own. Maybe a "nice" house in a "good" neighborhood with "good" schools and all that comes with it isn't what some urban dwellers really value and when we tell them what they "should" value, that's kinda preachy.
I think it would be important to ask the question why don't they want the house in the good neighborhood? Maybe they do want it but because they don't know anyone who has one they think it's not obtainable. Maybe they value being close to their family and friends and other supports in their current neighborhood. Maybe something else. But assuming that they just don't want a nice house in a nice neighborhood may very well be inaccurate.
One discussion on this board years ago that opened my eyes was about values in borrowing and paying back money. Someone denigrated PayDay loan places and check cashing places (which we have all over here) and their high interest rates and how they take advantage of poor people, they should be outlawed!
To take the idea that payday loans should be allowed because they fill a need despite the financial harm they cause their customers could be stretched to other things. What if I said "lets make prostitution legal. That way people really down on their luck would have a self-employment opportunity that would enable them to avoid having to go to a payday lender." Plenty of people would likely express horror at that. (as would I) But to me it seems that whether it's a payday loan or working as a prostitute the person is getting ****ed. The only difference is that one is literal and the other figurative. The end result, though, is the same. The short term financial need is filled at a big cost to the person in the long-term.
I think it would be important to ask the question why don't they want the house in the good neighborhood? Maybe they do want it but because they don't know anyone who has one they think it's not obtainable. Maybe they value being close to their family and friends and other supports in their current neighborhood. Maybe something else. But assuming that they just don't want a nice house in a nice neighborhood may very well be inaccurate.
I think the idea of being close to family and friends hits a mark. We all want to be surrounded by people with similar values and experiences. That's just being human. Beyond that "good" and "nice" are 100% subjective. The manse for sale down the street from me is nice if you have my life set, but may not be good for some of IL's neighbors because it would probably be unfamiliar in a lot of ways. "Why don't you want a better life?" questions begin the conversation with a value judgment already in place. We need to skip around that minefield and move to "what options would you like to have?".
To take the idea that payday loans should be allowed because they fill a need despite the financial harm they cause their customers could be stretched to other things. What if I said "lets make prostitution legal. That way people really down on their luck would have a self-employment opportunity that would enable them to avoid having to go to a payday lender." Plenty of people would likely express horror at that. (as would I) But to me it seems that whether it's a payday loan or working as a prostitute the person is getting ****ed. The only difference is that one is literal and the other figurative. The end result, though, is the same. The short term financial need is filled at a big cost to the person in the long-term.
Not disagreeing jp1, but this shows how sneaky value judgments can be. Who says prostitution is wrong or that the provider is somehow degraded? That is the general consensus in my lily white, wonder bread world. The shame would be almost unbearable if my daughter entered into prostitution. We would certainly not be discussing it openly with friends and family. But that is just because of our values. Our perception that it is wrong or shameful or negative in whatever way may not apply to others in a setting where its viewed as a viable way to support your family or even just as being entrepreneurial. Its true that to make a society work we all have to agree on certain minimum standards, but how do we provide similar opportunities to everyone without imposing the values of the more privileged on everyone else?
catherine
1-17-14, 10:27am
"Why don't you want a better life?" questions begin the conversation with a value judgment already in place. We need to skip around that minefield and move to "what options would you like to have?".
I don't think the question "Why don't you want a better life?" automatically assumes that our definition of "better" is theirs, but framing it as a negative makes the whole question sound like a judgment. ("Why don't you want a better life") I am emphatically not assuming that the "better life" = typical suburban life. That has nothing to do with it. I would ask people what barriers they are facing in their lives--what, if anything, do they think is keeping them from access to basic needs of food, shelter, clothing, and human dignity (i.e. "a better life"). Qualitatively speaking, a better life is a subjective, but a valid question to ask, as long as your "better" is not their "better."
catherine
1-17-14, 10:48am
Another thing.
(Geez, this post really got my wheels turning, Gregg!)
Maybe I'm turned on by this topic because just recently, on my way back from Brooklyn through Staten Island, I stopped by the grave of Dorothy Day. Many may know of Dorothy Day. She was an atheist social activist with Socialist leanings/beliefs. She thought the answer to poverty was policy. Somehow her life took a crazy meander through relationships and abortion and ultimately to a pregnancy and association with a local Catholic church. Through that church her beliefs changed from thinking the Government should do it to thinking we each should do it, as people doing Christ's work. So she started the Catholic Worker newspaper and she also provided meals and assistance to the local poor, choosing a life of voluntary poverty herself.
So maybe the question has to turn back on us, as individuals--are we each exhibiting the compassion and respect for everyone and acting on that compassion with works of mercy? Do we see the face of God in every person, rich or poor, as Dorothy Day said she did.
I think government unfortunately has to fill in the gap for our not being our brother's keeper. George Bush 41 said that we should expect faith-based communities to help those in need rather than expecting the government to do it. I'm not sure that's what I'm saying, but honestly, the US has a child poverty rate that compares to Romania--while our European counterparts do much, much better. So what is the answer?
all I think is what a horrible crushing bores these people who "do all the right things" must be. Ok I'm pretty boring myself but even I don't wear "I did all the right things" like a badge of honor (I guess nor have done all the right things ...). ....
Especially when they pat themselves on the back for basically being lucky--not getting sick, not losing their job at an inopportune time (like after 40), being born into a white family...
There are those who would make the argument that most paid work is prostitution of a sort. Renting out your mind and body for (often) degrading work and abuse--isn't that the very definition of prostitution?
catherine
1-17-14, 11:54am
There are those who would make the argument that most paid work is prostitution of a sort. Renting out your mind and body for (often) degrading work and abuse--isn't that the very definition of prostitution?
I look forward to a transition to a better world (yes, "better" subjectively speaking) in which we live co-operatively and in service to each other and money is truly just a means of exchange (and one of many--most products and services will come as a gift from one to the other).
ApatheticNoMore
1-17-14, 12:22pm
Who says prostitution is wrong or that the provider is somehow degraded? That is the general consensus in my lily white, wonder bread world. The shame would be almost unbearable if my daughter entered into prostitution. We would certainly not be discussing it openly with friends and family. But that is just because of our values. Our perception that it is wrong or shameful or negative in whatever way may not apply to others in a setting where its viewed as a viable way to support your family or even just as being entrepreneurial.
well if it's viewed as the only way to do that then that itself is THE problem. But sure if one chooses prostitution despite having other options then ... it's not my call to make (although you really need to look at what's driving it, if it's driven by a history early childhood sexual abuse of a child by adults then ... I'm not even arguing to criminalize it even then, but such a background would makes one wonder to what degree the choice is made freely by that person). And if one has no other options economically yea it's messed up.
Its true that to make a society work we all have to agree on certain minimum standards, but how do we provide similar opportunities to everyone without imposing the values of the more privileged on everyone else?
similar may not happen but if we talk about driven to prostitution by economic necessity, it's about having enough decent jobs on the white market that one isn't turning to such things to survive or else enough other means of income that it isn't necessary.
catherine
1-17-14, 12:37pm
Its true that to make a society work we all have to agree on certain minimum standards, but how do we provide similar opportunities to everyone without imposing the values of the more privileged on everyone else?
I don't see enough food to eat as a "value." I don't see access to healthcare as a "value." I don't see access to clean drinking water as a "value" (at least we don't have that problem in America). And if equal opportunity for work and being able to enjoy fruits of one's labor is imposing a "value," I say, impose away. According to your standards, couldn't the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence--the self-evident Truth of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--be construed as a core value?
iris lilies
1-17-14, 1:15pm
I don't see enough food to eat as a "value." I don't see access to healthcare as a "value." I don't see access to clean drinking water as a "value" (at least we don't have that problem in America). And if equal opportunity for work and being able to enjoy fruits of one's labor is imposing a "value," I say, impose away. According to your standards, couldn't the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence--the self-evident Truth of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--be construed as a core value?
Well, to argue just your first point:
We can all agree that "Enough food to eat" is a basic necessity. Agreed! The devil is in the details as to what that means, and delving into that is rife with value judgements.
There's been many threads over the years here about appropriate food in appropriate quantities for the poor for the rich and for those in-between; what role does the government play in that? The NY Mayor who legislated "enough" in soft drinks was definitely making a value judgement. What about EBT programs that enable recipients to choose their "enough" in quantity but not "enough" in important nutrients? That lack of nutrients may be your self-defeating behavior, and my freedom to choose whatcha wanna do. Values.
iris lilies
1-17-14, 1:23pm
... the US has a child poverty rate that compares to Romania--while our European counterparts do much, much better. So what is the answer?
US and Romanian measures are the same? Interesting. I'd also like to see the per capital $ that both countries are throwing at the issue of child poverty, I wonder if there is such a measure?
iris lilies
1-17-14, 1:47pm
So if people are engaging in behaviors that make them mentally and/or physically sick and render them incapable of acquiring basic needs for survival, is that not self-defeating?
Yes, addictive behaviors are self-defeating.
Do you think that all poor people are addicts? I don't. I also think that a fair number of not-poor (monetarily) people are addicts. Addiction is a different kind of poverty and depending on how we define poverty (per the discussion upthread) it may include all socioeconomic levels. Addiction leads to poverty of contentment, it introduces constant chaos into a family's life and it controls and eliminates options.
A book I read a few years ago about a young woman who traveled through Asia had this thought which I took as a nugget of wisdom: she observed people of all economic positions including many living in very primitive conditions. Even those very poor people had children who were happy and well cared for, they were clean by the standards of their culture. The families where addiction reigned had children who looked scared and sad, their clothes were dirty, they just were not experiencing the joy of youth.
iris lilies
1-17-14, 1:52pm
That "Obamaphone" thing is a canard. We've had subsidized phones for the poor at least since LBJ. You can get a cell for ten dollars. I know; I have one.
But didn't the program expand with O in the White House? I know that I never heard a radio Advertisement for Obamaphones until two years ago. Anecdotal, but there it is.
But didn't the program expand with O in the White House? I know that I never heard a radio Advertisement for Obamaphones until two years ago. Anecdotal, but there it is.
There are two levels to entitlements - those who get the intended benefit, and those who end up with the money after the benefit is provided. Since they are usually not the same, one has to ask, is the reason for this program to get poor people access to cellphones, or to get the cellphone provider access to money using poor people merely as a justification?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-25/richest-man-slim-cited-for-profiting-from-phones-for-poor.html
iris lilies
1-17-14, 2:35pm
There are two levels to entitlements - those who get the intended benefit, and those who end up with the money after the benefit is provided. Since they are usually not the same, one has to ask, is the reason for this program to get poor people access to cellphones, or to get the cellphone provider access to money using poor people merely as a justification?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-25/richest-man-slim-cited-for-profiting-from-phones-for-poor.html
hey, creaker--I'm willing to cut out that Mexican billionaire from the gravy train, are you willing to drop the $9+ monthly subsidy to recipients?
The FactCheck site says this about growth of Obamaphone in the first 4 years of the O White House:
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/congressmans-slippery-cell-phone-claim/
It’s true that Lifeline’s costs doubled in five years to $1.75 billion in 2011 while tens of millions of dollars have been lost to fraud. Surveys found an average of 9 percent of Lifeline users in 17 states and territories were ineligible for the program, while recent audits found 400,000 instances of one person — or one household — having more than one subsidized connection. Some phones were sold for cash on Craigslist.
The rest of that section of article goes on to say that the program was cleaned up and funds to it cut in 2011 with a pretty nice slash of 75% although the wording is a little wonky in "available subsidies" so I'm not entirely sure they are reporting apples to apples measures.
ApatheticNoMore
1-17-14, 2:56pm
There are two levels to entitlements - those who get the intended benefit, and those who end up with the money after the benefit is provided. Since they are usually not the same, one has to ask, is the reason for this program to get poor people access to cellphones, or to get the cellphone provider access to money using poor people merely as a justification?
wait you mean the real justification wasn't to get these people in the NSA database? I'm kidding, I'm kidding ... mostly.
really though i often don't keep my cell phone on me - how much tracking is really necessary
Yes, addictive behaviors are self-defeating.
The families where addiction reigned had children who looked scared and sad, their clothes were dirty, they just were not experiencing the joy of youth.
Yup, that describes my childhood to a tee.
But didn't the program expand with O in the White House? I know that I never heard a radio Advertisement for Obamaphones until two years ago. Anecdotal, but there it is.In addition to free or low cost phones (landlines or cells) the various "Lifeline" programs for lower income (but they don't count assets) people have been around forever. It gives a 20% discount of your bill and allows for free installment. In Calif we have not only Lifelines for phone service (again landline or cell) but for many other utilities - gas, electric, water, etc.. They have all been around many many years and all are income-based rather than asset and income based as most social welfare programs are.
Also, where do people draw the line between low income and poverty? Many of the things people have mentioned in this thread seem to be more in the low-income category rather than impoverished category. That includes the social (or societal) attitudes and issues expressed. Where would you draw that line? Is one impoverished or just low income if all they can afford on their salary is a studio apt, basic food (rice and beans and beans and rice ala Dave Ramsey), has basic medical coverage, can afford a clunker car or a bus pass and has all their basic needs met even if they can't afford some luxuries like a Smartphone or cable? I'd say they were low income but not destitute or impoverished.
So I suppose the first thing is to find a definition of poverty and go from there. Look at both finances as well as social stuff like access to tech and entertainment (or one's ability to afford that stuff - which is still financial). Does not being able to keep up with the middle class mean you are impoverished? Does not being able to afford a Smartphone or 42 inch plasma TV mean you are impoverished? Does not being able to have a new computer mean you are impoverished? Does not being able to afford a car mean you are impoverished? For me those would be no as long as your basic health and safety needs were met and you had access to other things to be part of society (I am saying this while I use the free library computer and internet access - even though I have both at home but the library has A/C :-)!). So what's your definition of poverty - and where would you draw the line between poverty and low income?
Also, where do people draw the line between low income and poverty? Many of the things people have mentioned in this thread seem to be more in the low-income category rather than impoverished category. That includes the social (or societal) attitudes and issues expressed. Where would you draw that line? Is one impoverished or just low income if all they can afford on their salary is a studio apt, basic food (rice and beans and beans and rice ala Dave Ramsey), has basic medical coverage, can afford a clunker car or a bus pass and has all their basic needs met even if they can't afford some luxuries like a Smartphone or cable? I'd say they were low income but not destitute or impoverished.
So I suppose the first thing is to find a definition of poverty and go from there. Look at both finances as well as social stuff like access to tech and entertainment (or one's ability to afford that stuff - which is still financial). Does not being able to keep up with the middle class mean you are impoverished? Does not being able to afford a Smartphone or 42 inch plasma TV mean you are impoverished? Does not being able to have a new computer mean you are impoverished? Does not being able to afford a car mean you are impoverished? For me those would be no as long as your basic health and safety needs were met and you had access to other things to be part of society (I am saying this while I use the free library computer and internet access - even though I have both at home but the library has A/C :-)!). So what's your definition of poverty - and where would you draw the line between poverty and low income?
I think we need to sit up and take notice when children are not getting their daily nutritional needs met; when a person works 40 hours a week but still cannot make enough to cover rent, utilities and food; when unemployment rates are very high; when affordable housing is not accessible to people making minimum wage.
There's a letter to the editor in my local paper today which states that in New Jersey, the poverty line is $23,550 for a family of four. The New Jersey Legal Services has calculated that a four-person family needs an annual income of between $64,000 and $74,000 just to meet basic needs (oh, boy, I can't wait to hear the push-back on that one!)
My son makes the very low end of that range, and he's living with me because he can't afford a decent apartment right now for himself and his wife and son-to-be. He's seen OK apartments, but they were in unsafe neighborhoods. So now, they're waiting to see where he lands now that he just passed the bar exam, and in the meantime they'll pay off a few debts and then move on, probably within the year. My son has not bought any decent clothes in 2 years, drives a used Honda Fit, gets his phone and computer through his job, eats in every night, and they are still unable to make ends meet. (DIL is going to school--but she is a very self-sufficient and frugal, so it's not like they are out buying Armani and Coach and complaining about their situation)
So it's hard to put a number on it, as you said. I don't know if it's important to define the difference between poverty and low income--I think it's a functional analysis. Can a person get by? Can a person put a roof over his/her head? Give their children three meals a day? Get to work? Pay their heating bill? Should we assist them if they can't? In direct ways, such as food stamps, I say yes. And in ways that will change policy, such as making sure a 40-hour living wage is a LIVING wage--one that you can live on. And making the community and work sites commutable. Stuff like that.
iris lilies
1-17-14, 6:20pm
...So maybe the question has to turn back on us, as individuals--are we each exhibiting the compassion and respect for everyone and acting on that compassion with works of mercy? Do we see the face of God in every person, rich or poor, as Dorothy Day said she did.
I don't relate to God talk so that doesn't mean much, but I will admit to seeing a value in stretching one's thinking to include compassion for those that one would not normally have compassion for. It may be "good for my soul" (god talk! :)) for me to give $100 to the food bank because that's harder for me than giving $1,000 to bulldog rescue. The "stretch" is key because if we as humans don't move and stretch mentally and emotionally, we go stagnant. You give when it's hard, not when it's easy, to avoid becoming calcified.
This is theoretical, I still give to bulldog rescue over food banks.
ApatheticNoMore
1-17-14, 6:43pm
My son makes the very low end of that range, and he's living with me because he can't afford a decent apartment right now for himself and his wife and son-to-be. He's seen OK apartments, but they were in unsafe neighborhoods.
Good grief what do apartments cost there? May I recommend a low cost of living area like California? I could consider that poor only it's above the median income level for the country, and possibly the state as well. It is here (and most households have shelter):
According to the Census ACS 1-year survey, the median HOUSEHOLD income for California was $58,328 in 2012
If you make above the median you can't really complain your poor (complain about the cost of living these days and houses so unaffordable compared to in the past, or taxes - yes I know the mean 'ol tax man takes it all doesn't he? but poverty? no - more than 50% of people would trade places)
I don't relate to God talk so that doesn't mean much, but I will admit to seeing a value in stretching one's thinking to include compassion for those that one would not normally have compassion for. It may be "good for my soul" (god talk! :)) for me to give $100 to the food bank because that's harder for me than giving $1,000 to bulldog rescue. The "stretch" is key because if we as humans don't move and stretch mentally and emotionally, we go stagnant. You give when it's hard, not when it's easy, to avoid becoming calcified.
This is theoretical, I still give to bulldog rescue over food banks.
Good point, Iris Lily. I'm pretty open-handed with animal rescues and comparatively parsimonious with human charities. But that's how it will stay until money loosens up around here. I do give food to the food bank though.
I don't relate to God talk so that doesn't mean much, but I will admit to seeing a value in stretching one's thinking to include compassion for those that one would not normally have compassion for. It may be "good for my soul" (god talk! :)) for me to give $100 to the food bank because that's harder for me than giving $1,000 to bulldog rescue. The "stretch" is key because if we as humans don't move and stretch mentally and emotionally, we go stagnant. You give when it's hard, not when it's easy, to avoid becoming calcified.
This is theoretical, I still give to bulldog rescue over food banks.
Good points... the stretch is hard, to be sure! I'm also sucker for the dog charities--and may I give a plug for Stephen Huneck's Dog Mountain--I try to support them as much as I can. And I do work a food pantry once a month, and I give to the organization my DD worked for, New York City Coalition Against Hunger. I don't really give to medical causes very much--once in a while I'll send St. Jude's something, but otherwise, I figure other people have those charities covered.
Good grief what do apartments cost there? May I recommend a low cost of living area like California? I could consider that poor only it's above the median income level for the country, and possibly the state as well. It is here (and most households have shelter):
According to the Census ACS 1-year survey, the median HOUSEHOLD income for California was $58,328 in 2012
If you make above the median you can't really complain your poor (complain about the cost of living these days and houses so unaffordable compared to in the past, or taxes - yes I know the mean 'ol tax man takes it all doesn't he? but poverty? no - more than 50% of people would trade places)
Yes, I sure don't consider California to be low COL!! But seems NJ's median income (I just looked it up) is $71, 637. Wow. No wonder I was feeling a pinch back when I made $28k.
We work for human charities, Habitat for Humanity and Servants at Work (builds wheelchair ramps for those in need).
However, I give money to my favorite animal charities which support low cost spay and neuter and TNR, trap, nueter and return. (The solution lies in prevention.) They spend almost no money on fund raising but have a huge giving population of interested people. They are the reason our city is working actively to be a no kill city.
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0 View Post
That "Obamaphone" thing is a canard. We've had subsidized phones for the poor at least since LBJ. You can get a cell for ten dollars. I know; I have one.
Quite right. The so called "Obamaphone" is not a smart phone. It is cheaper than the old Lifeline landline, and more sensible as poor people tend to move much more frequently than the securely housed.
iris lilies
1-17-14, 10:07pm
Quite right. The so called "Obamaphone" is not a smart phone. It is cheaper than the old Lifeline landline, and more sensible as poor people tend to move much more frequently than the securely housed.
From Factcheck http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/con...l-phone-claim/ (http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/congressmans-slippery-cell-phone-claim/) bolding mine:
Lifeline does not “give away” “government phones.” The program reimburses phone companies with a monthly subsidy of $9.25 (http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/lifeline-program-low-income-consumers) for each low-income customer who uses a landline or a cell phone.
My takeaway is that this tax that we all pay (which Fact Check tries valiantly to sell as a "fee", bless their hearts! shades of John Roberts) pays toward my ghetto neighbor's smart phone. If FactCheck isn't factual, then that is another interesting piece of information.
I think it might be a good idea to limit Obamaphone subsidies to non-smart phone. You know, 'cause I don't have smart phone. Just like I don't have cable tv 'though many ghetto dwellers in my 'nabe DO have cable and I am paying for their phones and teevee. Steve would be very disgusted with my unwillingness to pay for the luxuries of cable teevee and smart phones if he were able to read this post, but of course he is not since he has blocked me. :)
edited to add: I am assuming here that cell phone charges can go toward smart OR flip phones. I may be wrong, but a brief search of the web did not reveal any stricture on smart phones being used in this program.
I think it might be a good idea to limit Obamaphone subsidies to non-smart phone. You know, 'cause I don't have smart phone. Just like I don't have cable tv 'though many ghetto dwellers in my 'nabe DO have cable and I am paying for their phones and teevee. Steve would be very disgusted with my unwillingness to pay for the luxuries of cable teevee and smart phones if he were able to read this post, but of course he is not since he has blocked me.
I won't presume to put words into Steve's mouth, but for my own somewhat constantly evolving thoughts I'm starting to see your angle stated above (that you and I have pretty much shared for years) as part of the problem. No offense. I've always thought "I started with jack $*** and made it so you can, too. Why should I have to carry your @$$ when mine is heavy enough?" Well, I'm starting to see what I hope is a little bigger picture. Simply put, giving a kid in the hood a smart phone and internet access and a few other well positioned avenues leading toward productivity is a hell of a lot cheaper than placing her/him as a ward of the state for life...if they do something with it. And that is the small potatoes. The big kahuna is that this hypothetical kid might actually be productive beyond just basic literacy and service jobs. Possibly WAY beyond.
Its not a case of giving someone a toy (smart phone in that case) in addition to subsidizing their food and shelter. Its a matter of giving them something that could transport them beyond needing my tax subsidies to the point that they could accomplish things that improve my (our) life. Only some people will be able to take advantage of that, but then only some people in my all-American high school class took advantage of the perks that were offered to us. The point is that we need to provide that kind of thing to as many people as possible to find as many of the leaders as possible. If the rest end up sitting on the porch playing Angry Birds on their phones, well, who cares? We're still better off.
iris lilies
1-20-14, 1:12am
I won't presume to put words into Steve's mouth, but for my own somewhat constantly evolving thoughts I'm starting to see your angle stated above (that you and I have pretty much shared for years) as part of the problem. No offense. I've always thought "I started with jack $*** and made it so you can, too. Why should I have to carry your @$$ when mine is heavy enough?" Well, I'm starting to see what I hope is a little bigger picture. Simply put, giving a kid in the hood a smart phone and internet access and a few other well positioned avenues leading toward productivity is a hell of a lot cheaper than placing her/him as a ward of the state for life...if they do something with it. And that is the small potatoes. The big kahuna is that this hypothetical kid might actually be productive beyond just basic literacy and service jobs. Possibly WAY beyond.
Its not a case of giving someone a toy (smart phone in that case) in addition to subsidizing their food and shelter. Its a matter of giving them something that could transport them beyond needing my tax subsidies to the point that they could accomplish things that improve my (our) life. Only some people will be able to take advantage of that, but then only some people in my all-American high school class took advantage of the perks that were offered to us. The point is that we need to provide that kind of thing to as many people as possible to find as many of the leaders as possible. If the rest end up sitting on the porch playing Angry Birds on their phones, well, who cares? We're still better off.
I'd like to see the measures, the dollar cost against the successes. Sowing craploads of money out there with the idea that some of it will "take" and produce good stuff for society is just silly wthout some kind of cost benefit analysis. But what does it matter what I say, I don't see how I can be part of the problem :) since the phone subsidies are going strong despite my opinion. It's not like anyone is paying attention to me. ;)
The smart kid DOES need resources. And targeted programs to give special aid to kids with lots of potential NOW EXIST. That's not to say that it's enough to counter their home life and bad neighborhoods, but it is there.
That tax/fee on our phone bills go to libraries and schools for providing communications networks and equipment to the underclass in addition to personal phones and their phone bills. I won't really argue against the idea that a cell phone (not smart phone) is a basic necessity for a household, but I am still smarting from the Congressional aid package that propped up broadcast teevee as a life necessity, giving everyone a converter box. Stupid program, but the Iris Lily household was right there along with our ghetto neighborhoods to get that digital box. The whole thing was a circus.
I totally agree that some type of qualification matrix is needed rather than the typical everything for everyone mentality. Maybe an approach similar to disciplined investing would work. Say you get to pick 100 stocks. From the outset we need to identify the 100 that have the best chance of going up in value. History tells us that some of them will decline no matter how well we sift through the data, but the goal is to come out the other side in better shape than we went in, not to give up if we don't bat 1.000. As we make some money from the good picks we reinvest the dividends back into the areas that are producing the best results. We don't keep throwing it at the stocks that continue to decline. That is, IMO, the main difference between a society making investments for the future and government programs.
Sure, we can and probably should provide incentives for the kids that do very well in schools or score exceptionally high on tests. Get straight A's, get an iPhone. Yada, yada. But I think we also need to look well beyond just that entrenched idea to identify potential. School is the obvious method because it is so easy and we are so lazy. A=smart, D=dumb. What gets me thinking is some more creative examples. There is probably a 12 year old kid somewhere in Iris' hood that can jailbreak and wipe a hot phone in about 2 minutes. That kid already has more technical expertise than I do after 20-some years of messing around on PC's. Maybe not the ideal training regimen in most people's eyes, but the understanding and the skill are there nonetheless. I hate the term "outside the box" almost as much as "literally", but I do think there are some less conventional solutions that might address multiple problems at the same time (think lower crime, individual production, tax generation, stronger community, etc.). It makes for a great return on investment if we can set that up.
So it's hard to put a number on it, as you said. I don't know if it's important to define the difference between poverty and low income--I think it's a functional analysis. Can a person get by? Can a person put a roof over his/her head? Give their children three meals a day? Get to work? Pay their heating bill? Should we assist them if they can't? In direct ways, such as food stamps, I say yes. And in ways that will change policy, such as making sure a 40-hour living wage is a LIVING wage--one that you can live on. And making the community and work sites commutable. Stuff like that.Yeah I don't know where to draw the line either. I suppose I'd say that a person was impoverished if they couldn't do all those things you mentioned above without some sort of aid - put a roof over their heads, pay their needed utilities, feed themselves and kids an adequate amount of food, pay for their medical/dental care, buy basic new clothes from a place like Walmart, etc...
In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.
Confucius
I think I like that.
Teacher Terry
1-20-14, 8:50pm
We basically give time, money & things to our local homeless shelter, salvation army and dog charities that I know do great things and do not waste money. I always research and do not give to places that have lots of overhead/high paid executives/lots of advertising, etc. SA is very bible based and that is not really my thing but I have seen first hand thru my job the help that they provide people that does turn lives around and the minister & spouse do not make a lot of $. I think we all need to give based on our values, beliefs, etc.
IL, i do not understand your reply to me, the one you edited on 1/18. I never said Lifeline gives away phones. Perhaps I should have used the words "Lifeline subsidy."
I work with very poor people, and have done so for thirty years. i think the so-called Obamaphone is a better idea than a land line because the cost of a land line can be prohibitive even with a Lifeline subsidy.
And because the poor tend to be housing insecure, they can leave a trail of hard-to-understand, and to my mind exorbitant, land line charges that encumber them. I negotiated many a fee settlement in the (for me) bad old days before the Obamaphone, which can be carried from shelter to shelter, rental to squat, etc.
I have never met a poor person who linked her Obamaphone to the Internet. That doesn't mean it isn't possible, or that no one has. It means I haven't seen it yet. I will try to remember to notify you if I ever see this done by anyone I meet in the course of my work.
iris lilies
1-24-14, 9:27pm
IL, i do not understand your reply to me, the one you edited on 1/18. I never said Lifeline gives away phones. Perhaps I should have used the words "Lifeline subsidy."
I work with very poor people, and have done so for thirty years. i think the so-called Obamaphone is a better idea than a land line because the cost of a land line can be prohibitive even with a Lifeline subsidy.
And because the poor tend to be housing insecure, they can leave a trail of hard-to-understand, and to my mind exorbitant, land line charges that encumber them. I negotiated many a fee settlement in the (for me) bad old days before the Obamaphone, which can be carried from shelter to shelter, rental to squat, etc.
I have never met a poor person who linked her Obamaphone to the Internet. That doesn't mean it isn't possible, or that no one has. It means I haven't seen it yet. I will try to remember to notify you if I ever see this done by anyone I meet in the course of my work.
Ok, all of the cell phones subsidies may go toward non-smart phones, you may be right. I agree that non-smart phones are cost effective over a landline IF we as taxpayers are compelled to pay for this service.
Ok, all of the cell phones subsidies may go toward non-smart phones, you may be right. I agree that non-smart phones are cost effective over a landline IF we as taxpayers are compelled to pay for this service.
You may also be happy to consider this: The Obamaphone can help women deal more competently and responsibly with employers, teachers, doctors, etc., because they have their phones with them. It is so much easier for them and providers to maintain continuity of services.
In the past, I often had to try to find people to pass messages, e.g., "the school nurse is trying to reach you." Now the nurse calls the parent directly. I am not an intermediary trying to locate her.
A prospective employer need not know the applicant is at a shelter, need not leave a message with a third-party, because the applicant has a phone of her own which she answers immediately.
As taxpayers, we all benefit when services are provided expeditiously and when independence is fostered.
As taxpayers, we all benefit when services are provided expeditiously and when independence is fostered.
My brother in law uses his second one to arrange heroin purchases. He traded his first one for beer.
They have made his life simpler.
My brother in law uses his second one to arrange heroin purchases. He traded his first one for beer.
They have made his life simpler.
Alan I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say that because your BIL is a ****wad that all the people who benefit from the lifeline program must be equally nefarious? Maybe your BIL is just a ****wad and most people utilizing the lifeline program are good people trying to get ahead in their lives.
ApatheticNoMore
1-25-14, 1:58am
Well it's the whole getting ahead thing, if you're trying to get ahead then it may help to have a cell phone so potential employers can reach you instantly (though in all my actual experiences it's pretty much always mediated by recruiters). If your not trying to get ahead then most people don't' actually need cell phones (got a home number, got a work number - ok then).
Alan I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say that because your BIL is a ****wad that all the people who benefit from the lifeline program must be equally nefarious? Maybe your BIL is just a ****wad and most people utilizing the lifeline program are good people trying to get ahead in their lives.
I was simply relating the only experience I have with these free phones, which is not at all similar to the previous representation made. I'm sure that these free phones provide a valuable resource to many people in need, although I believe there is a great deal of abuse as well. My ****wad BIL is the only person I know with one of these phones, but according to him, all of his friends have them as well and I can assure you that not one of them is looking for a job or using the free resource as a tool to get ahead.
In his world, these free phones and EBT cards are a form of barter used to acquire alcohol, drugs and sex. ****wad BIL was able to qualify for SS Disability benefits a few years ago on a claim of persistent, yet phantom back pain. In October he was arrested for selling heroin to an undercover police officer. In November he was sentenced to one year of probation with mandatory drug testing. In December he was arrested again for selling more heroin to an undercover police officer and is currently in jail, ineligible for bail for 60 days due to probation violation, awaiting trial on the new charges. His free "Obamaphone" is in my kitchen, charging, as his latest call to my wife revealed his fear that if it is not used for a long period it may be turned off. I don't know if that's a valid concern or not although my wife will make a short call on it once it's charged in case it's true.
So, in response to your question, I think what I was trying to say was that in my experience for every young single mother trying to get ahead with the benefit of public resources, there's somebody's ****wad BIL using the same resources to be the best ****wad they can be.
Teacher Terry
1-25-14, 7:28pm
The only people that I have known to qualify for these phones have indeed been very poor-such as severely disabled, etc. There is always a loser that abuses things but is the exception rather then the rule. It has been extremely difficult to get SSDI now because people were also abusing that. The downside is that now people that are very disabled often have to fight for up to 2 years to obtain it & in the meantime lose everything of value due to no fault of their own. I saw this all the time when I worked for the state.
Alan, do you know what it was that pushed your BIL down the road he's on? I mean root cause, the tipping point, not symptom (aka addiction, nefarious ****wadery, etc.). I'm just wondering if we could identify that root if there would be a possibility of helping others avoid the problems he's encountered.
Alan, do you know what it was that pushed your BIL down the road he's on? I mean root cause, the tipping point, not symptom (aka addiction, nefarious ****wadery, etc.). I'm just wondering if we could identify that root if there would be a possibility of helping others avoid the problems he's encountered.I've been thinking about this question for the past hour, wondering how I could condense the factors involved in his gradual descent into total ****wadery and identify a root cause within the confines of a forum post. I think the root would have to be a narcissistic personality compounded with an unhealthy level of enabling by those people closest to him, as well as the social welfare institutions that he eventually became dependent upon.
He's never enjoyed a satisfying relationship with another person or constructive work relationship because there's never been anything more important than his personal, immediate desires. He's never had to suffer the full effect of his hedonistic life choices because his mother would always ensure that he had food, clothing and shelter. Within months of her death, our social welfare system stepped in to take her place, enabling him to continue living the exact life he wants to live.
He spent several years trying to scam his way into a guaranteed lifetime benefit under the SSDI program, and eventually succeeded. His serious, and current, drug addiction started with the initial $60K payout he received, which he went through in a matter of months, and he's been able to maintain his preferred lifestyle with the $1600 a month society provides for him.
To bring this back to my original post about his free cell phone, the link is that his Disability benefits led to his acceptance in the Medicare program, which led to his automatic approval for the free phone which enables him to buy, sell and barter illegal substances from the comfort of his apartment without spending a dime of his monetary public benefit. We couldn't make it much easier for him.
It is frustrating watching that scenario happen, Alan, and knowing that there is little that one can do about it. One then sees an individual who really does need that support and it is denied and that is hard to watch as well as there is little that one can do about that either.
Teacher Terry
1-26-14, 8:04pm
Alan, your BIL is definitely in the minority of people that are able to game the system. Ii is too bad but I hope you never find out how truly difficult it is to get SSDI.
Alan, I wonder. If we removed your BIL from all these social services, as you want to do, what would happen? What would his life be like? No phone, no SSDI, no food stamps, which I gather he also receives. What kind of life would ha have?
Alan, I wonder. If we removed your BIL from all these social services, as you want to do, what would happen? What would his life be like? No phone, no SSDI, no food stamps, which I gather he also receives. What kind of life would ha have?
Just a thought, Peggy, not to hijack the question you asked... How many fewer sales of dangerous drugs would be sold if he lost his secure funding? How much harm is he doing at present? Always two sides to a question.
Just a thought, Peggy, not to hijack the question you asked... How many fewer sales of dangerous drugs would be sold if he lost his secure funding? How much harm is he doing at present? Always two sides to a question.
I would have thought that a drug dealer without another income would deal all the more drugs to bring his income up. I assume he's dealing because even the good benefits he has aren't enough to cover an expensive addiction?
So if we just gave Alan's BIL *lots more* benefits, perhaps he'd stop using and dealing drugs, and go on to a happy life hugging puppies and kittens!
Alan, I wonder. If we removed your BIL from all these social services, as you want to do, what would happen? What would his life be like? No phone, no SSDI, no food stamps, which I gather he also receives. What kind of life would ha have?
You gather wrong on the food stamps. I don't know if he makes too much on his disability or what but he has complained about not having his own EBT card. Luckily though, many of his friends do and they are more than willing to rent them to him for 40 cents on the dollar. It seems you can't buy alcohol or drugs with an EBT card in Ohio. It's a win/win for both parties.
What kind of life would he have? I suspect he could have the same life he already enjoys, albeit he'd have to work in order to do it. He's capable of doing so. He's a competent machinist and an adequate construction laborer. He's gregarious, makes friends easily and is well liked by his peers, he's just not terribly interested in accepting responsibility for himself, at least not while he can avoid it.
And, whether or not I would want to remove his social services, it looks like he may lose them all on his own. At his arraignment, the judge told him that he was looking at a minimum of one year in jail and that he would lose his SSDI benefit after sentencing and would need to re-apply upon release. We'll see how that works out.
So if we just gave Alan's BIL *lots more* benefits, perhaps he'd stop using and dealing drugs, and go on to a happy life hugging puppies and kittens!
LOL, did I mention that he went though $60K in a matter of months? He really enjoys partying with his friends. He kept his entire group of friends high on their drug of choice during that time, as well as taking two of them for a week long party in Key West. He's very generous.
Teacher Terry
1-26-14, 10:25pm
The reason he had that $ is that if you get SSDi after being denied a few times they back pay you from the date you first applied. Chances are he will not get approved again.
The reason he had that $ is that if you get SSDi after being denied a few times they back pay you from the date you first applied.
That's correct.
Chances are he will not get approved again.
Do you think not? It took him several years the first time, proving that, in some cases, persistence does pay off.
iris lilies
1-26-14, 10:48pm
So if we just gave Alan's BIL *lots more* benefits, perhaps he'd stop using and dealing drugs, and go on to a happy life hugging puppies and kittens!
And farting rainbows. You forgot that.
Teacher Terry
1-26-14, 11:59pm
I have worked in this area for years and it is really hard to get approved. I would really be surprised if he does again. Some people get it that do not deserve it but really they are in the minority.
flowerseverywhere
1-27-14, 8:29am
There is a fine line between helping with benefits and enabling. In my years of working mental health I met many addicts who said prison was the best thing for them. They had to get off drugs ( prescription and illegal), and stop smoking and once they did had a realization of what it was to actually feel good.
After years of social programs, food stamps, welfare, free lunch and breakfast for kids and so on have we really helped people break the cycle and move on to become self supporting and proud?
...
After years of social programs, food stamps, welfare, free lunch and breakfast for kids and so on have we really helped people break the cycle and move on to become self supporting and proud?
Speaking only for myself, I know two individuals who were temporarily helped by these programs. One of my co-workers relied on assistance when she was supporting a daughter and going to college, and a friend's family was on welfare for several years after his father died. Both went on to be self-supporting, and didn't need further help. So, yes--we've really helped. I'm pretty sure there are countless stories like this.
ApatheticNoMore
1-27-14, 12:23pm
There is a fine line between helping with benefits and enabling.
that's for family members and loved ones to worry about, you can't run a society that way. By the way do we have full employment? No, then you really can't run a society that way. If we provided work for all the people on benefits it might be one thing.
In my years of working mental health I met many addicts who said prison was the best thing for them. They had to get off drugs ( prescription and illegal), and stop smoking and once they did had a realization of what it was to actually feel good.
I don't know, I've heard different things on the availability of drugs and cigarettes in prison. Just because they aren't supposed to be any doesn't mean there aren't. When people get off drugs in a setting designed for this (rehab) they are carefully supervised, prisons a harsh withdrawal without supervision and help (and by the way you can difinetly get drugs in rehab). And I have seen people quit smoking in prison to go right back to it when out in the real world. Not to mention the people how have quit drugs in prison to go back on, it's as common as dirt. If I was actually recommending stuff to Alan's BIL to get off drugs, well sometimes the best people can do is controlled addiction. Suboxon rather than heroine. But it's still a crutch? Yea. You have chemicals in your system just not the high. There has to be a strong determination there to face life unaided without the crutch, something even many people who aren't drug addicts aren't doing! (and drug addicts fear not relying on the crutch that they will relapse, there's a lack of trust in themselves at that point). What I've actually seen jail lead to? Jail plus two rehabs. A determination to stick with the suboxon :\ So I think jail can sometimes help, for some people, but works no miracles (not any more than rehab, AA, the traditional suggestions that fail a lot).
After years of social programs, food stamps, welfare, free lunch and breakfast for kids and so on have we really helped people break the cycle and move on to become self supporting and proud?
some people are probably hopeless. Hey, I'm not the one arguing they can all be saved. Provide rehab, therapy, etc. and some people will benefit and some won't, and you won't even be able to tell who will in the long run after many tries. But anyway are there enough jobs for everyone anyway? No. Then it's all entirely a moot point. If we can't even provide enough jobs for people who WANT to work in an economic system where jobs are about the ONLY means of survival (do we have some commons in the village square people could just grow their food on if they didn't want to or couldn't find work? and is minimal shelter easily acquirable without working? no, of course not. jobs are made the only means of survival and then we can't even guarantee enough of them) then it seems to me there has to be a social safety net for basic necessities, even if some jokers are using it. Because otherwise what? There aren't enough jobs. As for the kids, whether or not you helped them break the cycle of poverty, you provided adequate calories to kids, that's an end in itself.
There is a fine line between helping with benefits and enabling. In my years of working mental health I met many addicts who said prison was the best thing for them. They had to get off drugs ( prescription and illegal), and stop smoking and once they did had a realization of what it was to actually feel good.
After years of social programs, food stamps, welfare, free lunch and breakfast for kids and so on have we really helped people break the cycle and move on to become self supporting and proud?
Well, this isn't actually what I was trying to get at.
I don't know Alan's BIL, and we of course have to take Alan at his word as to the worthlessness of the man, but I was wondering, if he relies on these services to live, how would he live (what would his life be like) if he didn't have them?
....and where, exactly, did I say to give him "more and more" so he could fart rainbows. When people jump in with ridiculous assumptions or exaggerations, it tends to trivialize or derail an otherwise serious discussion.
You say, Alan, that he will go to work if he doesn't have these services. Is he your age? How easily CAN he get a job? I'm not trying to sound difficult, but the realities of life, and the job market/economy says he can't 'just simply' step into a job. Maybe he can, hopefully so, but if he can't, what are his options? If his friends are as worthless junkies as he is, I doubt they will step in and take care of him. Whether you like the guy or not, he is your wife's brother, and he will need to eat, everyday, and sleep somewhere. And just saying 'I know he can get a job' is pretty meaningless unless YOU are the one offering the job. You don't know if he can get a job, I don't know if he can get a job, and really he doesn't know if he can get a job. There are so many variables, age, ability, market, history....etc...
My point is, and I do have one, is that you have to know that your BIL is an exception rather than a rule. Most people who use social services NEED those social services. Most aren't 'charming, talented, outgoing rogues with a nasty drug habit and marketable skills'. That's just not the typical profile. IN fact, I believe something like 3/4 of those who regularly use social services are children.
But more importantly, to me, and most democrats/liberals I think, is that even if your BIL IS a charming, talented, outgoing rogue with a nasty drug habit and marketable skills, he is still a fellow human being who needs to eat, everyday, and sleep somewhere safe and warm. That's the reality of it. Period.
We can talk and discuss all day long about what should be and how it could be if only...yada yada...but this is the cold reality. While we are having this (sometimes arrogant) discussion, people, thousands, hundreds of thousands, need to eat. Today. And they need to eat again tomorrow. And damned it all, they will need food the next day!
I sometimes think those on the right think they are the only ones paying taxes. That they are the only ones frustrated by 'charming drug rouges'. Well, let me set you straight. We, in fact, don't get thrilled at the idea of our tax dollars going to people like your BIL, even though we realize he is in the minority. (We also don't like our tax dollars going to wars and supporting churches, but that is another discussion) But I think the difference is that we DO understand the realities of it. I think we sort of bought into that whole United States thing, and would rather grit our teeth and pay to feed and house those who cannot (or will not) take care of their own, rather than see them literally go hungry or homeless. It doesn't mean we like it (despite what some may think) it just means we acknowledge it.
Maybe that's the difference between the ideologies today (I say today because there was once a time when we were all in this together)
Republicans and Libertarians try to order today by some past, or future unrealistic ideal of what life should be, and democrats/liberals try to order things by what actually exists today. Do we have some silly ideas about what should be? Sure, but in the mean time, we are trying to deal, boots on the ground, with what's happening now.
And right now, for you it's your BIL. And unless you are willing to give him your spare bedroom, he will need something from the rest of us. Jail, rehab, welfare, a job, whatever...
I really am sorry your family, especially your wife, has to go through this. To lose a family member, while they are still physically standing in front of you, is an awful thing.
that's for family members and loved ones to worry about, you can't run a society that way. By the way do we have full employment? No, then you really can't run a society that way. If we provided work for all the people on benefits it might be one thing.
+1
There are structural issues in the economy that are just as much at fault as the group of deadbeat moochers that taint the safety net for everyone. Are there enough jobs for everyone that wants a job? Not all the time. Not everywhere. OK, a few might be like the girl on Shark Tank that worked at punching windows out of aluminum frames in order to save the $200 over the summer she needed to start a shoestring business, but if that's what's necessary in order for everyone to earn a livelihood, a lot of education has to take place. When I needed extra money I did the Mary Kay thing, and I HATED it. I then got a job on the floor at Lord & Taylor and that was much more suited to me. We're not all Mark Cubans and we're not all deadbeat losers. Most of us are somewhere inbetween.
Peggy, there's a lot to discuss, debate or maybe even argue in your post, but rather than continue on in that vein let me just provide a Ben Franklin quote which I think applies perfectly:
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."
Disagree if you like but in my mind if you purposely and relentlessly enable a parasite, we shouldn't be surprised at the growth of parasites.
To be sure its a difficult situation and one that provides no easy answers, Alan. From your description your BIL seems to suffer more from a poverty of ambition or maybe of desire to contribute as much as anything monetary. There are givers and there are takers in the world and he seems to be one of the latter. Not sure there is a "cure" for something that basic aside from him accidentally stumbling onto something he loves more than himself or his lifestyle. I suppose the good news is that his ilk make up a relatively small part of the larger group of folks affected by poverty (in all its forms).
I think part of what makes it so hard to get our heads around what poverty really is comes from the poster children like Alan's BIL. Mother Theresa would be tested by guys like that so its even more difficult for those of us just looking for pragmatic solutions. IMO the fact that our discussion here got sidetracked by DBIL's ****wadery is a 100% accurate reflection of what happens in the larger discussion. Almost all of us get sucked into focusing on the relatively small group that is Alan's BIL and Iris' hoodies. Because they flip so many emotional levers we seem to get stuck there and never get back to what I believe is a much larger group of people who are struggling.
I've become convinced that throwing money at anything won't fix it. The 'war on poverty' started when I was 5 years old. Some things have certainly improved, but not in proportion to the resources that have been expended. Now I'm spending more time wondering how we can help more people find rich lives (regardless of income and assets) rather than helping them find a path to get rich. About all I've come up with so far is to decide that any form of government assistance in that search will absolutely insure a complete and total lack of progress. Cultivating dependency is not the answer.
I believe that there are some people who are non-thrivers, just like in nature, not everything thrives. That's true of Alan's BIL, my DB, and my DDIL's first husband, who killed himself. How we deal with the non-thrivers is the question. In nature, some animals eat their young--sometimes they eat the slow-growers so the fast-growers will thrive. So here's an idea. Why don't we just eat the deadwood in our society so they don't drag the rest of us down?
Lol.
They're making our food out of people. Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for food. You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them!!!
I believe that there are some people who are non-thrivers, just like in nature, not everything thrives. That's true of Alan's BIL, my DB, and my DDIL's first husband, who killed himself. How we deal with the non-thrivers is the question. In nature, some animals eat their young--sometimes they eat the slow-growers so the fast-growers will thrive. So here's an idea. Why don't we just eat the deadwood in our society so they don't drag the rest of us down?Or we could just provide an incentive-based social safety net so that people can be provided with the needed resources, yet are required to help themselves to achieve independence in the process. Nothing wrong with providing fish to a man in need (and we should do that) but at the same time, there is nothing wrong with requiring him to learn to fish so he can provide for himself in the future if he is capable (obviously some people due to physical or mental reasons will never be capable of caring for themselves).
Lol.
Solent Green - yummy :-)!
Peggy, there's a lot to discuss, debate or maybe even argue in your post, but rather than continue on in that vein let me just provide a Ben Franklin quote which I think applies perfectly:
Disagree if you like but in my mind if you purposely and relentlessly enable a parasite, we shouldn't be surprised at the growth of parasites.
So my friends are/were parasites? One of them was a child when his family received assistance. Such a compassionate outlook.
Or we could just provide an incentive-based social safety net so that people can be provided with the needed resources, yet are required to help themselves to achieve independence in the process. Nothing wrong with providing fish to a man in need (and we should do that) but at the same time, there is nothing wrong with requiring him to learn to fish so he can provide for himself in the future if he is capable (obviously some people due to physical or mental reasons will never be capable of caring for themselves).
True, but there will always be the ones for whom incentives just don't work. My father was an intelligent, warm, funny, creative man from a really good family. But he drank. My mother divorced him--and I'm sure she started the process expecting him to be "incentivized" to keep his family, his house and his wife. He had a lumber business. That was no "incentive" for him either. Then he wound up homeless in the Bowery. That also did not provide him with incentive to come back home. One thing I know about people is you cannot expect anyone to change. You can hope and you can pray and you can advise and you can ostracize, but Alan's brother is not going to change for any external variable. Neither is my brother. Money alone is certainly not going to help them.
OTOH, I really think we have to stop making the poor scapegoats for a system that needs to be re-examined and reworked. The poor are us, and we are the poor.
So my friends are/were parasites? One of them was a child when his family received assistance. Such a compassionate outlook.I was refering to my BIL and his friends, I have no idea of your friends and/or their state of being. But, if they were unable to care for or assume responsibility for themselves, I think leading them down the path of independence would be much more compassionate than simply keeping them in that state. Maybe it just depends upon how much you actually care for them?
True, but there will always be the ones for whom incentives just don't work. My father was an intelligent, warm, funny, creative man from a really good family. But he drank. My mother divorced him--and I'm sure she started the process expecting him to be "incentivized" to keep his family, his house and his wife. He had a lumber business. That was no "incentive" for him either. Then he wound up homeless in the Bowery. That also did not provide him with incentive to come back home. One thing I know about people is you cannot expect anyone to change. You can hope and you can pray and you can advise and you can ostracize, but Alan's brother is not going to change for any external variable. Neither is my brother. Money alone is certainly not going to help them.
OTOH, I really think we have to stop making the poor scapegoats for a system that needs to be re-examined and reworked. The poor are us, and we are the poor.I disagree. I think that there are many people with addiction problems who can (and should) be helped with re-hab. It won't work for all, but it will work for many. And requiring a person with a substance abuse problem to enter treatment if they are applying for social welfare aid seems like one way to help them - one way that to me that has a greater chance of success than doing nothing but giving them aid so that they can continue on in the same vain. I actually think it is a great disservice to them to just give them aid without backing it up with a way to resolve the issues that lead them to be where they are. That goes the same for the unemployed single parent or the unemployed/under employed person - or really anyone who needs aid - providing the resources to improve their lives (via education, job training, whatever) as a requisite to giving them aid is doing them a greater service imho then merely giving aid with no help to deal with the reason they are needing aid in the first place. It will also go a long way to provide accountability of those who abuse the system by holding anyone who applies for aid (who are capable of providing for themselves, but choosing to accept aid instead) to some level of requirements in order to receive aid.
While its not a flattering term, its also not an entirely off base description of the behavior encouraged (enabled?) by some of our more prevalent social programs...
par·a·site (păr′ə-sīt′)
n.
1. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
I also land on the side that thinks fostering an environment that gives people dignity while allowing them the freedom to choose their priorities is far more compassionate than pigeon holing them into "programs". I think a significant percentage of people would choose to break free of the "host" if they were presented the opportunity.
ApatheticNoMore
1-27-14, 3:00pm
I disagree. I think that there are many people with addiction problems who can (and should) be helped with re-hab. It won't work for all, but it will work for many.
often NOT the first time! And like I've said it's over 10k each time (where does one draw the line?). I really don't have a perspective of rehab as "it cures addicts". I have a perspective, as it gets them off drugs temporarily and gives them some coping skills (which rehabs give the best coping skills? oh probably the most expensive ones :~) but they pretty much ALL give some). And I think that when coping skills (plus the consequences of addiction - which isn't enough alone if you think you can't cope) become greater than the pull of the drug then one gets off drugs. But this often takes several times on the rehab-jail merry go round, and for some people it never happens.
And requiring a person with a substance abuse problem to enter treatment if they are applying for social welfare aid seems like one way to help them - one way that to me that has a greater chance of success than doing nothing but giving them aid so that they can continue on in the same vain. I actually think it is a great disservice to them to just give them aid without backing it up with a way to resolve the issues that lead them to be where they are.
Maybe it just brings down rehabs by filling them with people who don't want to be there. Who are the people who actually work the best at getting better at rehab? It's not those that are there by a court order, there because "the judge made me go", it's those there because "man ... I have a problem ... I need to get off drugs ...". Yes the judges prescribe rehab, for a few people it sticks. If not there's dealers in the rehab parking lot ...
Addiction is it's own thing though, and incredibly difficult, and yea many addicts would try mother theresa. Addiction != poverty. Although it sometimes contributes to it (and possibly the converse).
I also land on the side that thinks fostering an environment that gives people dignity while allowing them the freedom to choose their priorities is far more compassionate than pigeon holing them into "programs". I think a significant percentage of people would choose to break free of the "host" if they were presented the opportunity. I think requiring people to enter programs (be they Welfare-to-Work programs, educational programs, or substance abuse programs) DOES provide dignity to people. Much more dignity than just accepting handouts no strings attached. I imagine a single parent would feel a great deal of pride going to school or doing on the job training in exchange for government aid for themselves and their children. Knowing that they are on course to provide a better, more independent future for themselves.
Teacher Terry
1-27-14, 4:17pm
Having spent the last 30 years helping people in various human services programs the vast majority only need temporary help and go on to be self-supporting. You only read about the abusers of programs because that makes for news that sells. Job training is often the key for many people to be able to support their families which is why it is widely used nationwide. You are right Spartana!
So if we just gave Alan's BIL *lots more* benefits, perhaps he'd stop using and dealing drugs, and go on to a happy life hugging puppies and kittens!
No, I was responding to the post above mine that seemed to suggest that the benefits allowed or encouraged him to deal.
" How many fewer sales of dangerous drugs would be sold if he lost his secure funding? How much harm is he doing at present?"
I think requiring people to enter programs (be they Welfare-to-Work programs, educational programs, or substance abuse programs) DOES provide dignity to people. Much more dignity than just accepting handouts no strings attached. I imagine a single parent would feel a great deal of pride going to school or doing on the job training in exchange for government aid for themselves and their children. Knowing that they are on course to provide a better, more independent future for themselves.
I don't disagree with anything you said Spartana, but I do think there are plenty of less dignified examples. Just look at the biggest. Here in Nebraska the card associated with the food stamp program has a giant E.B.T. emblazoned on it. Any checker at any store, along with most other people in line, will immediately know that person is using SNAP benefits. It would feel stigmatizing to me to use that card. Why do we do that to people? The card can have a picture of puppies on it and still not work for alcohol or cigs. Its not the checker who determines what purchases are acceptable, its the checkout system and that scanner couldn't care less what the face of the card looks like. I'm not at all saying that needing a little help is undignified. What I am saying is that we make it a lot harder for someone in that position to retain their dignity than we should.
Teacher Terry
1-27-14, 8:26pm
I totally agree that the card should not have EBT in bold letters on it. People do need to retain their dignity. No one ever knows what will happen to them in life.
flowerseverywhere
1-27-14, 11:32pm
Peggy, there's a lot to discuss, debate or maybe even argue in your post, but rather than continue on in that vein let me just provide a Ben Franklin quote which I think applies perfectly:
Disagree if you like but in my mind if you purposely and relentlessly enable a parasite, we shouldn't be surprised at the growth of parasites.
alan, that is what I was trying to say in my post. Sometimes people have to hit rock bottom to change. I have been there. Orphaned, separated from my siblings, with nothing. It gave me a huge incentive to never be at the mercy of others again. I hope that your BIL comes out the other side with some insight.
I don't disagree with anything you said Spartana, but I do think there are plenty of less dignified examples. Just look at the biggest. Here in Nebraska the card associated with the food stamp program has a giant E.B.T. emblazoned on it. Any checker at any store, along with most other people in line, will immediately know that person is using SNAP benefits. It would feel stigmatizing to me to use that card. Why do we do that to people? The card can have a picture of puppies on it and still not work for alcohol or cigs. Its not the checker who determines what purchases are acceptable, its the checkout system and that scanner couldn't care less what the face of the card looks like. I'm not at all saying that needing a little help is undignified. What I am saying is that we make it a lot harder for someone in that position to retain their dignity than we should.I totally agree with you. There is a big difference between requiring people who apply for aid to work/train/educate/rehab/whatever their way to a better life in order to qualify for aid, and just out right embarrassing them because they need such aid. Allowing people who fall on hard times a level of dignity is very important.
Simply Divine
1-28-14, 10:32pm
Texas EBT cards have "Lone Star" written on them, not EBT, but everyone knows what they are. The stigma is not decreased any -- it's like the word "special" in "special education." Everyone knows what "special" means, and it's not good.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.