Article: Americans Want To Believe Jobs Are The Solution To Poverty

[ministashy]

Really interesting article by the NY Times:  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/11/magazine/americans-jobs-poverty-homeless.html

I thought it made a lot of good points, especially how current government aid programs are often just subsidizing corporate profits, and am interested to see what others think.

[mm1970]

This was very good.  Everyone wants to put the blame for being poor onto the people who are poor. 

Because of survivor bias?  Because, obviously, it can't happen to me.  Obviously they did something wrong.

[partdopy]

I agree that we have a problem with government programs enabling corporations to pay low wages.

The article, however, shows a woman who has consistently made terrible choices.  She has 3 children, by 2 different men who are (or were, one is dead) completely useless.  I could see it being a mistake at 1, but at this point it is a choice.

The third paragraph highlights that she is unable to get her children to behave, and instead gets hotel rooms when they don't behave.  Maybe teach your kids to behave?  They are 17, 14 and 12, hardly an age where they should be having issues.  It also says she can only work 20-30 hours a week because of kids and diabetes.  If the kids were 5 I would get it, but at 12, 14 and 17 they should be independent enough to look after themselves after school, and I know plenty of people with diabetes who work 40 hours. 

While the premise of the article is decent, the person they chose is a terrible example.

[TempusFugit]

I think Kevin D. Williamson did an excellent job of debunking the article's premise.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/poverty-misunderstood-case-matthew-desmond/

Basically, he (Williamson) makes the point that people in predicaments such as the one article outlines are simply, by common sense, going to have a hard time.  Single parent, single income, low wage, part time.  But having a full time - even low wage- job is pretty close to a full solution.


Williamson says:

"If we assume an average wage of $12 an hour (in the middle of that $10-$14–an-hour spread), then Solivan would earn $24,000 a year by working 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year. As Desmond notes, our welfare programs favor the employed, and as such Solivan would receive about $5,200 in Earned Income Tax Credit benefits, raising her total income, absent any other benefits, to $29,200, just a few dollars shy of that $29,420 estimate of her family’s basic needs. Which is to say, a job looks like a pretty good solution, if not quite a complete solution, to poverty in her case, provided it is a full-time job. So perhaps the headline should be amended: “Part-Time Jobs Are Not a Solution to Poverty.” But that isn’t much of a headline, since not many people believe that part-time jobs are a such a solution."

What would make the situation better? 
Full time job (yes, a job, as in a full time job is the solution)
Get / stay married so that there are now 2 jobs
Don't have more kids than you can reasonably support.

Is that always easy? No.  But is it a proven (historically) and logical (mathematically) way to combat poverty? Yes.  Now, that point matters as a counter to the NYT article's premise  “Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not.”   But they are.   Part-Time jobs are not. 

We cannot, as a society, save everyone from hard times.  Choices that people make have long term consequences.  Circumstances outside of one's control can and do happen, and we should, as a society, do what we can to assist people in those predicaments, but we can't solve every problem that is brought upon people for their own choices. Such as having 3 children outside of a marriage.

He says: "There are all sorts of things to be said and debate to be had about welfare benefits, about taxes, education, the different treatment of investment income and wage income, etc. But does anybody really think that rearranging any of that is going to produce a world in which a part-time home health aide raising three children in New Jersey is not going to have a hard time of it?" 

[jlcnuke]

What an absolutely terrible article. Can I rewrite the title too?

"In America, one part-time, low-income job worked by someone who has not developed the skills necessary to advance into a better career is not enough to comfortably provide for a family of 4 without assistance from others".

Ways the example could have had a different outcome:
1. Get an education or training for a decent career before starting a family.
2. Wait to start a family until they had good earnings.
3. Wait to start a family until they had a stable and responsible adult relationship with someone who could afford such a lifestyle with them.
4. Get room-mates to share bills with.
5. Let older teenagers take care of their siblings so earnings can be increased.
6. Teach kids to behave so you could stay with relatives.
7. work more? (yes, I don't mind saying this as an insulin dependent diabetic who went to college full-time while averaging 55+ hours/week working and traveling since I'm pretty sure that if I could do that for years, she could work more with older teenagers to help her out at home).

The moral I get from this story is that if you continually make poor life decisions, life will be difficult for you and those your poor decisions impact. I don't get anything about income not being a solution to poverty however.

Sincerely

[scantee]

Here’s a nice opposing view point to Williamson's, that aligns with the original article, from Matt Bruenig:

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/09/12/who-was-in-poverty-in-2016/

Only a minority of those in poverty are work-eligible, maybe 30%. The rest are children, the disabled, and elderly. Full-time work is not a solution for these people. They cannot, or should not, work. So what to do with them? Williamson’s solution, and the conservative approach more generally, is to say, who cares, not my problem, they deserve what they get for making poor choices.

For the rest of us who do care, the obvious answer is welfare. Welfare is effective: as Bruenig notes, poverty would increase by 67% without welfare. Child allowances, improved unemployment benefits, pay for caregivers, increased payments for the disabled. There are a lot of ways you could design these policies to reduce negative externalities. I personally favor cash transfers but I could be persuaded by more technocratic approaches.

[fuzzy math]

I agree that we have a problem with government programs enabling corporations to pay low wages.

The article, however, shows a woman who has consistently made terrible choices.  She has 3 children, by 2 different men who are (or were, one is dead) completely useless.  I could see it being a mistake at 1, but at this point it is a choice.

The third paragraph highlights that she is unable to get her children to behave, and instead gets hotel rooms when they don't behave.  Maybe teach your kids to behave?  They are 17, 14 and 12, hardly an age where they should be having issues.  It also says she can only work 20-30 hours a week because of kids and diabetes.  If the kids were 5 I would get it, but at 12, 14 and 17 they should be independent enough to look after themselves after school, and I know plenty of people with diabetes who work 40 hours. 

While the premise of the article is decent, the person they chose is a terrible example.

Where exactly should the teens be going after school since they are homeless? The mom sounds like she’s trying to be present
to keep them from ending up as teen parents or in jail.

It’s a not great situation for sure. We don’t know whether she was married etc, but regardless she’s in that situation now. She can’t go back in time 13 yrs to have an abortion so you can approve of her life choices.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[partdopy]

I agree that we have a problem with government programs enabling corporations to pay low wages.

The article, however, shows a woman who has consistently made terrible choices.  She has 3 children, by 2 different men who are (or were, one is dead) completely useless.  I could see it being a mistake at 1, but at this point it is a choice.

The third paragraph highlights that she is unable to get her children to behave, and instead gets hotel rooms when they don't behave.  Maybe teach your kids to behave?  They are 17, 14 and 12, hardly an age where they should be having issues.  It also says she can only work 20-30 hours a week because of kids and diabetes.  If the kids were 5 I would get it, but at 12, 14 and 17 they should be independent enough to look after themselves after school, and I know plenty of people with diabetes who work 40 hours. 

While the premise of the article is decent, the person they chose is a terrible example.

Where exactly should the teens be going after school since they are homeless? The mom sounds like she’s trying to be present
to keep them from ending up as teen parents or in jail.

It’s a not great situation for sure. We don’t know whether she was married etc, but regardless she’s in that situation now. She can’t go back in time 13 yrs to have an abortion so you can approve of her life choices.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They are homeless because they can't behave well enough to stay at a family members home.  They are old enough to understand actions have consequences.  If they don't want to be homeless, don't misbehave.

What does me approving of her life choices have to do with anything?  This article makes a point that poverty isn't a choice, then tells the story of someone who made tons of choices resulting in poverty.

[inline five]

I agree that we have a problem with government programs enabling corporations to pay low wages.

The article, however, shows a woman who has consistently made terrible choices.  She has 3 children, by 2 different men who are (or were, one is dead) completely useless.  I could see it being a mistake at 1, but at this point it is a choice.

The third paragraph highlights that she is unable to get her children to behave, and instead gets hotel rooms when they don't behave.  Maybe teach your kids to behave?  They are 17, 14 and 12, hardly an age where they should be having issues.  It also says she can only work 20-30 hours a week because of kids and diabetes.  If the kids were 5 I would get it, but at 12, 14 and 17 they should be independent enough to look after themselves after school, and I know plenty of people with diabetes who work 40 hours. 

While the premise of the article is decent, the person they chose is a terrible example.

It gets even worse, she will make an extra $5,000 off the government on her "tax refund" (credits), $9,000 in disability checks, and another $6,000 in SNAP. This story is literally the poster child for the right and why there should be reform.

Unfortunately this is your typical liberal sob story. Don't finish school, lead a very unhealthy lifestyle, have multiple kids with multiple partners, and receive more money from the government than you earn in your "part time" job. Oh, but vote D because they will give you more!!!

[inline five]

I agree that we have a problem with government programs enabling corporations to pay low wages.

The article, however, shows a woman who has consistently made terrible choices.  She has 3 children, by 2 different men who are (or were, one is dead) completely useless.  I could see it being a mistake at 1, but at this point it is a choice.

The third paragraph highlights that she is unable to get her children to behave, and instead gets hotel rooms when they don't behave.  Maybe teach your kids to behave?  They are 17, 14 and 12, hardly an age where they should be having issues.  It also says she can only work 20-30 hours a week because of kids and diabetes.  If the kids were 5 I would get it, but at 12, 14 and 17 they should be independent enough to look after themselves after school, and I know plenty of people with diabetes who work 40 hours. 

While the premise of the article is decent, the person they chose is a terrible example.

Where exactly should the teens be going after school since they are homeless? The mom sounds like she’s trying to be present
to keep them from ending up as teen parents or in jail.

It’s a not great situation for sure. We don’t know whether she was married etc, but regardless she’s in that situation now. She can’t go back in time 13 yrs to have an abortion so you can approve of her life choices.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rewarding poor choices is a sure fire way to ensure people continue to make them.

[PoutineLover]

I have a lot of sympathy for poor people, and I think it's important article that shines light on the plight of the working poor. I can't even imagine how hard her life must be right now, and I'm lucky that I'll probably never find out because I was born into a much easier life. In a country as rich as the United States, everyone should have access to a safe place to sleep, food every day, and access to decent job or training or benefits so that nobody has to live in poverty, especially not kids and people who do work. Why is that so controversial?
Corporations get away with paying shit wages because they know the government will take up the slack. Some reform is needed there. It's not her fault her job is poorly compensated, home care is really important work that needs to be done by somebody. Her disability check caused her food benefits to be reduced, but neither amount is enough to pay rent and feed 3 kids. Who hasn't made bad decisions at some point? Should she and her kids be condemned to homelessness and poverty forever because of past mistakes and bad circumstances? People end up in situations like hers through compounding problems that individually could maybe be solved but after a certain point become extremely difficult to get out of without additional resources.
She's being judged for working part time and having kids with two different fathers, one of whom died. It's telling how people refer to her situation in derogatory terms, but these are perfectly normal situations that wouldn't be shameful at a higher income and social class.
If she was earning more money but working part time she'd be "dialing back her career to care for her kids" and applauded for being around to prevent them from getting into trouble.
If she was a remarried divorcee to a wealthy husband who then died she'd be in a "widow with a blended family"
Instead she's being blamed for her deadbeat ex (how come men hardly ever get shamed for not paying child support, but women are shamed for being single moms?)
And shamed for not earning enough money when she's actually working a very necessary and difficult job despite having a disability and caring for three kids while being homeless, one of whom has a learning disability.
Sure, different choices could have led her to different outcomes. But she can't go back and change the fact that her dad did drugs and her mom wasn't around for her. She can't change the fact that she has diabetes and 3 kids and only a high school education. She can only deal with the cards she's been dealt now, and it's clear that there's an inadequate safety net for people in her situation. Unless anything changes, the next generation will be worse off because they won't be able to eat 3 square meals a day, get good educations, and grow up in stable homes that will enable them to pursue good careers and healthy relationships of their own. The whole "pull up your bootstraps" mentality ignores reality and shames people who are suffering but trying to ahead.

[Norioch]

Ways the example could have had a different outcome:
1. Get an education or training for a decent career before starting a family.

Then what happens when they *still* can't find a high-paying job, are now blacklisted from the low-paying jobs they used to rely on because they're "overqualified", and are now stuck with tens of thousands of dollars in student debt that is impossible to discharge in bankruptcy? Then people on these forums will dogpile on them for making the bad decision of going into debt to pay for education. They knew what they were agreeing to, why did they agree to take on so much debt? Clearly they made a bad decision and it's entirely their fault. You can't win.

[TempusFugit]

Here’s a nice opposing view point to Williamson's, that aligns with the original article, from Matt Bruenig:

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/09/12/who-was-in-poverty-in-2016/

Only a minority of those in poverty are work-eligible, maybe 30%. The rest are children, the disabled, and elderly. Full-time work is not a solution for these people. They cannot, or should not, work. So what to do with them? Williamson’s solution, and the conservative approach more generally, is to say, who cares, not my problem, they deserve what they get for making poor choices.

For the rest of us who do care, the obvious answer is welfare. Welfare is effective: as Bruenig notes, poverty would increase by 67% without welfare. Child allowances, improved unemployment benefits, pay for caregivers, increased payments for the disabled. There are a lot of ways you could design these policies to reduce negative externalities. I personally favor cash transfers but I could be persuaded by more technocratic approaches.

I would submit that children are in poverty because their parents are in poverty, which again comes back to (good) jobs as the most effective solution.  Seems like a bit of a cop out to claim that good jobs wouldn't help these children just because they themselves aren't the ones who would be working.

That's 46% of the impoverished according to that author.  That seems like a great start - get good jobs for the parents, and the children are no longer living in poverty. 

Maybe if we could get all the people who really could work if they had the opportunity off the government payroll, we could more effectively address those who really cannot, such as the disabled.

I am not at all saying that we should ignore the issues of poverty and just wash our hands of it.  I'm saying that to dismiss the vital, central role of good jobs as the single biggest part of a solution is not sensible.

[mm1970]

I agree that we have a problem with government programs enabling corporations to pay low wages.

The article, however, shows a woman who has consistently made terrible choices.  She has 3 children, by 2 different men who are (or were, one is dead) completely useless.  I could see it being a mistake at 1, but at this point it is a choice.

The third paragraph highlights that she is unable to get her children to behave, and instead gets hotel rooms when they don't behave.  Maybe teach your kids to behave?  They are 17, 14 and 12, hardly an age where they should be having issues.  It also says she can only work 20-30 hours a week because of kids and diabetes.  If the kids were 5 I would get it, but at 12, 14 and 17 they should be independent enough to look after themselves after school, and I know plenty of people with diabetes who work 40 hours. 

While the premise of the article is decent, the person they chose is a terrible example.

So exactly how long should a person be punished for past poor choices?  Really, I want to know.  We should open up that for discussion about...everyone.  Those poor men who preyed on women and harassed them - they apologized already!

We are talking about a 33 year old mother of 3 teenagers.  Let's do the math - she had her first child at 16.  I guess she needs to be punished forever for being a dumb, stupid 16 year old.  And 19 year old, the age she was when kid #2 rolled along.

You cannot extrapolate your own friends and their management of diabetes on whatever jobs they have to someone else entirely.

I have a 12 year old.  Yes, he is able to (mostly) look after himself after school - but only because we live in a safe neighborhood, and I feel (mostly) okay with him walking himself the mile+ home.  I'd feel better if he did it with friends.  Instead, 3/5 days he stays at school in the after care so he can do homework.

So what would you expect three teenagers with no home to really do?  Especially when they live in an unsafe area? 

And honestly, children and teenagers can be loud.  That's pretty normal.  It's completely understandable that grandma doesn't want them around, considering her failing health. 

As far as I can tell, she made her last "mistake" 12 years ago when she had her third child at 21.  So...we should still punish her?

It gets even worse, she will make an extra $5,000 off the government on her "tax refund" (credits), $9,000 in disability checks, and another $6,000 in SNAP.

Right?? CLEARLY SHE'S NOT POOR ENOUGH NOR HAS SHE SUFFERED ENOUGH.  We really need to make sure her disabled child doesn't get any help, that the children starve and end up homeless.  THAT FIXES EVERYTHING.

Fuck the disabled, amirite?

[bacchi]

Here’s a nice opposing view point to Williamson's, that aligns with the original article, from Matt Bruenig:

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/09/12/who-was-in-poverty-in-2016/

Only a minority of those in poverty are work-eligible, maybe 30%. The rest are children, the disabled, and elderly. Full-time work is not a solution for these people. They cannot, or should not, work. So what to do with them? Williamson’s solution, and the conservative approach more generally, is to say, who cares, not my problem, they deserve what they get for making poor choices.

For the rest of us who do care, the obvious answer is welfare. Welfare is effective: as Bruenig notes, poverty would increase by 67% without welfare. Child allowances, improved unemployment benefits, pay for caregivers, increased payments for the disabled. There are a lot of ways you could design these policies to reduce negative externalities. I personally favor cash transfers but I could be persuaded by more technocratic approaches.

I would submit that children are in poverty because their parents are in poverty, which again comes back to (good) jobs as the most effective solution.  Seems like a bit of a cop out to claim that good jobs wouldn't help these children just because they themselves aren't the ones who would be working.

That's 46% of the impoverished according to that author.  That seems like a great start - get good jobs for the parents, and the children are no longer living in poverty. 

Maybe if we could get all the people who really could work if they had the opportunity off the government payroll, we could more effectively address those who really cannot, such as the disabled.

I am not at all saying that we should ignore the issues of poverty and just wash our hands of it.  I'm saying that to dismiss the vital, central role of good jobs as the single biggest part of a solution is not sensible.

No doubt. If she had an IT job at Facebook with childcare onsite, she'd be set.

Even if she was a teacher, she'd be doing a lot better.

Now, how does a single mother get a good job? Does she go back to school? Who pays for that?

Right?? CLEARLY SHE'S NOT POOR ENOUGH NOR HAS SHE SUFFERED ENOUGH.  We really need to make sure her disabled child doesn't get any help, that the children starve and end up homeless.  THAT FIXES EVERYTHING.

I've got this great idea on how to create a cycle of generational poverty..... It doesn't fix anything, costs a lot of money, but will make us feel better about our own lives (it does wonders for our schadenfreude).

It's surprising that even fiscal conservatives don't get the simple fact that in order to break the cycle of poverty, we need to start somewhere. We can't say "Fuck 'em," shrug our shoulders, and then complain that a single mother of 3 is still on welfare ("Why can't she get a good job?!?") and, 15 years later, complain that her adult children are on welfare ("If only they'd get some loans and go to school!") Lifting people out of poverty doesn't happen with scorn and tut-tuting about personal responsibility.

[cloudsail]

I have a lot of sympathy for poor people, and I think it's important article that shines light on the plight of the working poor. I can't even imagine how hard her life must be right now, and I'm lucky that I'll probably never find out because I was born into a much easier life. In a country as rich as the United States, everyone should have access to a safe place to sleep, food every day, and access to decent job or training or benefits so that nobody has to live in poverty, especially not kids and people who do work. Why is that so controversial?
Corporations get away with paying shit wages because they know the government will take up the slack. Some reform is needed there. It's not her fault her job is poorly compensated, home care is really important work that needs to be done by somebody. Her disability check caused her food benefits to be reduced, but neither amount is enough to pay rent and feed 3 kids. Who hasn't made bad decisions at some point? Should she and her kids be condemned to homelessness and poverty forever because of past mistakes and bad circumstances? People end up in situations like hers through compounding problems that individually could maybe be solved but after a certain point become extremely difficult to get out of without additional resources.
She's being judged for working part time and having kids with two different fathers, one of whom died. It's telling how people refer to her situation in derogatory terms, but these are perfectly normal situations that wouldn't be shameful at a higher income and social class.
If she was earning more money but working part time she'd be "dialing back her career to care for her kids" and applauded for being around to prevent them from getting into trouble.
If she was a remarried divorcee to a wealthy husband who then died she'd be in a "widow with a blended family"
Instead she's being blamed for her deadbeat ex (how come men hardly ever get shamed for not paying child support, but women are shamed for being single moms?)
And shamed for not earning enough money when she's actually working a very necessary and difficult job despite having a disability and caring for three kids while being homeless, one of whom has a learning disability.
Sure, different choices could have led her to different outcomes. But she can't go back and change the fact that her dad did drugs and her mom wasn't around for her. She can't change the fact that she has diabetes and 3 kids and only a high school education. She can only deal with the cards she's been dealt now, and it's clear that there's an inadequate safety net for people in her situation. Unless anything changes, the next generation will be worse off because they won't be able to eat 3 square meals a day, get good educations, and grow up in stable homes that will enable them to pursue good careers and healthy relationships of their own. The whole "pull up your bootstraps" mentality ignores reality and shames people who are suffering but trying to ahead.

Here's the thing though, it's still about choice. If she were making high wages, then she has the option to choose to work less hours. If she had married a wealthy man, then she has the option to have multiple children with him. If you were dealt a crappy hand of cards, then you have less options in life, and must be much more careful about the decisions that you make.

A more interesting aspect to consider is that studies have shown the lack of money often impairs judgement, independent of individual intelligence or education. Thus, it is much more difficult for poor people to make the right decisions, while they must make a series of good decisions and no bad ones to really raise themselves out of poverty.

It's a tough problem. Maybe robots and basic income are the solution.

[PoutineLover]

Here's the thing though, it's still about choice. If she were making high wages, then she has the option to choose to work less hours. If she had married a wealthy man, then she has the option to have multiple children with him. If you were dealt a crappy hand of cards, then you have less options in life, and must be much more careful about the decisions that you make.

A more interesting aspect to consider is that studies have shown the lack of money often impairs judgement, independent of individual intelligence or education. Thus, it is much more difficult for poor people to make the right decisions, while they must make a series of good decisions and no bad ones to really raise themselves out of poverty.

It's a tough problem. Maybe robots and basic income are the solution.

Basic income would help a lot in this type of situation. And it wasn't a choice she made that her third child's father died, but shit happens and you deal with it. She's not giving up or being lazy, yet she's being judged for things beyond her control.
I have also read that poverty impairs decisions, and I can totally see that happening here. Which is another argument for providing a steady stream of income to take away the stress of wondering whether she can afford gas or food. And still miles away from being able to get housing, or save for the future. It's not easy to solve poverty, but it often seems like the people shaming poor people for poor choices are also unwilling to provide any type of assistance to help them get out of poverty.

[DreamFIRE]

I agree that we have a problem with government programs enabling corporations to pay low wages.

The article, however, shows a woman who has consistently made terrible choices.  She has 3 children, by 2 different men who are (or were, one is dead) completely useless.  I could see it being a mistake at 1, but at this point it is a choice.

The third paragraph highlights that she is unable to get her children to behave, and instead gets hotel rooms when they don't behave.  Maybe teach your kids to behave?  They are 17, 14 and 12, hardly an age where they should be having issues.  It also says she can only work 20-30 hours a week because of kids and diabetes.  If the kids were 5 I would get it, but at 12, 14 and 17 they should be independent enough to look after themselves after school, and I know plenty of people with diabetes who work 40 hours. 

While the premise of the article is decent, the person they chose is a terrible example.

It gets even worse, she will make an extra $5,000 off the government on her "tax refund" (credits), $9,000 in disability checks, and another $6,000 in SNAP. This story is literally the poster child for the right and why there should be reform.

Unfortunately this is your typical liberal sob story. Don't finish school, lead a very unhealthy lifestyle, have multiple kids with multiple partners, and receive more money from the government than you earn in your "part time" job. Oh, but vote D because they will give you more!!!

Housing assistance, food stamps, huge tax "refunds" which are actually just "welfare", not refunds, etc. sounds like some poor people I know who specifically minimize how much they work and earn so that they don't receive cuts in their benefits.  If they work more hours and get a cut in tax-payer funded benefits, they complain, "I'm working for free."

[maizefolk]

One of the things that I think is really funny about this forum is how much it has changed in its short lifespan. There have always been a bunch of people here who were just rich assholes crowing about how they're God's gift to mankind because they bake their own cupcakes, but a few years back, there was a much higher fraction of like, "Bearded Man Squats in Yurt" lifestyle weirdsters. The ratio keeps tilting more and more in favor of just a random sample of America's rich (like, more the bogleheads demographic and less early retirement extreme).

I've noticed this as well and it's a shame. I used to consider myself well on the soft/coddled end of FIRE. Now I'm the one arguing in threads that it can indeed be safe to retire before 40 (or 50), and that advice about changing your lifestyle to reduce expenses isn't some weird oddity, it is (or was originally) a core part of the message.

My guess is that we are seeing more and more conventionally wealthy people find the forum because the last decade or so of stock market returns lifted more and more people into FI without having to make significant lifestyle changes (or any at all). But I think we're also actively losing the people with the outside-the-norm lifestyles, and that makes for less interesting discussions than we used to have.

[Bucksandreds]

I think Kevin D. Williamson did an excellent job of debunking the article's premise.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/poverty-misunderstood-case-matthew-desmond/

Basically, he (Williamson) makes the point that people in predicaments such as the one article outlines are simply, by common sense, going to have a hard time.  Single parent, single income, low wage, part time.  But having a full time - even low wage- job is pretty close to a full solution.


Williamson says:

"If we assume an average wage of $12 an hour (in the middle of that $10-$14–an-hour spread), then Solivan would earn $24,000 a year by working 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year. As Desmond notes, our welfare programs favor the employed, and as such Solivan would receive about $5,200 in Earned Income Tax Credit benefits, raising her total income, absent any other benefits, to $29,200, just a few dollars shy of that $29,420 estimate of her family’s basic needs. Which is to say, a job looks like a pretty good solution, if not quite a complete solution, to poverty in her case, provided it is a full-time job. So perhaps the headline should be amended: “Part-Time Jobs Are Not a Solution to Poverty.” But that isn’t much of a headline, since not many people believe that part-time jobs are a such a solution."

What would make the situation better? 
Full time job (yes, a job, as in a full time job is the solution)
Get / stay married so that there are now 2 jobs
Don't have more kids than you can reasonably support.

Is that always easy? No.  But is it a proven (historically) and logical (mathematically) way to combat poverty? Yes.  Now, that point matters as a counter to the NYT article's premise  “Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not.”   But they are.   Part-Time jobs are not. 

We cannot, as a society, save everyone from hard times.  Choices that people make have long term consequences.  Circumstances outside of one's control can and do happen, and we should, as a society, do what we can to assist people in those predicaments, but we can't solve every problem that is brought upon people for their own choices. Such as having 3 children outside of a marriage.

He says: "There are all sorts of things to be said and debate to be had about welfare benefits, about taxes, education, the different treatment of investment income and wage income, etc. But does anybody really think that rearranging any of that is going to produce a world in which a part-time home health aide raising three children in New Jersey is not going to have a hard time of it?"

Didn’t you forget city, state and payroll taxes in your assumptions?

[inline five]

I agree that we have a problem with government programs enabling corporations to pay low wages.

The article, however, shows a woman who has consistently made terrible choices.  She has 3 children, by 2 different men who are (or were, one is dead) completely useless.  I could see it being a mistake at 1, but at this point it is a choice.

The third paragraph highlights that she is unable to get her children to behave, and instead gets hotel rooms when they don't behave.  Maybe teach your kids to behave?  They are 17, 14 and 12, hardly an age where they should be having issues.  It also says she can only work 20-30 hours a week because of kids and diabetes.  If the kids were 5 I would get it, but at 12, 14 and 17 they should be independent enough to look after themselves after school, and I know plenty of people with diabetes who work 40 hours. 

While the premise of the article is decent, the person they chose is a terrible example.

It gets even worse, she will make an extra $5,000 off the government on her "tax refund" (credits), $9,000 in disability checks, and another $6,000 in SNAP. This story is literally the poster child for the right and why there should be reform.

Unfortunately this is your typical liberal sob story. Don't finish school, lead a very unhealthy lifestyle, have multiple kids with multiple partners, and receive more money from the government than you earn in your "part time" job. Oh, but vote D because they will give you more!!!

Housing assistance, food stamps, huge tax "refunds" which are actually just "welfare", not refunds, etc. sounds like some poor people I know who specifically minimize how much they work and earn so that they don't receive cuts in their benefits.  If they work more hours and get a cut in tax-payer funded benefits, they complain, "I'm working for free."

Buddy of mine owned 13 low income housing units. Not a single one of his tenants had a W2 job, they all worked under the table for cash in order to minimize their reduction of government benefits.

These people aren't dumb.

And yet we have more and more clamoring for more money for these people. If there was anything cheap mortgages and unlimited student loans shows, it's that giving people more money just inflates those products. Raising min wage which is a D favorite will ensure inflation hits and study after study has shown actual income goes down in cities that have enacted it. Either due to less hours or automation.

This person wouldn't even benefit much from a min wage increase because she already makes considerably more than that. It would just make it harder for her to get an apartment.

[PiobStache]

Universal basic income is the answer.  Stop demonizing corporations.  We're all trying to FIRE here so let's stop demonizing those that will make that possible.  People (and corporations) respond to incentives.  It's Econ 101.  So change the system.  UBI, universal healthcare (Bismarck please, not Canadian style like I grew up with,) college or trade school for those that put the effort in and have the ability.  Societal problems need societal solutions.

Here's an interesting working paper and it's yet another problem in the making:  http://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2016/article/video-killed-radio-star

[TempusFugit]

No doubt. If she had an IT job at Facebook with childcare onsite, she'd be set.

Even if she was a teacher, she'd be doing a lot better.

Now, how does a single mother get a good job? Does she go back to school? Who pays for that?

Even if she was simply able to work full time at her relatively low-wage job she would be doing much much better.  Or if she had a husband who worked to combine incomes.  Again, the premise of the article is that jobs aren't the solution.  I disagree. I'm not blaming this woman for not having a better job, I'm arguing that government policies should aim to maximize the availability of those jobs so that she and people like her have those opportunities. 

I think that the push for an unrealistically high minimum wage will be counter productive in this regard, leading not to fewer poor people but to more, as the jobs at that lowest rung on the ladder will vanish and be replaced by automation or consolidation or offshoring as we price something (low skill work) higher than its economic value.

I also think that we have to be honest about how personal choices lead to these outcomes.  Not entirely, to be sure. But they play a huge part and we can't just ignore that while handing out money.  That is a recipe for more of the problem, not less. 

We can desire to be perceived as 'nice' and empathetic and caring for the less fortunate, or we can desire to actually reduce the incidence of poverty.  I'm not sure we can always do both.  We can pursue policies that assist those who are in trouble for whatever cause while at the same time working as a culture to reinforce the idea of personal agency and personal responsibility. 

[inline five]

Universal basic income is the answer.  Stop demonizing corporations.  We're all trying to FIRE here so let's stop demonizing those that will make that possible.  People (and corporations) respond to incentives.  It's Econ 101.  So change the system.  UBI, universal healthcare (Bismarck please, not Canadian style like I grew up with,) college or trade school for those that put the effort in and have the ability.  Societal problems need societal solutions.

Here's an interesting working paper and it's yet another problem in the making:  http://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2016/article/video-killed-radio-star

UBI so society can live in a basement and play video games 23.5 hours a day? Seriously?

[Slow2FIRE]

A more interesting aspect to consider is that studies have shown the lack of money often impairs judgement, independent of individual intelligence or education. Thus, it is much more difficult for poor people to make the right decisions, while they must make a series of good decisions and no bad ones to really raise themselves out of poverty.

It's a tough problem. Maybe robots and basic income are the solution.

From what I remember, which may be inaccurate:  poverty / lack of resources causes an actual decrease in IQ as recorded on IQ tests and also lower scores on standardized tests.
One study, was done with farmers who would have a large payday around harvest time and were poor otherwise.  Purportedly, the farmers scored much better in testing when they had just sold their crops as compared to several weeks before they made their sale.

[PiobStache]

Universal basic income is the answer.  Stop demonizing corporations.  We're all trying to FIRE here so let's stop demonizing those that will make that possible.  People (and corporations) respond to incentives.  It's Econ 101.  So change the system.  UBI, universal healthcare (Bismarck please, not Canadian style like I grew up with,) college or trade school for those that put the effort in and have the ability.  Societal problems need societal solutions.

Here's an interesting working paper and it's yet another problem in the making:  http://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2016/article/video-killed-radio-star

UBI so society can live in a basement and play video games 23.5 hours a day? Seriously?

That's your take away from my link?  Ah well.

[EnjoyIt]

One of the things that I think is really funny about this forum is how much it has changed in its short lifespan. There have always been a bunch of people here who were just rich assholes crowing about how they're God's gift to mankind because they bake their own cupcakes, but a few years back, there was a much higher fraction of like, "Bearded Man Squats in Yurt" lifestyle weirdsters. The ratio keeps tilting more and more in favor of just a random sample of America's rich (like, more the bogleheads demographic and less early retirement extreme). The place I've noticed it the most is in threads to do with transit, where years ago there wasn't even a question about upholding the bicycle. But now poor guitar stv is beset on all sides by officious lardbody millionaires hollering out the windows of their 2017 Honda Pilot about SAFETY (they are virtuous, thrifty, and morally upright because they bought the Honda instead of a Mercedes GLC), because like most rich people they live in a perpetual state of mortal terror.

Anyway, threads like this are exactly the same. There were always meanspirited libertarians who fantasize about pissing right in the ugly face of today's lazy homeless, but now they have swelled their ranks and post with pride alongside hundreds of insecure (perpetual mortal terror) 54-year-olds with 7 million dollars whose lifelong philosophical project comprises self justification at the expense of everyone worse off than themselves.

Wow...Do you also perform a triple summersault on your dismount? Be careful...it is a long way down.
Ohh, and BTW, before you judge me, I was born in poverty.

[I've got this great idea on how to create a cycle of generational poverty..... It doesn't fix anything, costs a lot of money, but will make us feel better about our own lives (it does wonders for our schadenfreude).

It's surprising that even fiscal conservatives don't get the simple fact that in order to break the cycle of poverty, we need to start somewhere. We can't say "Fuck 'em," shrug our shoulders, and then complain that a single mother of 3 is still on welfare ("Why can't she get a good job?!?") and, 15 years later, complain that her adult children are on welfare ("If only they'd get some loans and go to school!") Lifting people out of poverty doesn't happen with scorn and tut-tuting about personal responsibility.

You are are right @bacchi.  The current system we have now is expensive, makes us feel better but creates a cycle of generational poverty.  The thing is, you can't lift people out of poverty by just throwing money at it.  It needs to be done with eduction and an ability to get these people to keep themselves out and not need the money in the end.

I just spent 10 minutes scouring the internet for a program I remember reading about in California. It might still be going on but I couldn't find it. Basically a mom lives in this facility with her newborn for free.  In addition they get free nutrition, medical care via medicaid and she gets an education. Not just enough for a GED, but on how to buy groceries, cook, keep a budget and a skill for a well paying job. To stay in the house she must also agree to a depot shot which is long term injectable birth control.  Eventually she graduates and goes on to have a career and live her life with her baby.  This is how you pull people out of poverty.  You provide a way to pull yourself out for the people who want it.  It is not just throwing money at a problem, it is a real solution.

Over the years I have worked with countless single moms who worked full time jobs while going to school. I can't imagine how they do it and it makes me look like a lazy piece of shit.  But it can and is done every day.  There is no reason why this woman can't do it also.  Unfortunately she is indeed a result of tons of poor life choices some of which is not disciplining her kids who will likely follow in her footsteps perpetuating their poverty.

[EnjoyIt]

A more interesting aspect to consider is that studies have shown the lack of money often impairs judgement, independent of individual intelligence or education. Thus, it is much more difficult for poor people to make the right decisions, while they must make a series of good decisions and no bad ones to really raise themselves out of poverty.

It's a tough problem. Maybe robots and basic income are the solution.

From what I remember, which may be inaccurate:  poverty / lack of resources causes an actual decrease in IQ as recorded on IQ tests and also lower scores on standardized tests.
One study, was done with farmers who would have a large payday around harvest time and were poor otherwise.  Purportedly, the farmers scored much better in testing when they had just sold their crops as compared to several weeks before they made their sale.

That is really interesting.  I wonder if it has something to do with taking tests while under the stress of poverty or maybe on not having a healthy diet when broke and therefor less able to function at peek levels.

[bacchi]

You are are right @bacchi.  The current system we have now is expensive, makes us feel better but creates a cycle of generational poverty.  The thing is, you can't lift people out of poverty by just throwing money at it.  It needs to be done with eduction and an ability to get these people to keep themselves out and not need the money in the end.

I just spent 10 minutes scouring the internet for a program I remember reading about in California. It might still be going on but I couldn't find it. Basically a mom lives in this facility with her newborn for free.  In addition they get free nutrition, medical care via medicaid and she gets an education. Not just enough for a GED, but on how to buy groceries, cook, keep a budget and a skill for a well paying job. To stay in the house she must also agree to a depot shot which is long term injectable birth control.  Eventually she graduates and goes on to have a career and live her life with her baby.  This is how you pull people out of poverty.  You provide a way to pull yourself out for the people who want it.  It is not just throwing money at a problem, it is a real solution.

That sounds like a great program. It does take money, though, and any money spent on programs for the poor (even if they work and lift someone out of poverty) is heavily scrutinized.

Over the years I have worked with countless single moms who worked full time jobs while going to school. I can't imagine how they do it and it makes me look like a lazy piece of shit.  But it can and is done every day.  There is no reason why this woman can't do it also.  Unfortunately she is indeed a result of tons of poor life choices some of which is not disciplining her kids who will likely follow in her footsteps perpetuating their poverty.

This woman was never taught to do it or doesn't see a path to do it. Writing her off -- and, more importantly, writing off her children -- isn't doing much because there are hundreds of thousands of these women and their kids. It takes a lot of money applied to smart programs, as you mentioned above, to combat this.

Unfortunately, one way to get out of poverty is disappearing. Manufacturing jobs were a catapult to the middle class and automation has reduced their numbers.

[Norioch]

Universal basic income is the answer.  Stop demonizing corporations.  We're all trying to FIRE here so let's stop demonizing those that will make that possible.  People (and corporations) respond to incentives.  It's Econ 101.  So change the system.  UBI, universal healthcare (Bismarck please, not Canadian style like I grew up with,) college or trade school for those that put the effort in and have the ability.  Societal problems need societal solutions.

Here's an interesting working paper and it's yet another problem in the making:  http://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2016/article/video-killed-radio-star

UBI so society can live in a basement and play video games 23.5 hours a day? Seriously?

The entire point of this website is people aspiring to retire early, AKA not have to work for a living. That's a good thing! What people do with their time when they no longer have to work is their choice.

[scantee]

This is how you pull people out of poverty.  You provide a way to pull yourself out for the people who want it.  It is not just throwing money at a problem, it is a real solution.

There is little research to back up this contention.  Quite the opposite actually: cash transfers have shown to be one of the  most effective interventions to reduce poverty. Give poor people money and they’ll mostly spend it on necessities. Not that it is the only useful intervention, but  any successful welfare system will have a cash transfer program as its cornerstone.

We like the program you describe (which may be a good program, hard to say) because we’re a society of moralistic busybodies and we can’t handle the idea that a poor people  might spend “our” money on something we don’t approve of. So we design interventions and supports that require expensive administrative costs because we’d, apparently, rather pay tax dollars to oversight than give people more money and risk them spending it on Fritos and soda.

[EnjoyIt]

You are are right @bacchi.  The current system we have now is expensive, makes us feel better but creates a cycle of generational poverty.  The thing is, you can't lift people out of poverty by just throwing money at it.  It needs to be done with eduction and an ability to get these people to keep themselves out and not need the money in the end.

I just spent 10 minutes scouring the internet for a program I remember reading about in California. It might still be going on but I couldn't find it. Basically a mom lives in this facility with her newborn for free.  In addition they get free nutrition, medical care via medicaid and she gets an education. Not just enough for a GED, but on how to buy groceries, cook, keep a budget and a skill for a well paying job. To stay in the house she must also agree to a depot shot which is long term injectable birth control.  Eventually she graduates and goes on to have a career and live her life with her baby.  This is how you pull people out of poverty.  You provide a way to pull yourself out for the people who want it.  It is not just throwing money at a problem, it is a real solution.

That sounds like a great program. It does take money, though, and any money spent on programs for the poor (even if they work and lift someone out of poverty) is heavily scrutinized.

Over the years I have worked with countless single moms who worked full time jobs while going to school. I can't imagine how they do it and it makes me look like a lazy piece of shit.  But it can and is done every day.  There is no reason why this woman can't do it also.  Unfortunately she is indeed a result of tons of poor life choices some of which is not disciplining her kids who will likely follow in her footsteps perpetuating their poverty.

This woman was never taught to do it or doesn't see a path to do it. Writing her off -- and, more importantly, writing off her children -- isn't doing much because there are hundreds of thousands of these women and their kids. It takes a lot of money applied to smart programs, as you mentioned above, to combat this.

Unfortunately, one way to get out of poverty is disappearing. Manufacturing jobs were a catapult to the middle class and automation has reduced their numbers.

Yup, it seams like it is very difficult to get out of poverty being unskilled in the US.  Those jobs are dwindling.  And it does take money to bring people up.  But I think that money is best used teaching people how to fish instead of simply providing them food stamps. No reason why you can't do both at the same time while weening people of those services and giving them the tools to feed themselves.  In the long run this option is much much cheaper.  And frankly, for those who do not want to partake in learning and bringing themselves up, I will admit in that particular situation I would have little sympathy for them.

This is how you pull people out of poverty.  You provide a way to pull yourself out for the people who want it.  It is not just throwing money at a problem, it is a real solution.

There is little research to back up this contention.  Quite the opposite actually: cash transfers have shown to be one of the  most effective interventions to reduce poverty. Give poor people money and they’ll mostly spend it on necessities. Not that it is the only useful intervention, but  any successful welfare system will have a cash transfer program as its cornerstone.

We like the program you describe (which may be a good program, hard to say) because we’re a society of moralistic busybodies and we can’t handle the idea that a poor people  might spend “our” money on something we don’t approve of. So we design interventions and supports that require expensive administrative costs because we’d, apparently, rather pay tax dollars to oversight than give people more money and risk them spending it on Fritos and soda.

Prove it please show me/us the research.

[AccidentalMiser]

Williamson’s solution, and the conservative approach more generally, is to say, who cares, not my problem, they deserve what they get for making poor choices.

If you think that's Williamson's position, you are misinformed.  Did you read what he wrote?  Have you researched his position on these issues?  How simplistic to just say "if we just give more money to the poor, then they won't be poor!" 

This is the author's clearest statement of the original article's theme: "What kinds of jobs are available to people without much education? By and large, the answer is: jobs that do not pay enough to live on."  This is just simply bullshit for most people.  I have a son who makes $14/hour with just a little education.  He brings home $28k plus overtime.  With a friend to split living expenses on a rental house, he'd have plenty to save and spend.  Another son and DIL have a baby and juggle one part time and one full time job.  The get some EIC from taxes each year and do OK while he goes to school. 

I will stipulate there are poor people who are poor for a variety of reasons and who cannot work full-time for a variety of reasons, such as Ms. Solivan in the article.  There should be more and better programs to help them.  On the other hand, Ms. Solivan has made some poor choices in her life and the unfortunate product of a lifetime of bad choices is frequently poverty.  She's part victim and part perpetrator in my opinion.  In my opinion, it seems like the debate about poor people frequently boils down to whether or not one sees her (and others) more as a victim or as a perpetrator.  To focus on one element without addressing the other risks implementing unsustainable or impractical solutions.

I've seen some folks mention UBI.  I can see the logic of UBI, it certainly could simplify a lot of things.  What I never hear a discussion about are the likely unintended consequences of making a wholesale change like this.  I am interested in the concept though as a different way of providing for important needs without limiting people's freedom to make choices.  There's a moral hazard from just handing people money but I think it would help many who are indigent and without a way out.  Also, how expensive would UBI be?  Should be easy enough to calculate: $10k/person times 350 million people = 3.5 trillion dollars per year.  That looks like it might strain the budget a bit.   I'm guessing that the UBI plan doesn't involve sending everyone a check for 10k each year.

I do appreciate the links an differing viewpoints everyone brings to the discussion. 

Thanks to @PiobStache for the Booth article.  Very interesting stuff.

[maizefolk]

I've read some of Hurst's papers, but that article does a much better job of explaining in clear english some of the problems he is working on, thanks for posting @PiobStache.

I suspect he is right that a life of nothing but playing video games is quite appealing to many at age 13, remains appealing to a significant number in their 20s, and then starts to become much less appealing in 30s and 40s, at which point a decade out of the labor market without developing job skills or education will make it much harder to find work than it already is for unskilled workers in their 20s.

We cannot change either the shift of the labor market away from requiring less and less unskilled and moderately skilled labor, nor can we change the appeal of video games and other technologically enabled ways of enjoying leisure time (whether that leisure time is voluntary or involuntary), and even if we could it would seem cruel to do so in the case of involuntary leisure time resulting from unemployment or under-employment. But understanding that it is happening (and accelerating) can certainly help guide both personal and policy decisions going forward.

[cats]

I agree that we have a problem with government programs enabling corporations to pay low wages.

The article, however, shows a woman who has consistently made terrible choices.  She has 3 children, by 2 different men who are (or were, one is dead) completely useless.  I could see it being a mistake at 1, but at this point it is a choice.

The third paragraph highlights that she is unable to get her children to behave, and instead gets hotel rooms when they don't behave.  Maybe teach your kids to behave?  They are 17, 14 and 12, hardly an age where they should be having issues.  It also says she can only work 20-30 hours a week because of kids and diabetes.  If the kids were 5 I would get it, but at 12, 14 and 17 they should be independent enough to look after themselves after school, and I know plenty of people with diabetes who work 40 hours. 

While the premise of the article is decent, the person they chose is a terrible example.

So exactly how long should a person be punished for past poor choices?  Really, I want to know.  We should open up that for discussion about...everyone.  Those poor men who preyed on women and harassed them - they apologized already!

We are talking about a 33 year old mother of 3 teenagers.  Let's do the math - she had her first child at 16.  I guess she needs to be punished forever for being a dumb, stupid 16 year old.  And 19 year old, the age she was when kid #2 rolled along.

This stood out at me also...this woman is basically being punished for life because of a stupid decision she made when she was not even legally an adult.  That seems a bit messed up. 

When I was in high school, I was HIGHLY motivated to not get pregnant, because I knew it would make going to university really really difficult, and I knew that I was expected to go to university and that life without university would suck.  And why did I "know" all this?  Because my parents drilled it into me and I also "knew" my parents would assist me in getting into and paying for university.  It wasn't a case of "university will be really hard to get into/pay for, and then even harder with a baby", it was a case of "this is something that will definitely happen if you don't get pregnant, and if you do get pregnant...well, we might not be able to provide enough support at that point".

I would argue in the case of this woman, a great preventative to the current problem would have been for her to have an excellent reason to not have unprotected sex at age 15-16.  Such as a *realistic* expectation of being able to obtain the skills needed to obtain a decent job, coupled with the message that getting those skills will be a hell of a lot easier without a baby than with one.  Her parents were too poor to provide that expectation, so yes, a government program would have been required.  But if the result were that by her 30s she was working a decent job, perhaps happily married to a non-deadbeat, building up some savings, etc...wouldn't that have been a worthwhile use of funds? 

Certainly this woman could be making better choices, but it also seems to me that the deck was very heavily stacked against her at a young age.  Her father was a crack addict, for crying out loud.

[marty998]

This is how you pull people out of poverty.  You provide a way to pull yourself out for the people who want it.  It is not just throwing money at a problem, it is a real solution.

There is little research to back up this contention.  Quite the opposite actually: cash transfers have shown to be one of the  most effective interventions to reduce poverty. Give poor people money and they’ll mostly spend it on necessities. Not that it is the only useful intervention, but  any successful welfare system will have a cash transfer program as its cornerstone.

We like the program you describe (which may be a good program, hard to say) because we’re a society of moralistic busybodies and we can’t handle the idea that a poor people  might spend “our” money on something we don’t approve of. So we design interventions and supports that require expensive administrative costs because we’d, apparently, rather pay tax dollars to oversight than give people more money and risk them spending it on Fritos and soda.

Ok I can't quote some research or evidence but intuitively I look at a sentence like this and think "if they spend all the money they are given, they are still poor after spending it". Just like people on this board don't move ahead if they spend every dollar they earn.

What am I missing here? Don't we need to at some point teach poor people to acquire assets to break the cycle?

[maizefolk]

Perhaps the miscommunication here is what it means to end poverty? Is it creating a world where no one is poor enough to need government transfer payments? Or is it creating a world where there are sufficient government transfer payments to ensure that that no one is actually living in poverty?

Advocates of the first approach will criticize the second as welfare and creating a moral hazard. Advocates of the second approach will criticize the second approach as unachievable and heartless. Advocates of both approaches will say that they are working to truly end poverty.

[Unique User]

Here’s a nice opposing view point to Williamson's, that aligns with the original article, from Matt Bruenig:

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/09/12/who-was-in-poverty-in-2016/

Only a minority of those in poverty are work-eligible, maybe 30%. The rest are children, the disabled, and elderly. Full-time work is not a solution for these people. They cannot, or should not, work. So what to do with them? Williamson’s solution, and the conservative approach more generally, is to say, who cares, not my problem, they deserve what they get for making poor choices.

For the rest of us who do care, the obvious answer is welfare. Welfare is effective: as Bruenig notes, poverty would increase by 67% without welfare. Child allowances, improved unemployment benefits, pay for caregivers, increased payments for the disabled. There are a lot of ways you could design these policies to reduce negative externalities. I personally favor cash transfers but I could be persuaded by more technocratic approaches.

I would submit that children are in poverty because their parents are in poverty, which again comes back to (good) jobs as the most effective solution.  Seems like a bit of a cop out to claim that good jobs wouldn't help these children just because they themselves aren't the ones who would be working.

That's 46% of the impoverished according to that author.  That seems like a great start - get good jobs for the parents, and the children are no longer living in poverty. 

Maybe if we could get all the people who really could work if they had the opportunity off the government payroll, we could more effectively address those who really cannot, such as the disabled.

I am not at all saying that we should ignore the issues of poverty and just wash our hands of it.  I'm saying that to dismiss the vital, central role of good jobs as the single biggest part of a solution is not sensible.

This is always the retort I get from my conservative in-laws and spouse, people should just get better jobs.  The problem with that outlook is that the low wage jobs do not disappear.  Someone has to do them.  The economy is good right now (at least today it is) so it is a good time to raise the minimum wage, it hasn't been touched in nine years.  But conservatives say of course we can't do that, it would cause companies to hire fewer people.  If your business model relies on paying people $7.25 per hour then your business model sucks. 

The individual in the article is working fewer hours so she can be present for her children and perhaps keep them from making the same mistakes she did.  Shouldn't that be a good thing rather than blaming her for her poor life choices?  Everyone makes stupid choices just some make more stupid choices than others. 

[TempusFugit]

... people should just get better jobs.  The problem with that outlook is that the low wage jobs do not disappear.  Someone has to do them.  The economy is good right now (at least today it is) so it is a good time to raise the minimum wage, it hasn't been touched in nine years.  But conservatives say of course we can't do that, it would cause companies to hire fewer people.  If your business model relies on paying people $7.25 per hour then your business model sucks. 

The individual in the article is working fewer hours so she can be present for her children and perhaps keep them from making the same mistakes she did.  Shouldn't that be a good thing rather than blaming her for her poor life choices?  Everyone makes stupid choices just some make more stupid choices than others.

I disagree.  Have you been in a fast food or fast casual restaurant lately?  See all those automated kiosks for ordering your food?   

Have you been in a manufacturing plant and seen all of the machines on the line? 

Have you noticed the garbage truck that has a mechanical arm to hoist the bin and dump it, requiring just one man to do the job? 

Have you been in a grocery store or a home improvement store and seen the rows of self-checkout scanners and one cashier on duty? 

Have you noticed how many immigrants are doing the yard work and the construction work?  How many of those people do you imagine are illegals? Perhaps willing to work for a little less than legal wages?  Perhaps a little cash under the table?

If you honestly believe that low wage jobs aren't disappearing, you haven't been paying attention.  Hell, high wage jobs are disappearing, as companies outsource work because it costs 40-60% as much for an Indian software developer.  Right now there are plenty of jobs in tech, but wait for the next major downturn and see what happens. 

And as for stupid choices, yes we all make them.  It is also incumbent upon us as a society to judge certain choices when they have an effect on all of us, such as having to bail you out of the consequences. Simply patting someone on the head while passing them a check is not a recipe for long term success.  That doesn't require that we be mean-spirited or uncharitable, but we do need to be honest and blunt sometimes. 

[inline five]

Universal basic income is the answer.  Stop demonizing corporations.  We're all trying to FIRE here so let's stop demonizing those that will make that possible.  People (and corporations) respond to incentives.  It's Econ 101.  So change the system.  UBI, universal healthcare (Bismarck please, not Canadian style like I grew up with,) college or trade school for those that put the effort in and have the ability.  Societal problems need societal solutions.

Here's an interesting working paper and it's yet another problem in the making:  http://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2016/article/video-killed-radio-star

UBI so society can live in a basement and play video games 23.5 hours a day? Seriously?

The entire point of this website is people aspiring to retire early, AKA not have to work for a living. That's a good thing! What people do with their time when they no longer have to work is their choice.

You are seriously comparing someone who worked and invested to be able to live off their capital to someone who gets money from the government teet?

Wow have I gone to sleep and woken up in Russia? I just can't even.

[JanetJackson]

I've tried to remain silent and let it roll off my back, but this thread is really upsetting.

I don't think that some of the commenters realize how much easier it is to make small "stupid" mistakes when you have a buffer or a support system.
I am no longer under the poverty line, but I spent the majority of my life there... and the smallest mistake or choice can keep you from getting ahead... It is SO IMPERATIVE to make consistent proper choices in succession for YEARS to get even a little bit ahead... while those who have more of a cash buffer or a solid support system based on even minor wealth can get away with certain choices or mistakes.

On a personal note/one very minor example in a full history of MANY choices like this:
How many times have I needed stitches in my life?  TWICE.  Once as a child, and once as an adult.
How many times have I gotten stitches? ZERO.  My dad superglued my leg and butterfly bandaged it when I was a kid, and it's the only time I think I remember ever having seen him close to tears. 
He was making a CHOICE that it wasn't quite bad enough for stitches... and that stitches would be cosmetic, but not medically necessary... so, in order to keep us moving in an upward trajectory, he fixed it himself. 
I was fine, it was "the right choice," but still a really shitty choice to have to make. 
The need for stitches was cosmetic... it healed 'fine' with the glue and butterfly bandages... but I wouldn't even have a scar today if I'd gotten stitches... but... instead I have a scar that covers about 1/2 of my knee.

I made the same choice for myself about 7 years ago when cutting homemade soap to sell at the farmers market (trying to get ahead, for me, has meant always having 2+ jobs). 
I'd already lost the whole batch since it had my blood on it, which means I'd already lost money.  This time, I was lucky enough to have a very close friend who is a nurse and gifted me surgical glue and this stuff called 'stitch floss tape' (or something like that) for the prior x-mas (she knows me). 
I decided to fix it myself, which was awful (I almost fainted, ha).. but since I'd already lost a HUGE batch of soap, I didn't want to ALSO pay for an ER or Urgent Care bill.  So, again, I made a shitty choice.

So, personal experiences aside...
It's little shitty awful choices in succession like this that help poor people get ahead.... $20, $40, $70 at a time.
It's also not making ANY or VERY FEW mistakes and/or expensive choices....

People choose not to have children, people choose not to pursue any of their passions, people choose not to have even one drink, because poor folks are perceived as alcoholics when they have a drink after a hard day, but somehow upper-class white women CONSTANTLY make jokes about "needing" wine to get through an event or a day... (these are not examples of my life, just examples)…
And if poor people make "mistakes" like falling in love or entering the workforce without further education at a minimum, they might be able to get ahead.

Yet people with access to wealth can make small non-optimal choices and even small mistakes and recover.  Do these people go to work when they have a fever?  Most likely not.  Do poor folks?  Generally, yes... even though they know it's the wrong thing to do for the public, for coworkers, etc.... if they make the wrong choice for themselves (vs the wrong choice for the public good), they'll get behind...
I, and many others, can't afford to make "the wrong choice".

Don't have children with multiple partners?  Look at Donald Trump (politics aside {seriously, leave them aside}). 
He sure did it, and did it send him into a tailspin or a life of paying retribution for those "wrong" choices?  No.
That's just one example... there are so many more.
Don't do drugs, even the mildest non-habit-forming ones that might help you with stress reduction (again, not advocating for this or speaking from experience, just an example).  Look at Bill Clinton.
He sure did it, and did that admission send him into a tailspin and set him up for spending the rest of his life paying retribution for that "wrong" choice?  No.


So it's especially hard to listen to folks in this thread berating people for their imperfect choices... as if being born into poverty was a choice. 

When people offer progressive solutions, instead of engaging positively (even if they think the idea won't work... at least TALK about some solutions), it seems like all too many people are ready to pass out the "well that's the way the cookie crumbles" summary of things... and/or suggest that the cash poor just "work harder"....


It really doesn't seem like some people have any idea how many small, tiny, ITTY BITTY choices poor people make every single day to get ahead... stuff that the higher class, or those born into relative security, don't even think about/don't even have to think about.

it is as if only the wealthy are permitted to have the full range of human experiences... passion, love, experiences, whatever....

[Sailor Sam]

Universal basic income is the answer.  Stop demonizing corporations.  We're all trying to FIRE here so let's stop demonizing those that will make that possible.  People (and corporations) respond to incentives.  It's Econ 101.  So change the system.  UBI, universal healthcare (Bismarck please, not Canadian style like I grew up with,) college or trade school for those that put the effort in and have the ability.  Societal problems need societal solutions.

Here's an interesting working paper and it's yet another problem in the making:  http://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2016/article/video-killed-radio-star

UBI so society can live in a basement and play video games 23.5 hours a day? Seriously?

The entire point of this website is people aspiring to retire early, AKA not have to work for a living. That's a good thing! What people do with their time when they no longer have to work is their choice.

You are seriously comparing someone who worked and invested to be able to live off their capital to someone who gets money from the government teet?

Wow have I gone to sleep and woken up in Russia? I just can't even.

Meh. I live off the government teet. My shelter, food, and medical care all come from tax payers. It could be argued that I proved service in exchange for my nipple, but eventually my pension will kick in and I fully intend to cease any sort of labor. Baring early death, the taxpayers will likely give me $1m in pension monies. God alone knows what my medical costs will total.

Worse! The largess of sustenance far exceeds my actual needs. I'm saving at the tax payer's expense. Why the fuck am I celebrated, while this woman is called a wastrel, slattern, and whore?

[Morning Glory]

This is how you pull people out of poverty.  You provide a way to pull yourself out for the people who want it.  It is not just throwing money at a problem, it is a real solution.

There is little research to back up this contention.  Quite the opposite actually: cash transfers have shown to be one of the  most effective interventions to reduce poverty. Give poor people money and they’ll mostly spend it on necessities. Not that it is the only useful intervention, but  any successful welfare system will have a cash transfer program as its cornerstone.

We like the program you describe (which may be a good program, hard to say) because we’re a society of moralistic busybodies and we can’t handle the idea that a poor people  might spend “our” money on something we don’t approve of. So we design interventions and supports that require expensive administrative costs because we’d, apparently, rather pay tax dollars to oversight than give people more money and risk them spending it on Fritos and soda.

Ok I can't quote some research or evidence but intuitively I look at a sentence like this and think "if they spend all the money they are given, they are still poor after spending it". Just like people on this board don't move ahead if they spend every dollar they earn.

What am I missing here? Don't we need to at some point teach poor people to acquire assets to break the cycle?

Public policy actively discourages poor people from acquiring assets. Too much in the bank and they become disqualified from public housing, food stamps, and even Medicaid in some states. Much of welfare is given as a lump sum at "tax time" and they have to spend it all at once to avoid losing other benefits. Of course stores inflate their prices at that time, not to mention there are predatory tax preparation services. (Note I was not able to read the article because it is behind a paywall)

[scantee]

Williamson’s solution, and the conservative approach more generally, is to say, who cares, not my problem, they deserve what they get for making poor choices.

If you think that's Williamson's position, you are misinformed.  Did you read what he wrote?  Have you researched his position on these issues?  How simplistic to just say "if we just give more money to the poor, then they won't be poor!" 

Here's a post on this forum in which I list a few of the studies that support the efficacy of cash transfers. If you're interested in educating yourself on this issue, I suggest you look at the reference list of these studies to be directed at the large body of research on this topic.

I find that whenever discussing social phenomenon, like this one, that elicit heated emotional responses it's best to step outside of of biases and anecdotal impressions and consult the research literature. We're lucky that there is a long-standing body of work on this topic that shows that cash transfers are effective at reducing poverty. We don't need to guess, we already know the answer.

Now, you might be opposed to cash transfers for other reasons, like I said above I think most conservatives are opposed to them because they simply don't want any of their earned income going to poverty alleviation. Fair enough. However, if you're opposition rests on the idea that you can't "throw money at the problem" you're unfortunately wrong. Research has shown that this is a problem you can throw money at and see significant improvements in outcomes!

[Unique User]

... people should just get better jobs.  The problem with that outlook is that the low wage jobs do not disappear.  Someone has to do them.  The economy is good right now (at least today it is) so it is a good time to raise the minimum wage, it hasn't been touched in nine years.  But conservatives say of course we can't do that, it would cause companies to hire fewer people.  If your business model relies on paying people $7.25 per hour then your business model sucks. 

The individual in the article is working fewer hours so she can be present for her children and perhaps keep them from making the same mistakes she did.  Shouldn't that be a good thing rather than blaming her for her poor life choices?  Everyone makes stupid choices just some make more stupid choices than others.

I disagree.  Have you been in a fast food or fast casual restaurant lately?  See all those automated kiosks for ordering your food?   

Have you been in a manufacturing plant and seen all of the machines on the line? 

Have you noticed the garbage truck that has a mechanical arm to hoist the bin and dump it, requiring just one man to do the job? 

Have you been in a grocery store or a home improvement store and seen the rows of self-checkout scanners and one cashier on duty? 

Have you noticed how many immigrants are doing the yard work and the construction work?  How many of those people do you imagine are illegals? Perhaps willing to work for a little less than legal wages?  Perhaps a little cash under the table?

If you honestly believe that low wage jobs aren't disappearing, you haven't been paying attention.  Hell, high wage jobs are disappearing, as companies outsource work because it costs 40-60% as much for an Indian software developer.  Right now there are plenty of jobs in tech, but wait for the next major downturn and see what happens. 

And as for stupid choices, yes we all make them.  It is also incumbent upon us as a society to judge certain choices when they have an effect on all of us, such as having to bail you out of the consequences. Simply patting someone on the head while passing them a check is not a recipe for long term success.  That doesn't require that we be mean-spirited or uncharitable, but we do need to be honest and blunt sometimes.

Perhaps I should have written that not every single low wage job will disappear, my mistake.  I assume that if we are going to be honest and blunt and not just pass someone a check if they need government aid from our safety net programs then we also will be honest and blunt and not just pass someone a check from any government program.  I'd hate to think we only shame and are judgmental to those that receive money from our safety net programs. 

[partdopy]

So exactly how long should a person be punished for past poor choices?  Really, I want to know.  We should open up that for discussion about...everyone.  Those poor men who preyed on women and harassed them - they apologized already!

We are talking about a 33 year old mother of 3 teenagers.  Let's do the math - she had her first child at 16.  I guess she needs to be punished forever for being a dumb, stupid 16 year old.  And 19 year old, the age she was when kid #2 rolled along.

You cannot extrapolate your own friends and their management of diabetes on whatever jobs they have to someone else entirely.

I have a 12 year old.  Yes, he is able to (mostly) look after himself after school - but only because we live in a safe neighborhood, and I feel (mostly) okay with him walking himself the mile+ home.  I'd feel better if he did it with friends.  Instead, 3/5 days he stays at school in the after care so he can do homework.

So what would you expect three teenagers with no home to really do?  Especially when they live in an unsafe area? 

And honestly, children and teenagers can be loud.  That's pretty normal.  It's completely understandable that grandma doesn't want them around, considering her failing health. 

As far as I can tell, she made her last "mistake" 12 years ago when she had her third child at 21.  So...we should still punish her?

It gets even worse, she will make an extra $5,000 off the government on her "tax refund" (credits), $9,000 in disability checks, and another $6,000 in SNAP.

Right?? CLEARLY SHE'S NOT POOR ENOUGH NOR HAS SHE SUFFERED ENOUGH.  We really need to make sure her disabled child doesn't get any help, that the children starve and end up homeless.  THAT FIXES EVERYTHING.

Fuck the disabled, amirite?

You should face the consequences of your actions until you mitigate them yourself.  If I spent all my money next month on dumb shit and couldn't pay my rent, I'd expect to be kicked out of my apartment, not to have government (ie... taxpayers like you) come save me.

The root of the problem is broken families, as a result of glorification of trash values in the media, music, movies, and culture.  If you go to countries with quality family structures still in place and observe single mothers or deadbeat fathers, they will be shamed and basically disowned by family members and society as a whole.

If there were no safety nets when people make shit choices and have kids with criminals and deviants, it would happen a lot less.  You can't save everyone.

[partdopy]

No doubt. If she had an IT job at Facebook with childcare onsite, she'd be set.

Even if she was a teacher, she'd be doing a lot better.

Now, how does a single mother get a good job? Does she go back to school? Who pays for that?

Don't know, don't care.  Did I help her create her situation?  Probably not, she did it on her own.  So she can fix it on her own.

[PoutineLover]

So exactly how long should a person be punished for past poor choices?  Really, I want to know.  We should open up that for discussion about...everyone.  Those poor men who preyed on women and harassed them - they apologized already!

We are talking about a 33 year old mother of 3 teenagers.  Let's do the math - she had her first child at 16.  I guess she needs to be punished forever for being a dumb, stupid 16 year old.  And 19 year old, the age she was when kid #2 rolled along.

You cannot extrapolate your own friends and their management of diabetes on whatever jobs they have to someone else entirely.

I have a 12 year old.  Yes, he is able to (mostly) look after himself after school - but only because we live in a safe neighborhood, and I feel (mostly) okay with him walking himself the mile+ home.  I'd feel better if he did it with friends.  Instead, 3/5 days he stays at school in the after care so he can do homework.

So what would you expect three teenagers with no home to really do?  Especially when they live in an unsafe area? 

And honestly, children and teenagers can be loud.  That's pretty normal.  It's completely understandable that grandma doesn't want them around, considering her failing health. 

As far as I can tell, she made her last "mistake" 12 years ago when she had her third child at 21.  So...we should still punish her?

It gets even worse, she will make an extra $5,000 off the government on her "tax refund" (credits), $9,000 in disability checks, and another $6,000 in SNAP.

Right?? CLEARLY SHE'S NOT POOR ENOUGH NOR HAS SHE SUFFERED ENOUGH.  We really need to make sure her disabled child doesn't get any help, that the children starve and end up homeless.  THAT FIXES EVERYTHING.

Fuck the disabled, amirite?

You should face the consequences of your actions until you mitigate them yourself.  If I spent all my money next month on dumb shit and couldn't pay my rent, I'd expect to be kicked out of my apartment, not to have government (ie... taxpayers like you) come save me.

The root of the problem is broken families, as a result of glorification of trash values in the media, music, movies, and culture.  If you go to countries with quality family structures still in place and observe single mothers or deadbeat fathers, they will be shamed and basically disowned by family members and society as a whole.

If there were no safety nets when people make shit choices and have kids with criminals and deviants, it would happen a lot less.  You can't save everyone.

Allowing people to get divorced and not shaming them for that has allowed (mostly) women to escape from violent and abusive relationships that would probably have otherwise ended in death or a lifetime of misery. In countries that shame single mothers, you can bet that there are plenty of people in unhappy and abusive marriages who can't leave.
The woman in the story is spending none of her money on "dumb shit" as you put it, but even if she did occasionally spend some money on fun or treats that would be perfectly within her rights, no one should be subjected to a life of complete and total deprivation. We can't know why her ex can't/won't contribute to their children's upbringing, but I know I wasn't great at making life partner decisions when I was 16. Luckily I didn't end up pregnant, but what are the chances that she had access to birth control and condoms or even factual sex ed in the circumstances she was raised in? I don't believe in punishing people for life when they made sub optimal decisions at 16. As a society, we can and should do more to help people who can't afford to house and feed themselves and their kids despite working hard and doing their best to get ahead. Some compassion and empathy is warranted.

[OurTown]

That's what Jesus said.  "Screw the poor, it's their own damn fault."  Oh wait, I'm wrong.  That's not what Jesus said.

[Sailor Sam]

So exactly how long should a person be punished for past poor choices?  Really, I want to know.  We should open up that for discussion about...everyone.  Those poor men who preyed on women and harassed them - they apologized already!

We are talking about a 33 year old mother of 3 teenagers.  Let's do the math - she had her first child at 16.  I guess she needs to be punished forever for being a dumb, stupid 16 year old.  And 19 year old, the age she was when kid #2 rolled along.

You cannot extrapolate your own friends and their management of diabetes on whatever jobs they have to someone else entirely.

I have a 12 year old.  Yes, he is able to (mostly) look after himself after school - but only because we live in a safe neighborhood, and I feel (mostly) okay with him walking himself the mile+ home.  I'd feel better if he did it with friends.  Instead, 3/5 days he stays at school in the after care so he can do homework.

So what would you expect three teenagers with no home to really do?  Especially when they live in an unsafe area? 

And honestly, children and teenagers can be loud.  That's pretty normal.  It's completely understandable that grandma doesn't want them around, considering her failing health. 

As far as I can tell, she made her last "mistake" 12 years ago when she had her third child at 21.  So...we should still punish her?

It gets even worse, she will make an extra $5,000 off the government on her "tax refund" (credits), $9,000 in disability checks, and another $6,000 in SNAP.

Right?? CLEARLY SHE'S NOT POOR ENOUGH NOR HAS SHE SUFFERED ENOUGH.  We really need to make sure her disabled child doesn't get any help, that the children starve and end up homeless.  THAT FIXES EVERYTHING.

Fuck the disabled, amirite?

You should face the consequences of your actions until you mitigate them yourself.  If I spent all my money next month on dumb shit and couldn't pay my rent, I'd expect to be kicked out of my apartment, not to have government (ie... taxpayers like you) come save me.

The root of the problem is broken families, as a result of glorification of trash values in the media, music, movies, and culture.  If you go to countries with quality family structures still in place and observe single mothers or deadbeat fathers, they will be shamed and basically disowned by family members and society as a whole.

If there were no safety nets when people make shit choices and have kids with criminals and deviants, it would happen a lot less.  You can't save everyone.

Shaming. Indeed! Just spitballing here, but perh-a-a-apsss we could begin with public castration of the illegitimate jizz producing machine. It can be reversed 18 years later, when the illegitimate jizz reaches majority and the problem has been mitigated.