Majority of U.S. public school students are in poverty; first time in 50 years

[grumbler]

Okay. I'm not sure I agree, but let's assume that I do and we agree that poor people tend to be poor because they tend to make more bad decisions.

What do we do with that conclusion? Does it inform our approach towards poverty? I.e. does it mean we can say "it's basically their own fault for making bad decisions, so we shouldn't do anything about it" or "to alleviate poverty, the main thing we need to do is focus ensuring that poor people make better decisions; material help for housing, employment, food, education etc are less important than providing the framework for better decision making" (and if so, how do we provide that framework)?

If those are the only choices you can think of, then I vote that you should have no say in deciding policy alternatives! 

[Berkut]

Those are decent points, but largely server to paper over the reality that making bad decisions results in bad outcomes, all other things being equal.

Can a bad decision by a poor person result in a greater negative consequence? Of course! No doubt about that at all - but it doesn't make the bad decision not bad.

Nor does it mean that the measurable results of bad decisions are not still there. The rich kid selling drugs might not get in as much trouble (although we don't even know if that is factually true), but there is no question that it will result in a adverse outcome for the rich kid as well, presumably another rich kid making a better decision will have a better outcome compared as well. So noting that the bad decisions matter and have consequences is not refuted by noting that it is possible that systemic factors may exaggerate those consequences.

However, you still need to evidence that in order to ask us to accept that poverty is primarily a systemic problem. We are talking about defined, factual outcomes. One example given was that poor people have unwanted pregnancies at five times the rate of the non-poor. That is a *huge* factor in poverty, both for themselves and their children. Now, it is most certainly the case that a non-poor person having an unwanted teen pregancy is going to have an statistically adverse outcome on the non-poor, but we can agree that the "damage" will not be as great. The non-poor have more resources generally to handle these kinds of adverse outcomes.

So why is it that the poor, who have less ability to handle an outcome that arises from a bad decision STILL make that bad decisions at five times the rate of the non-poor? WHY do they make that bad decision so much more often, even when it harms them so much more? THAT is the interesting question that needs to be asked and answered. But I don't think there is any way to call a persons decisions to engage in behavior that leads to getting pregnant a "systemic outcome" and pretend it isn't like the individuals involved have no control over it.

Okay. I'm not sure I agree, but let's assume that I do and we agree that poor people tend to be poor because they tend to make more bad decisions.

No, that is not what we are saying. We are saying that overall poor people do in fact make bad decisions compared to the non-poor, and this is a factor in why they are poor.

What do we do with that conclusion? Does it inform our approach towards poverty?

I would certainly hope so - you cannot create the framework of a solution without understanding the problem stripped of its emotional baggage.

I.e. does it mean we can say "it's basically their own fault for making bad decisions, so we shouldn't do anything about it" or "to alleviate poverty, the main thing we need to do is focus ensuring that poor people make better decisions; material help for housing, employment, food, education etc are less important than providing the framework for better decision making" (and if so, how do we provide that framework)?

Clearly the latter.

I think the "how" is a complex answer, and one we have already as a society tried to provide, for better or worse. We do in fact expend incredible resources trying to provide that framework. We have social workers, teachers, studies, programs, etc., etc., etc. attempting to do just that.

I think part of the problem is that with all that outreach, we still have poverty. Which suggests that there isn't enough. But is that really the case?

What would a world where everyone had an adequate amount of "help" look like? Would we be able to recognize that? Or would we simply continually define the lower X% of income as "poverty" and insist that we need to do more to help them?

I honestly don't know the answer, but my concern is that neither does anybody else.

Or is it more of an abstract point for languish debate purposes "be it resolved that poor people tend to make bad decisions yes/no" with no repercussions in how we approach anything in the real world?

I think it is a critical question that should be informing how we approach poverty. Sadly, we mostly pretend like poverty is some kind of natural disaster completely out of anyone's control, and to suggest otherwise gets the PC treatment we have seen. Don't judge people! How can you be such an asshole, saying poor people make shitty decisions!

In short, let's say we agree that it's not a controversial proposition (though I believe it is), what then?

We need to create policy and programs informed by the reality that poverty is a problem of education, hope, and culture. And if we want to fix it, we need to understand how to make people in systemic poverty understand how their own choices impact it and give them the tools necessary to remove themselves from that world.

The problem I have is that if we did that perfectly, I suspect we would still have poverty. People are obstinate, and some of them are pretty set on being dumbshits who are going to make terrible choices. There will still be those who don't work as hard, aren't as smart, and simply don't have what it takes to be above average in results, and we will define them as "the poor" and wonder what we as a society can and should do to help them.

Broadly speaking, I would argue that right now the West overall (say we are talking about the last 100 years) has more social and economic mobility that any place or time in human history. Is that not true? It is a continually improving state though, and that is a good thing, we should continue to create a society as driven as possible by ability and opportunity.

But here is the thing - I think that if we do not recognize that poverty is not some systemic condition, but rather largely results from the choices people make (at least in the western liberal world), we can easily correct to a point where ability will not help opportunity, because we've stagnated our economy trying to force an equality that simply does not exist. Equality of opportunity does not dictate equality of outcomes, and insisting that absent perfectly equal outcomes the state must step in and force "more" opportunity can be a dangerous path. And that is where I see the reasoning that insists that any unequal outcomes MUST be the result of systemic bias leads.

[Berkut]

One thing about poverty that I find hard to understand how to measure is how well anti-poverty measures actually work.

One example of this is place based poverty - the notion that in the US, there are pocket sof pverty that are geographically distinct and persistent. A lot of study goes into how to fix this.

However, those statistics are almost always rate based - as in, "In this county in Alabama, the poverty rate is 24%" As someone who grew up in poverty, I don't see that as being very useful.

If a particular area has high poverty levels, then the individual answer is to go somewhere else. If there is a lot of poverty in rural Alabama, then the obvious solution for some person growing up there is to move where there is greater economic opportunity. Problem solved (for them).

However, this won't "solve" the problem of that place having high poverty. Because the people who for whatever reason choose to stay, will still be staying in some place with little economic opportunity. So we say "Man, there is just no solution! It was 24% before, and it is still 24%!" even though in fact there could be a perfectly working solution in place - give people the social mobility to leave if they wish.

But the very act of leaving takes them out of the measure.

This kind of economic movement is happening all the time of course, and the places that people are leaving are often looked at as systemic problems. Why is poverty so terrible in Detroit? Because the not poor people have left!

Why doesn't everyone leave then?

I don't know - for some people, they simply will not have the flexibility to uproot their lives in order to find greater opportunity. That is a choice they make. Do we have a responsibility to make sure that their outcome is still just as good as those who were willing to leave for a better opportunity elsewhere?

Now, what I would consider a *systemic* problem in this example is one where the poor people CANNOT leave, because they lack the resources to do so, and hence are trapped. THIS is an example of a problem that we should look at how to solve. But recognize that if this is a real problem, and it is solved, we will still be left with high rates of poverty in those areas. It will still look like the problem has not been solved.

[The Brain]

People always know someone with a fast car. They can get somewhere.

[crazy canuck]

When you are rich you can make bad decisions that cost you thousands of dollars and it won't matter.  When you are poor a bad decision that costs you thousands of dollars means you are out on the street.

Agreed, the consequences are more grave for the poor.  That is the point I have been making throughout.  That is why the bad decisions of the poor are far more visible.  But the fact that the consequences for the poor are more serious does not mean that they are any more likely to be irresponsible.  As I argued a while back, if anything, since the consequences are more serious poor people are much more likely to act responsibly.

[Berkut]

And that party has been a major party for, well, forever, and been in power at least half the time, and yet none of those things have gone away, or even decreased...in fact, they've all increased steadily and continue to do so.

OK, we'll just do that whole "agree to disagree" thing;  I believe the social safety net and its resources have been reduced, you honestly believe it's actually grown.  I think you're full of shit, you think I'm full of shit, so it all cancels out Even-Stevens.

Do you even realize that this attitude it what allows the right to dismiss your views out of hand?

You paint a picture of a society where nobody cares about the poor, there is no opportunity to improve your lot in life, the state does nothing to help them.

The reality is that we spend massive amounts of resources fighting poverty. We have an incredibly expensive net out there that has grown from basically nothing a few hundred years ago to a huge chunk of our GDP spent on publicly funded schools, infrastructure, housing, welfare, health care, etc., etc., etc.

And yet, the response from people like you is to say that it isn't enough, it isn't even close to enough, the poor are systemically and hopelessly screwed, and apparently we live in some Dicksonian world of starving orphans with their bowls out asking "Please sir, may I have some more???"

Well shit, if that is the case, that all this incredible effort we've put in has resulted in NO IMPROVEMENT to speak of, that still the poor are no better off, that they are still just slaves and peasants to be ignored and discarded, then fuck it - we should stop spending all this money on trying since it clearly cannot work. We spend trillions, and what we hear from the shrill left is how horrible it is being poor, how hopeless and impossible it is for them to fight the system? Then why bother? If the last trillion dollars didn't help, it is easy to assume the next trillion won't either.

The reality is, however, that is has helped in fact. Poverty in America is of a fundamentally different nature than it has been in the past, and there has never been greater economic opportunity (well, outside the very recent economic mess, but in broad strokes that is true). As a society we in fact have made incredible strides in eradicating hunger, disease, lack of education, all the ails of the traditional poor. It isn't perfect of course, and we must and will continue to work towards making it better, but the constant whine about how horrific it is just makes you easy to tune out. The claim that anyone not willing to do EVERYTHING you demand doesn't care is ridiculous. We already do an incredible amount, the question is not between doing nothing and something, it is between doing a lot and a little bit more.

I was born into a poor family in 1972. I can confidently state that there is no time or place in human history where I would rather have been born poor into that the United States (or elsewhere in the liberal west) in the last 50 years. And I imagine that will be true in the next fifty years as well. At least, it will be if we get this current economic blip of an out of whack sharing of increasing prosperity figured out...

[Eddie Teach]

People always know someone with a fast car. They can get somewhere.

Any place is better.

[dps]

I.e. does it mean we can say "it's basically their own fault for making bad decisions, so we shouldn't do anything about it" or "to alleviate poverty, the main thing we need to do is focus ensuring that poor people make better decisions; material help for housing, employment, food, education etc are less important than providing the framework for better decision making" (and if so, how do we provide that framework)?

Clearly the latter.

I think the "how" is a complex answer, and one we have already as a society tried to provide, for better or worse. We do in fact expend incredible resources trying to provide that framework. We have social workers, teachers, studies, programs, etc., etc., etc. attempting to do just that.

Berkut, what would you think of making it a legal requirement to get a job that you either have completed high school, or be over the age of 18?  It seems to me that allowing someone to quit school at 16 and get a job might send the message to some people that doing so is a reasonable decision, so maybe we shouldn't allow it.  OTOH, I can see disadvantages to the idea as well.  Would it be better just to say that you can't drop out until you either graduate HS or reach age 19?  Or maybe you can't get a full, unrestricted driver's license with out a diploma?  Or given that drop-out rates have fallen from what they were years ago, would it make more sense to not worry about trying to further discourage students from dropping out, and instead try to provide a better education for people who are still actually in school? 

[CountDeMoney]

Do you even realize that this attitude it what allows the right to dismiss your views out of hand?

You paint a picture of a society where nobody cares about the poor, there is no opportunity to improve your lot in life, the state does nothing to help them.

The reality is that we spend massive amounts of resources fighting poverty. We have an incredibly expensive net out there that has grown from basically nothing a few hundred years ago to a huge chunk of our GDP spent on publicly funded schools, infrastructure, housing, welfare, health care, etc., etc., etc.

And yet, the response from people like you is to say that it isn't enough, it isn't even close to enough, the poor are systemically and hopelessly screwed, and apparently we live in some Dicksonian world of starving orphans with their bowls out asking "Please sir, may I have some more???"

Well shit, if that is the case, that all this incredible effort we've put in has resulted in NO IMPROVEMENT to speak of, that still the poor are no better off, that they are still just slaves and peasants to be ignored and discarded, then fuck it - we should stop spending all this money on trying since it clearly cannot work. We spend trillions, and what we hear from the shrill left is how horrible it is being poor, how hopeless and impossible it is for them to fight the system? Then why bother? If the last trillion dollars didn't help, it is easy to assume the next trillion won't either.

Good grief, Charlie Brown. 

We've been witnessing a major societal and political shift in policy and governance over the course of a generation on how to address poverty--from the role of government in social conscience spending to the increased reliance on "faith-based" initiatives, legislative reform of welfare from Reagan to Clinton to Obama, to party centerpiece items like the Ryan Budget and Coburn's "Want a plan, Cut a plan" fiscal approach--but noooo...in typical Hurricane Berkut, psycho nutcase shoot-everything-in-the-room fashion, you just have to go from zero to 300mph and start tossing around Dickensian metaphors and that "NO IMPROVEMENT" line--which, incidentally enough, is the same bullshit false dichotomy argument you use when it comes to race relations.  But I'm supposed to be the one with the hyperbole issues? 

The reality is, however, that is has helped in fact. Poverty in America is of a fundamentally different nature than it has been in the past, and there has never been greater economic opportunity (well, outside the very recent economic mess, but in broad strokes that is true). As a society we in fact have made incredible strides in eradicating hunger, disease, lack of education, all the ails of the traditional poor. It isn't perfect of course, and we must and will continue to work towards making it better, but the constant whine about how horrific it is just makes you easy to tune out. The claim that anyone not willing to do EVERYTHING you demand doesn't care is ridiculous. We already do an incredible amount, the question is not between doing nothing and something, it is between doing a lot and a little bit more.

You're simply just going to have to do better than the "We already do an incredible amount" angle while you roll your eyes and play the typical I-Don't-Understand-Why-They-Still-Complain conservative straight out of Central Casting.  Talk about being easy to tune out.

I realize Starfleet never activated your empathy chip when they constructed you prior to deploying your nasty and unpleasant ass to this planet, but goddamn.   

I was born into a poor family in 1972. I can confidently state that there is no time or place in human history where I would rather have been born poor into that the United States (or elsewhere in the liberal west) in the last 50 years. And I imagine that will be true in the next fifty years as well. At least, it will be if we get this current economic blip of an out of whack sharing of increasing prosperity figured out...

I had no idea Elvis was singing about you.   That's awesome.   Autograph my album cover.

[Berkut]

Yes, I have no empathy - that is clearly the right conclusion from all of this.

[CountDeMoney]

Zero to 300mph.

[crazy canuck]

Zero to 300mph.

Hurricane Berkut force winds

[alfred russel]

Every time I see this thread title, I think "this is just the inevitable consequence of laws preventing child labor."