Asymmetrical Information

Quibble: A lot more than 1% of middle class married couples have more than 2 children. I, for one, think this is a good thing.

I can't provide a source, but I seem to recall reading that there is a huge wage gap between men and women with GEDs. The reason was that most men earning GEDs do so from prison; most women who earn GEDs do so because they dropped out of HS following a pregnancy. The former has a much greater wage-depressing effect than the latter.

Jane - This is not a quibble nor a disagreement with what you said; it's simply prompted by what you said. I tend to be conservative in my views, yet I don't think I'm "better" than those who are less fortunate than I have been. (Nor do I think I am "worse" than those who are more fortunate than I ever hope to be.) I know that much of my financial success can be attributed to good fortune and that, without that luck, I would not have been as successful -- despite all my hard work and good decisions. Not a lot of chest thumping is inspired by that understanding!

That does not mean I don't think there is a significant moral component to poverty, because I do. It's just that, like most things, a certain amount of humility is required if one is to adopt new behaviors. If someone thinks it's their divine right to have a new TV, telling them the TV exceeds their budget will do little good. If sex outside of marriage is celebrated by society, good luck teaching the poor to keep their legs crossed!

This moral element to poverty is one of the reasons governmental aide to the poor helps to lock the poor into poverty. If the government provides it, it's yours by RIGHT. You don't need to thank anybody -- or be humble for having received -- something you have a right to receive. What was the attitude of many of the poor when the National Guard arrived into New Orleans? "What the f*** took you so long?" Not, "Thank you for risking your life to come and help me." No. "The National Guard are public servants paid for with tax dollars and I've a right to receive their help -- and they'd better be quick about it!" Someone with an attitude like that will have a hard time being humble enough to adopt the behaviors necessary to get out of poverty.

When I was in college, I was poor, but I ate a can of peas for dinner, worked out every night and walked to school!

;-) Just getting in the thread early.

One of the best thing I have seen you do.

I suspect the main reason people with a GED do worse is the wasted years.

someone with a high school diploma got it at 18
and built on it over the follwing years.

But the typical person with a GED has wasted years and is starting out far behind the competition.

*Wow* Its just like time travel. If I close my eye and listen to what you say, I can this eerily realistic feeling of being in 18 century France, listening to a meeting of the Hellfire club.

No sound of tumbrels, though. Well, not yet, anyhow. Gotta have faith in the inevitability of history.

Lets take a look around, in my neighborhood, back in the 21st century.

Couple of doors down, theres a CTA bus driver. He has a beautiful 3 year old daughter. born brain damaged. His wife quit her job as a bank teller to take care of her. They are selling their little house now, to pay the medical bills with what little equity they can recover.

Across the street, theres a middle aged man, just sitting in his backyard. He had a good job, lost it in the recession. His wife left him, taking his two children, not because she didn't love him, but because that was all her parents could support. He can't get another job, even though he is skilled, employers don't hire people his age and Gods knows Bobblehead Chou's labor department makes FEMA look efficient.

Lets try a little time travel again. December 9th, 2002. Another middle aged man lies on the floor of his apartment, his pet cat cradled in his arms. Also lost his job in the recession. His cat looks up at him, meows horribly, and dies. He lays there for two days, not crying. You see there was no money to pay for a veterinarian, even to put her to sleep.

Lets jump around again. Lennie is a middle aged black woman, scraping out a living selling things in a little flea market on the south side of Chicago. A kind woman, she helped others even when she had nothing herself, even taking in some street children when they had no where else to go. Right now, she is sitting on the couch, her teenaged daughters arms around her. They had just been reunited after her daughter had ran away for several years. Well, not exactly ran away. been abused by a street gang, repeatedly, for a very long time.

Those are all true stories. I could tell many more, but I think I have made my point.

There is only one more thing left to say. I don't wish you ill for your remarks, its obvious that living with that cesspool inside you is far worse than all the terrors of poverty and illness combined.

randyjg2(at)yahoo.com (your blog software won't take an email address with a "2" in it.)

Jane writes:

"But conservatives tend to take a moralistic stance towards poverty that radically underestimates how much cultural context determines our ability to make good decisions."

Response:

Some do, some don't. Liberals tend to take a moralistic view of events, too, and so, apparently, do some libertarians. In point of fact, Jane's four behaviors seem plainly grounded in some kind of a moral/ethical/personal responsibility blend. Certainly, they are not value-free. So, what does that say about cultural context? That the involved culture(s) lack the right values?

Jane then concludes, in part, with:

"That leaves us in a rather awkward place, because while I don't agree with conservatives that the poor are somehow worse people than we are, I also don't agree with liberals that money is the answer."

Aside from an uncharacteristically sloppy and gross over-generalization, I am fairly sure Jane is wrong in her indictment of conservatives, period, notwithstanding that some people who are socially and religiously conservative are also cruelly judgmental and paint with the same broad brush that Jane does here. Likewise, many past posters on this site from the left are equally cruel and judgmental and use the flip side of the same brush.

Most conservatives I know--and many liberals as well--believe that children grow up to be productive or non-productive, good or bad, etc., based in large part on how they were raised. These people also expect that children who grow up without guidance and without a sense of self and a sense of responsibility tend to repeat a cycle started before they were born.

What bothers conservatives, at least the ones I know, is the relative silence from 'national' and 'community' leaders with apparent sway in the affected communities. There is no chorus, loud and long, exhorting the poor--specifically poor minorities--on the moral/social imperative of taking responsibility for raising their children and to instill in them a desire and an understanding about the need for a good education, a strong work ethic and a regard for being a law abiding citizen. The refrain tends more toward pointing outward in excusing behaviors that, unless the cycle is dramatically broken, will repeat endlessly.

I expect to get the usual harpoons about closet racism, insensitivity, the legacy of slavery, etc. My extended social circle would find that pretty laughable, but that is an aside. I make no apologies for the plain fact that unless and until the economic underclass adopts, at a minimum, Jane's four behaviors and their underlying value system, there is nothing government or others can do to materially improve their lot.
To pour a bit more gas on the fire, this business of ascribing the vilest racist motives to those who expect poor minorities to play the lead role in improving their lives by making the sustained physical and mental effort to do so simply drive an even deeper wedge between those with the financial wherewithal to make a difference, in the form of scholarships, job training, mentoring, and taxes for public education, and those who would benefit from that wherewithal.

To put it differently, I am willing to pay my share of the freight in breaking the poverty cycle provided (1) those in need of assistance do their part and (2) I am not constantly vilified for requiring that they do so.

There's a fair amount of truth to what is being said here. Thought my story might be interesting.

I grew up extremely poor - rural south, no running water, welfare, both parents working multiple jobs to keep the cars running to get to the jobs. Typical causes - Mom had me too early, dad was a bit of a loser with a drug problem.

I had the advantage of being a nerd - loved to read and tinker with things. Lied my way in to a neighboring town's highschool (the local one wasn't even accredited at the time, football coach teaching history, etc). Did well, loved math, got into an Ivy on heavy scholarships. Dropped out after 1 year because I simply couldn't relate to the people.

Moved to the bay area, got involved with the computer industry, and did well. I was one of those dot.commies people make fun of - was making $100K before I was 30. Then of course, it all fell apart, and because I had poor money management skills, only had about a year's worth of living expenses in the bank. My fiance was upper-middle class, and we had a fairly expensive lifestyle (slightly above average by Bay Area standards, very nice by national standards). So, of course I couldn't find a job much above Starbucks (the computer industry around then was brutal there), she left me, and I had to flee.

Moved to NYC and am now 2 years into running a software development company with two friends I knew in high school who were here. We're doing OK now. I could make double what I currently do if I took a corporate job, but I'd rather work for myself.

Takeaways: of course culture matters. Another big one, though, at least in my case, is this: growing up seriously poor causes cut-and-run behavior. I watched my parents do it - in a crisis, bail on everything. I've done it twice when it seriously hurt me (obviously in college, and I think leaving SF was a mistake - I walked away from 10 years of contacts).

I still feel the urge frequently now when a stress reation hits me. A poor quarter or a fight with a partner (the business is basically my entire life right now) and I want to yell "f*ck it" and walk away.

One aspect of that, I think, is the crushing feeling of being unable to change a bad situation when you're broke and going in to more debt becomes associated with other problem solving reactions - the "freedom" of decalaring bankrupcy when you have no real alternative, or of moving across the country to escape a failed relationship and going broke, begins to seem a viable way of escaping other types of problems.

So, any sort of planning one can do frequently becomes something one abandons in times of stress. And when you've got nothing, there's a lot of stress. It keeps you really scattered and short termist.

In many ways I feel rather lucky - Hell, I can afford to live in a loft in Brooklyn, I pulled things together enough to stumble through bootstrapping a company from nothing that, if not a huge success, at least keeps me marginally comfortable, I don't have to be a corporate coder in a cube, etc. But the deeper cultural issues and poor reactions don't go away - you have to learn to live with them.

Anyway, I started rambling. Just wanted to contribute my perspective as a bit of a straddler - I live in your world, but I'm not from it and will probably never really be comfortable here.

Nicely put! When I think of all the silly things I engaged in because of in-group peer pressure during my high school years, I shudder to consider how easily I could have seriously messed up my life had my group of peers been more aimless or malicious.

"There is only one more thing left to say. I don't wish you ill for your remarks, its obvious that living with that cesspool inside you is far worse than all the terrors of poverty and illness combined."

Randy, what a gratuitous cheap shot. I suggest there are two more things to say: Hey Jane, I'm sorry I stooped to such lows in the end of an otherwise interesting post. I apologize.

Does she cover all situations? No. But she would admit it, I'm sure. She knows the heartbreaking cases you site exist, but she would argue that they are "at the margins." You need to explain why this isn't the case, not go for the low blow.

In the meantime, you can apologize.

So Randy, you know a few people who are poor due to bad luck and circumstances, so that means ALL poor people are poor because of that? Never, ever because of their own decisions/peer pressure/bad culture, etc.? You point fingers yet you really need to look in the mirror.

I guess I could "prove" by anecdotal evidence, that all people on Medicaid are lazy sloths who are gaming the system. My wife is a pharmacist and she could provide you a LAUNDRY list of examples, but that doesn't make my observation true, regardless.

Brilliant post.

You rather hit the nail on its head with pinpointing the loose relation between education and money - one of the few major points where the liberal theory of shower-money-upon-'em fails.

Anyway, your thoughts about peer groups were truly interesting. I went to a good (with Eastern European standards) school, which however had a lousy student body. Ivy league applications were not the norm (well, there weren't ANY, actually). I applied to Oxford and an Ivy League university, and I was pretty much laughed/sneered at for it (got admitted to both, will attend Oxford).

Now I did not tell all this as an idle story of self-congratulation. What was lacking in my case, and this applied to my whole country, was the lack of a central vision of fostering talent and ambition to study and generally 'do well'. Being a staunch libertarian myself, it is pretty rare that I call for state intervention, but I think as I cannot imagine any of the market actors intervening into public life by promoting learning and the general concept of 'doing well', the state should launch massive steps to bring back the respect of education. Not a half-hearted ad effort, but a real strong campaign to promote education. This alone may not be as effective as the steps you described, but it certainly would lift a great many poor people out of abject poverty.

"What bothers conservatives, at least the ones I know, is the relative silence from 'national' and 'community' leaders with apparent sway in the affected communities. There is no chorus, loud and long, exhorting the poor--specifically poor minorities--on the moral/social imperative of taking responsibility for raising their children and to instill in them a desire and an understanding about the need for a good education, a strong work ethic and a regard for being a law abiding citizen.

Could not be more true and could not have spoken my thoughts more clearly. Moreover, I am sure that any public figure given over to this sort of exhortation would be promptly shouted down for moralizing, etc.

I really wonder how people have the confidence to state what black community leaders are saying to their communities. Do you attend black churches? Subscribe to the newsletters of the Urban Leage, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the NAACP?

I feel like people judge the situation based on what reaches them through their own media filters. There's nothing wrong with having media filters, there's too much information for everyone to monitor everything. But I think people should be extraordinarily wary of making "their silence is deafening" accusations when they haven't sat their ass in a chair and been to the meetings they think ignore the issues.

Many African-Americans are well aware of bad behaviors that hold individuals within their community back. Many leaders speak out against them, in churches and otherwise. I remember reading on the Internet, people expressing their exasperation at white people who said "finally!" when Bill Cosby gave his speeches last year or two years ago--some people have been saying things like that for YEARS.

The existence of a handful of prominent community leaders who focus on politics or self-promotion, and who may or may not have a community behind them, does not mean that others don't exist. It's a bit like saying Pat Robertson is the only voice of evangelical Christianity because the pastors at thousands of smaller churches never make it on the news. These discussions happen, even if you aren't looking.

Jane,

I love your brain.

being poor is ...
http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/003704.html

I really wonder how people have the confidence to state what black community leaders are saying to their communities. Do you attend black churches? Subscribe to the newsletters of the Urban Leage, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the NAACP?

What pray tell qualifies the "Urban Leage, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the NAACP" as "black community leaders"? Is there some sort of special election that black citizens have to elect their "leaders" or are these just the people whose phone numbers the MSM journalists have in their rolodexes?

Brittain:

I cannot speak for mckinney, but I can speak for myself. As someone who considers themselves a Christian conservative, I am sensitive to the Robertson analogy (and don't much like him). I believe you in that I am sure these conversations are happening. However, I don't believe (or at least the results do not show) that mckinney's solutions have reached the level of conventional wisdom. (The Cosby speeches tend to indicate that they have not.) 'Many' or 'some', as you say, is not most and not all. I'm guessing that mckinney views his points as first priorities and central solutions; they (the community leaders) may view them as side points to the main issues of racism, etc. I don't know; I'd be interested in hearing what you think.

As for the Southern Poverty Law Center, a quick (ten minute) perusal of their quarterly newsletters for the past two/three years yields one story on literacy issues. The rest seem to mostly be their bread and butter: teaching tolerance, battles with anti-immigration groups, the religious right and various identity politics initiatives. I haven't looked at the others yet, but I might.

(I should note that these are likely sent to donors, so it may not be 'what's really on their minds' so to speak. Additionally, I am not faulting them for focusing their newsletters on their bread and butter. Finally, I am also aware that the SPLC has the reputation of being Morris Dees' personal bank. I think I will now look at the Urban League, etc., as you have suggested.)

I'd be interested in hearing more specific examples of the 'inner conversation' if you're up for it.

I'm back. After giving the same amount of attention to the Urban League and the NAACP, I can say 'values'-type thoughts are, at the very least, something that the Urban League president is intent upon emphasizing. I'd argue that the NAACP strategic plan places more emphasis on the typical issues that we'd associate with them. Again, this is a brief perusal and I could be wrong.

The cause of the problem of poverty is in the thinking of the poor, as Jane argues in her piece. Understandably, she stumbles when it comes to offering a solution because, I think, there is no thing one person can do to change another person's thinking without coercion. And coercion -- such as, say, taking children away from "bad" parents and raising them in a "good" environment -- is a sort of Pol-Pot solution that free people can't (and shouldn't) consider.

My thinking on the subject is that the best thing you can offer the poor is your own personal example of living honorably and well. They need examples, not freebies. They need to see themselves figuring out and solving their own problems, not learning to be professional victims always on the lookout for a handout from guilt-ridden non-poor people.

Life is hard in many ways, and not fair except I think in this sense: every soul has a spark of God in it. None of us come here, I think, to be helpless victims unable to improve our lives. The road is harder for some, but the glory is greater for them when they triumph. We who are succeeding are providing a multitude of examples of how to succeed. The lessons are there for anyone who cares to learn them.

If you think about it, feeling responsible for solving someone else's problem is another way of saying you think they are incapable of solving it themselves. And that is a pretty pessimistic view of human potential I think.

There is of course one inherent assumption in Jane's post and the belief system of pretty much every poster who agrees with her and every political conservative in this country. There is not only a job in this country for every single one of those poor people if they'd just do what the conservatives say they should, but that each of those jobs pays enough and provides enough hours on the job to raise them above the poverty line. It is an article of faith. Not only faith but blind, unquestioning faith in the First Church of Free Market. They conveniently ignore the working poor who have done exactly what they posit as the solution and are still living in poverty or just barely above it. They ignore the fact that Wal Mart, the nation's largest employer makes certain that more of their employees than want to stay as part-time employees with no benefits and that in spite of what they spout about their wages being competitive even many full time employees can't afford the health insurance they offer.

> Do you attend black churches? Subscribe to the newsletters of the Urban Leage, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the NAACP?

Feel free to post specific supporting links.

(I've heard that claim before. Maybe this will be the first time that someone backed it up.)

Re-reading my post I see that I didn't make it clear that Wal Mart is just an example of how many businesses (not all) pay only lip service to caring about their employees. I congratulate William for winding up where he did in life in spite of where he started. I just recognize that there aren't enough positions in our economy for everyone to have a story like his.

Who was it that said, "If you want a friend, get a dog".
Jim S - I would imagine that you'd also find plenty of employees who pay lip service to the idea of caring about their employers. What on earth does this have to do with anything?
Life is not fair, Walmart is not in business to provide health insurance, nobody is forced to work for them, no community is forced to accept their stores.

Those are all true stories. I could tell many more - Randy Gordon

I think I'd rather hear what noble lengths you went to in helping all of these destitute neighbors of yours. But before you do that, I just hafta know how a Ph.D. and "Software Developer and Enterprise Architect" who's been employed steadily for the last 25 years in pretty nice-sounding corporate IT jobs wind up living in what is apparantly the most down-on-it's-luck neighborhood in America? This IS your resume, right? And not some other Randy Gordon with the email address randyjg2[at]yahoo.com?

So now that you've finished inveighing against Jane's readers with the full weight of your moral righteousness, maybe you can get down off that high horse and let us all know what the ghetto-fabulous Mr. "former direct report to CTO Merrill Lynch Private Client" did to assist that bus driver you know who had to sell his house to pay for his brain-damaged daughter's medical bills - did you help out with a few of those bills? How about the guy who's cat died on "December 9th, 2002" - did you offer to pay the veterinary fees for your broke neighbor? Randy, at least tell me you went to console the guy while he lay cradling his dead cat on the apartment floor! Or were you jetting around on business for Hochma Incorporated that week? Jeez, your resume says you were a "Principal", I would think someone at that level could at least get off of work to help a friend in need!

So anyway, don't be modest! Inspire me with the stories of your saintly and charitable behaviour in the face of the poverty and tragedy that surrounded you!

There is not only a job in this country for every single one of those poor people if they'd just do what the conservatives say they should, but that each of those jobs pays enough and provides enough hours on the job to raise them above the poverty line. It is an article of faith. Not only faith but blind, unquestioning faith in the First Church of Free Market. They conveniently ignore the working poor who have done exactly what they posit as the solution and are still living in poverty or just barely above it. They ignore the fact that Wal Mart, the nation's largest employer makes certain that more of their employees than want to stay as part-time employees with no benefits and that in spite of what they spout about their wages being competitive even many full time employees can't afford the health insurance they offer.

And your solution to this would be what? Have the government hire them to do something that isn't needed? "Living wage" laws that eliminate some jobs and/or raise the price of most everything?

I've often wondered what would happen to the salaries of skilled or semi-skilled workers if suddenly it was mandated that positions requiring no job skills suddenly paid the same as the jobs they went to school for?

See, I can't relate at all; I am, and always was, strongly resistant to peer pressure.

That's not a claim to virtue; bull-headed stubborn individualism like mine is decidedly maladapted to living with other humans. But I cannot imagine a situation in which I would do something as minor as have a beer (and I'm of age by a number of years now, so it is very minor) because other people pressured or expected me to have one.

(Now, if we're postulating taking a can of beer I'd been handed and throwing it in the face of the person pressuring me the most with a profanity-laced version of "Leave me alone!", well, that's something I'd have done when I was sixteen. And then I'd have been very remosrseful about the violent outburst immediately afterwards, which wouldn't do the kid hit in the head with a can of beer any good.)

Jim S.,

How much would you pay per hour to a handyman with an IQ of 85 and poor impulse control? One who never showed up on time and sometimes didn't show up at all.

I don't know, Thorley, you tell me what qualifies someone to be described as a black community leader--I'm not the one criticizing them for their silence.

Feel free to post specific supporting links.

www.google.com

P.S. Andy, klug's already confirmed my comment about the Urban League.

Your reward for writing a cogent and well expressed post is to be called a cesspool. Ain't life grand.

1) Finish high school
2) Get married before having children
3) Have no more than two children
4) Work full time

Freud said the motivation for behaior lay in either the pusuit of pleasure or the avoidance of displeasure.

I wonder how far a healthy sense of SHAME for not achieving the above 4 hallmarks of responsible, adult behavior would go solving the problem?

Brittain 33—its hard to prove a negative, but let me try. Have you ever heard a prominent white politician address the Urban League or the NAACP or any other such entity and decry the illegitimacy rate among black teenagers, the drop out rate or the crime rate? I haven’t either, because these topics are off limits. It would be political suicide. You mentioned Bill Cosby and by doing so made my point. When Cosby spoke out, two things happened. First, he made headlines. Normally, everyday, ho-hum events don’t make headlines. Cosby’s statements went directly against the conventional grain. Second, a bunch of women started coming forward claiming he’d drugged and molested them. Are these second allegations true? If yes, then where are the indictments? If not, then why did Cosby suddenly attract THAT kind of attention?

Your larger question: do I spend much time in African American churches? No, I don’t. But, I follow with interest a number of black pundits, the Congressional Black Caucus and the two leading racial industrialists of our times, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. I keep listening, but hear nary a word. Occasionally, one of these will make a pro forma ‘self help’ statement, but this is by no means the dominant message in that community.

Jim S—the only way to pull the ‘where are the jobs?’ rabbit out of the big hat is to stuff it in there in the first place. First, show me a legitimate cohort of any slice of our diverse society where all four of Jane’s behaviors are fulfilled. Then, show me that these folks can’t do better than spotty minimum wage employment. In effect, your argument is, “what is the point of doing all that hard work, no one is going to hire them anyway.”

Roger Gordon—the question is whether to award bonus points for having the courage to make those bizarre points on this blog, knowing how badly you would get hammered or to wonder if yours was not some kind of stealth post you threw out there just to see what kind of reaction you could stir up. Seriously, are you unaware that there are some rather stunning disparities in achievement and behaviors between some ethnic groups and others and that these behaviors correlate directly with poverty, crime and illegitimacy? That is what this thread is addressing. As a post script, I know at least as many sad stories as you do, and plenty of ‘boot strap’ stories too, and in every instance, individual character and drive is a factor.

Uh, you know, Brittain, I wasn't necessarily confirming your comment. As I have said before, just because one person or 'the top' is saying it, doesn't mean that it has reached the level of conventional wisdom.

If you have evidence that it HAS reached the level of conventional wisdom amongst the hoi polloi, that would be worthwhile. Your "google.com" crack isn't particularly useful, and surprising, 'cause I've particularly admired your comments. Well, you can't please everyone, I guess.

"I wonder how far a healthy sense of SHAME for not achieving the above 4 hallmarks of responsible, adult behavior would go solving the problem?"

I dunno, but I figure that if you've got 1, 3, and 4 down, our society could use all the children you're willing to have and support on your own.

This post was really good, but it seems like it confirms much of the conservative response to poverty.

I feel pity for the poor, but at the same time, I feel that to some degree, bad choices that lead to poverty need to be shamed.

However, when this is done, the retort of your judging and being mean and cold-hearted, is thrown around. But shaming works...and liberals who chide those who use it, only make it easier for the poor to remain so.

As to the GED vs. Diploma? It doesn't really surprise me that the GED doesn't get you very far. It's like a college degree in a way, I'm convinced that most people don't learn many appreciable job skills in college. Instead, a diploma or degree or the lack thereof better references an individuals tenacity and committment to getting important work done. It is mostly a symbol that says to others, I work hard to get the things done that matter.

What I was trying to point out is that there cannot be a legitimate debate on what our response as a society to poverty should be unless we look at it honestly instead of being blinded by ideology. If conservatives insist on believing that everyone who follows Jane's advice will make it on their own economically in our society then that debate can't take place. The current poverty level for a family of four would require that one wage earner make $9.30 and work 40 hours a week just to reach poverty level. If the second adult goes to work to increase the family's income child care has to be taken into account and it's not cheap. In addition the guidelines have serious flaws, most of which lead to an understatement of poverty. Please note that I did not say ALL of the problems of the system overstate, but those are the dominant ones. Even for just a couple poverty level is $6.16 an hour assuming full-time work, not minimum wage. Remember that the guidelines for poverty take into account only day-to-day living expenses, not extraordinary expenses like medical bills. They don't allow for the many cities and towns like the Kansas City area where many of the jobs are not in areas that have mass transit so if you want to get to work you have to have a car with all of its attendant expenses including the current price of gas.

No, Paul, I don't have a solution. I doubt that there necessarily is just one simple solution. But if we don't look for one based on an honest evaluation of the problem instead of blind ideology we will never find a solution because we'll be asking the wrong questions.

gazzer is a perfect example of the problem. It is a typical "conservative" response. He says that no one forces them to work at Wal Mart or places like it. Reality is that for many if not most Americans you take the job you can get. gazzer's comment comes from the brain dead faith that declares that there are just so many good jobs out there that everyone who doesn't like working at someplace that doesn't pay enough or doesn't provide benefits can just go out there and get a different job. It bears no resemblance to reality, of course but that doesn't stop him from spouting ignorant pronouncements.

Ms. Galt:

For your next post, could you outline the four goals that we in the middle class can achieve to move into the upper class?

Preferably goals that are a little less deterministic.

-jayson

The current poverty level for a family of four would require that one wage earner make $9.30 and work 40 hours a week just to reach poverty level. If the second adult goes to work to increase the family's income child care has to be taken into account and it's not cheap.

It totally isn't cheap. I can attest, it has taken a long time to learn to finish something, rather than give up; I believe that to have something to do with parenting. I don't blame my mother here; she had a couple of jobs to do to keep the car running and provide food and whatnot. I did well figuring out stuff on my own, but not quite well enough. Again, I'm not blaming anyone. Life is good. I just think I'm one of the few here that's actually had to heat rainwater on a wood-burning stove in order to wash my hair before I went to highschool.

Jayson:

I have a few in mind:

1. Go to college and choose a major field which will lead to a high-paying career. Going to law, medical, or business school helps.
2. For your primary residence, buy (or rent) as little as you can stand, not as much as you can afford.
3. Put off having children until your thirties.
4. Limit other unnecessary expenditures.

An individual following these rules should be able to save at least $20,000 per year with a bachelor's degree, and much more with a professional degree. That will rise as your pay rises, of course.

I can't think of any conservatives, outside of the Charles Dickens novels I read as a kid, who think the *poor* are worse people. The people conservatives think of as "worse" are people who have children out of wedlock, display poor impulse control, show disdain for education, etc, etc. These people are disproportionately poor, but it is their immoral and irresponsible behavior that conservatives disdain, not their poverty. Which is why conservatives are, in my experience, every bit as willing to condemn the Paris Hiltons of the world as they are to condemn black welfare queens.

Dan writes:

>>>"I can't think of any conservatives, outside of the Charles Dickens novels I read as a kid, who think the *poor* are worse people."

I can. Absolutely. There were threads on this very blog examining the genetic component of "poor people." How success could be a part of heredity and not environment. This type of argument is at the root of works by conservative think-tank sponsored authors like Charles Murray and D'nesh D'Souza. If you want a clear example of this mentality, let's look at the "underbelly" of Hurricane Katrina coverage that isn't reported widely.

>>>""The mostly African-American neighborhoods of New Orleans are largely underwater, and the people who lived there have scattered across the country. But in many of the predominantly white and more affluent areas, streets are dry and passable. Gracious homes are mostly intact and powered by generators. Yesterday, officials reiterated that all residents must leave New Orleans, but it's still unclear how far they will go to enforce the order."

"The green expanse of Audubon Park, in the city's Uptown area, has doubled in recent days as a heliport for the city's rich -- and a terminus for the small armies of private security guards who have been dispatched to keep the homes there safe and habitable. Mr. O'Dwyer has cellphone service and ice cubes to cool off his highballs in the evening. By yesterday, the city water service even sprang to life, making the daily trips to his neighbor's pool unnecessary. A pair of oil-company engineers, dispatched by his son-in-law, delivered four cases of water, a box of delicacies including herring with mustard sauce and 15 gallons of generator gasoline..."
"How do they want the city rebuilt?"

>>>"..."The power elite of New Orleans -- whether they are still in the city or have moved temporarily to enclaves such as Destin, Fla., and Vail, Colo. -- insist the remade city won't simply restore the old order. New Orleans before the flood was burdened by a teeming underclass, substandard schools and a high crime rate. The city has few corporate headquarters.

"The new city must be something very different, Mr. Reiss says, with better services and fewer poor people. "Those who want to see this city rebuilt want to see it done in a completely different way: demographically, geographically and politically," he says. "I'm not just speaking for myself here. The way we've been living is not going to happen again, or we're out."

Not every white business leader agrees, Cooper notes.

"Some black leaders and their allies in New Orleans fear that it boils down to preventing large numbers of blacks from returning to the city and eliminating the African-American voting majority. Rep. William Jefferson, a sharecropper's son who was educated at Harvard and is currently serving his eighth term in Congress, says, "This is an example of poor people forced to make choices because they don't have the money to do otherwise," Mr. Jefferson says."

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/WSJ_White_rich_escape_New_Orleans_chaos_dont_want_blacks_poor__0908.html

Often, I refer to the military as an example. I've posted before how an E-3 serving in Iraq right now makes less on average than a discount store clerk or a fast food worker, yet I don't hear any of the ribbon-wearing "war-and-tax cuts" right winged crowd ever calling our servicemen and women as unmotivated or lazy, but in truth, these folks are risking their lives everyday for less than a door greeter at Walmart. In fact, Jessica Lynch only joined the military to help pay for college, because her Palestine, WV hometown had 20% unemployment and she couldn't even GET a job at the local Walmart.

The truth is, who you were born to, and the conditions in which you were raised has a whole lot more to do with your station in life than the free market uber alles-types may be prepared to admit.

--Cobra

There is a standard psychological flaw that all human beings share called 'Attribution Bias'. It is the belief that all good things that happen to us are the result of our own effort and decisions while all bad things that happen to us are the result of luck.

Conservatives seem to have this in spades. They feel that their station in life was earned by their own good effort and good decisions. Thus, if other's suffer from a lower station in their life, it must be because of their poor effort and bad decisions.

In fact, the strongest indicator to one's class is not one's decisions or effort.

The strongest indicator to being upper class or middle class in the US is to have parents who are upper class or middle class.

This correlation is stronger in the states than in Europe, which is tremendously sad, and probably due to the differences by which we approach health care.

For example, a severe medical crisis seems to be the number one reason why middle class people fall into bankrupcy.

If conservatives could see beyond attribution bias to the actual problems of being small fragile beings in a large and uncaring universe, they might approach solutions that go beyond moralizing about 'stay in school, say no to drugs, and keep it in your pants.'

Kilroy Was Here

PS That whole out of wedlock thing betrays a racist undertone. If you look at Oklahoma, one of the poorest states in the nation, you'll see that they also have one of the highest rates of marriage. Unfortunately, Oklahoma also tends to marry very young, and then get divorced very young.

But since the majority of poor in Oklahoma are white, we don't talk much about 'don't get married until your 25' as one of our conservative platitudes on how to achieve middle class.

KWH

Cobra: "The truth is, who you were born to, and the conditions in which you were raised has a whole lot more to do with your station in life than the free market uber alles-types may be prepared to admit."

Your quote in no way supports that. Nor does your quote (from what looks like a left-wing version of WorldNet Daily) provide a "clear example" of the mentality you describe.

We need some numbers here. What proportion of the people who meet Jane's criteria have an income below the poverty line. For bonus points, slice out those younger than 25, since it take a few years to get started in life. I would do it myself, except I don't have access to the GSS. Until someone posts some reliable numbers, I will err on the side of Jane.

When I got out of high school a few years back, with no job skills and no experience, my first job paid $8-10 hour (it varied, since it was piece rate). They had trouble getting people, so they hired me on the spot. My current job, as a janitor, pays $6, not a whole lot, but I don't plan on having kids until I have enough training to get something better.

Kilroy: "PS That whole out of wedlock thing betrays a racist undertone. If you look at Oklahoma, one of the poorest states in the nation, you'll see that they also have one of the highest rates of marriage. Unfortunately, Oklahoma also tends to marry very young, and then get divorced very young.

"But since the majority of poor in Oklahoma are white, we don't talk much about 'don't get married until your 25' as one of our conservative platitudes on how to achieve middle class."

Any actual evidence for that, or do you just enjoy imputing bad motives to people? Once again, some numbers would be very helpful.

"The strongest indicator to being upper class or middle class in the US is to have parents who are upper class or middle class."

That's an indicator, not a cause, so you need to look for intervening factors. I'm sure that no good conservative would deny that the quality of parenting one recieves makes a difference, in addition to financial support toward a college degree. If the children of mid-to-upper class parents are also more likely to graduate high school and delay having kids, then that data point means nothing. What happens to lower-class kids who do Jane's four points or middle-class kids who ignore them? That would be a fairly interesting study, though difficult to perform.

Cory - Regarding marriage in Oklahoma, please see the PBS website for the show Frontline about marriage:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/marriage/

Here's an excerpt from the synopsys:

The most extensive marriage experiment to date started in Oklahoma. Faced with the nation's second highest divorce rate, Gov. Frank Keating decided to take action, launching in 1999 a $10 million initiative to encourage people to think more carefully before making the decision to marry.

The documentary looks at how Keating's pro-marriage initiative is aimed at people like Johnni Dyer. Twice divorced, with four kids and no job, the 36-year-old Dyer lives in subsidized housing and is on welfare. To receive her welfare check, along with job training, Dyer now takes "PREP" -- the state's twelve-hour "relationship training" program. Although the classes have given Dyer a new perspective on her marriages, Dyer tells FRONTLINE that she really doesn't think the program would have saved her marriages.

While people in Oklahoma may be getting married -- and divorced -- too quickly, in some parts of America most people aren't getting married at all.

Hope this helps.

Cory -

Regarding indicators vs. causes, my indicator is no more or less supported in my post than Jane Galt's 4 indicators in her post. In other words, there is no more evidence that failing to meet Jane Galt's 4 standards cause poverty than that being born to poor parents cause poverty.

Since Galt makes the extradonary claim that just working her 4 step magic formula can lift someone from poverty to middle class, it is up to her to show evidence. In fact, Galt does not cite any sort of correlation between her 4 factors and poverty. It's just taken as given because it jibes with common sense.

As for social mobility in the US vs. Europe, I'll at least provide some outside evidence. Please see, http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.htm

Thanks,
KWH

gazzer is a perfect example of the problem. It is a typical "conservative" response. He says that no one forces them to work at Wal Mart or places like it. Reality is that for many if not most Americans you take the job you can get.

I would be happy to see stronger regulatory legislation dealing with the "59 day job" problem that often comes up with employers such as Wal-Mart, as well as the practice (engaged by many businesses) of staffing a majority of essentially full-time positions with a gaggle of part-time laborors to avoid having to provide benefits.

On the other hand, this is not a one-sided proposition. The less-desirable jobs provided by e.g. Wal-Mart often mean lower prices at the check-out stand, which benefits a very large number of consumers; moreover the competitive edge provided thereby allows many of those stores to exist and thereby create those jobs. Sure, people often have to take the best job they can find; but that neither entitles them to the job they would like to find, and for many, a basic job is better than no job at all. (As you may yet have a chance to discover in your lifetime.)

It's not like Wal-Mart has managed to shut down Kmart, Target, Sears, Home Depot, Lowe's, Pet Smart, Ross, Big Lots, Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA, Foley's, JCPenny, Kohl's, Safeway, Kroger and subsidiaries, Albertson's, Meijer, RadioShack, Michael's, or any of the dozens of other chains (and local shops -- many Wal-Mart communities manage to sustain healthy local businesses) that share inventory overlap with Wal-Mart. Rather, it's that Wal-Mart has alternately carved out and created a large market segment by competing almost exclusively on price -- and many consumers have responded, and helped make Wal-Mart into an empire, and thus it ALSO provides jobs.

Tell me, seeing as you enjoy painting with the broad brush, is it a "typical liberal response" to pretend that everyone is entitled to exactly the kind of job they want to have without possibly having to create it (they are not -- pursuit of happiness, not guarantee thereof), or that nice, pleasant jobs are some sort of historical norm (they are not, once you sink the spade deeper than the topsoil), or that insecure retail jobs are not still better than low-wage labor of times past (they are -- air conditioning, OSHA regulatory compliance, etc.)?

The strongest indicator to being upper class or middle class in the US is to have parents who are upper class or middle class

Obviously. 88% of the country is middle-class; it is statistically unavoidable that birth should be the strongest indicator. Even if every single poor person in America became middle class tomorrow, it would still be true that over four-fifths of the middle class had been born middle class. The only way to avoid that would be for large percentages of the middle class to become impoverished each generation.

Anyway, your extremely silly suggestion that birth is what really matters is easily refutable with the simple observation that middle-class children who drop out of high school, have a bunch of kids out of wedlock, and never work full time, wind up poor.

A person who finishes high school, refrains from having kids, and gets a full-time job is not going to be poor. They're going to go straight into the middle class at age 18.

If you have a full-time job and no dependents, you can't be poor--at least not officially. The poverty line for a household of one is less than you would earn from working full time at minimum wage.

Darn. Jane didn't post her source for the four pieces of advice. They came up here some months ago, but I can't find the post easily - anybody remember when it was? (I admit to not looking too hard.) Point being, IIRC, she did indeed have statistical evidence for those four factors' being correlated heavily with not being/becoming poor. Whether the arrow of causation is pointing in the correct direction, I cannot say, though I'd go out on a limb to say that it can't hurt your prospects to stay in school, put off marriage until you have a relatively mature outlook, put off children until you have a spouse, and work a full-time job, at any wage.

What saddens me is that the social pressure to do these things apparently used to apply equally to the poor and to the middle class. (The truly rich, I think, have some different rules, or at least can flout these rules with impunity as long as the money holds out - and so it's always been.) Les Miserables, for instance, makes a tragedy of Fantine's "fallen" state - she made one really bad decision, got knocked up and abandoned, had to give up her child and work as a prostitute in order to send money for her child's upkeep, and died of the standard broken heart/TB combination that has come to the aid of so many novelists. It's clear from both the novel and, I think, the musical book that her downfall was precipitated by circumstances, but its seed was planted by her own initial lapse in morals - which she's bitterly aware of, which is why she's such a tragic figure. And Valjean, forever a con for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's starving child, pays his debt to society and then (thanks to God and a kind priest) turns over a spectacularly moral new leaf. More simplistically, Dickens's poor heroes were virtuous, his underclass villains immoral - his comic-relief characters tended to be immoral too, I think, in a lesser sense - given to drink instead of robbery, like that. L.M. Alcott made a career of her poor but moral family. These are all from a time when the poor had much less chance of eventual economic success than they do now.

But now, just at the time when great swaths of people can be more socially and economically mobile than ever before in the history of the world, I bet, "old-fashioned" values have become foreign to the economic class that could most immediately and directly benefit from them. Recall Jane's post on the welfare-reform book dealing with the three African-American women, sisters and a mother, I think, not one of whom (not the point of the book, but a poignant fact nonetheless) had ever been to a wedding. Why? How did this happen? When did poor women cease to value themselves to the point that they'd give in to a man's "baser desires" without extracting a commitment from him first? Was there ever a successful society where the women didn't demand, and get, the support they needed from the fathers of their children? Is the price we pay for sexual equality that there's no longer an acknowledgement that having a baby puts a woman at an economic disadvantage, unless she has help? Are we blind?

I disagree with Cobra as to what the physical setting of New Orleans illustrates. The homes of the rich on high ground and the poor on low ground is certainly a historical relic with functionally racist roots, because it's in New Orleans. And certainly if New Orleans rises from its sodden ashes in exactly the same spot, the same building pattern will hold, but you'll have to go a lot farther toward convincing me that it'd be a racist thing rather than an economic one. In all cases, in all cities no matter how ethnically homogeneous, some areas are more desirable to live in than others, and the rich build there. In my home town, in which there was about one black family when my mom was growing up, the poor lived in the mosquito-infested reclaimed swamp, the rich on the higher and breezier ground, the middle-class in the middle elevations.

As to not intentionally reestablishing the criminal underclass for which New Orleans is so notorious, how can that be a bad thing for rich or poor? If more corporate HQs could be wooed to settle in the area (though I don't see how), wouldn't that potentially benefit the entire population?

Vestiges of racism will always be with us, I think - it's xenophobia with the "other" defined by physical characteristics rather than geographic, and has been part of the human condition since there was one. But looking for it in every statement by the "privileged" class is an overly popular sport, I think.

I find in interesting that some people have turned this into a racial issue. As long as wealth and poverty are tied to race in so many people's worldviews, it really can't be solved. Simply, people can't change their race. However, I know far too many intelligent, productive middle-class blacks to believe for a second that they are a figment of my imagination. And I know any number of whites who have made a disaster out of their lives through poor decisions.

The belief that all value systems are equally good and must be respected is corrosive to the very message that might help some of the people caught in social groups that don't want them to act in any way that would help them to rise out of the group. There's a time to say that people in bad situations aren't bad themselves, nor are their peers. But they are acting on a model of behavior that is geared to failure.

It isn't skin pigmentation that's creating and perpetuating poverty. We need the liberal acceptance of the person as worthy, as having begun from a morally equal stance at birth. And we need the conservative willingness to judge decisions, actions and values. People are worthy of succeeding, but that doesn't make every path they choose to success equally worthy.

Brandon:

Thank you for your optimistic response. It's refreshing in this fatalist thread. I took the time to make my post short, but see that the encapsulated sarcasm was overlooked.

I was attempting to point out the slippery slope of this discussion. Specifically, the "cultural context" position that Megan is taking is that as people go through their formative years, they do not choose their parents, their location of birth, their place of education or their peers. Thus, by the time they have developed into mature decision-making adults with the ability to migrate geographically to more lucrative areas and jettison their poverty minded friends for those with brighter futures, they already have fundamental attributes that will define their futures.

Therefore, when looked at as a statistical whole, they have no choice but to be poor. The universe has conspired against them. Except, of course, for the fortunate intelligent ones who could escape the trap. If, of course, intelligence is the deciding factor.

The same argument can then be applied to the middle-class and what keeps them from becoming wealthy. If we are to believe what Megan is alluding to then we of the middle class have very little to aspire to since we have chains upon us that we cannot see and will have great difficulty breaking without the wealthy pointing out the four obvious steps we need to take.

-jayson

"I would be happy to see stronger regulatory legislation dealing with the "59 day job" problem that often comes up with employers such as Wal-Mart, as well as the practice (engaged by many businesses) of staffing a majority of essentially full-time positions with a gaggle of part-time laborors to avoid having to provide benefits."

Simple. Let employers give full-time hours for as long as they want without providing benefits.

And stop giving tax favors to benefits over cash payment. We should not be in the habit of encouraging people to get things like health care from the company store.

Kilroy sez: But since the majority of poor in Oklahoma are white, we don't talk much about 'don't get married until your 25' as one of our conservative platitudes on how to achieve middle class.

In fact, that is very close to one of the platitudes that conservatives use. For example, George Will has long said that:

It turns out that there are three rules for avoiding long-term poverty - rules which make it unlikely that a person adhering to them will fall into such poverty. The three rules are:

First, graduate from high school. Second, have no child out of wedlock. Third, have no child before you are 20.

This is not a moral assertion, it is an empirical observation: The portion of the population that today is caught in long-term poverty consists overwhelmingly of people who have disregarded one or more of these rules.

It's not exactly what you were referring to, but it's pretty close. I'd argue this is part of what Jane was referring to.

The same argument can then be applied to the middle-class and what keeps them from becoming wealthy

What keeps the average member of the middle class from becoming wealthy is that there isn't much reason to do the work necessary for it. Middle-class Americans live in comfort and a reasonable degree of luxury. There's a lot of stuff we *want* that we can't afford, but little we *need* that we can't afford.

Becoming wealthy involves a lot of unplesant work and/or risk-taking, for years or decades, while simultaneously scrimping and saving in order to invest the maximum amount possible into your business or investments. Basically, you end up living like you're poor in order that your kids can live like they're rich. It's not really worth it unless you love to work your ass off.

Ken said: "And stop giving tax favors to benefits over cash payment. We should not be in the habit of encouraging people to get things like health care from the company store.". Unfortunately they will not be offered any alternative for the foreseeable future.

Cobra writes:

The truth is, who you were born to, and the conditions in which you were raised has a whole lot more to do with your station in life than the free market uber alles-types may be prepared to admit.

This is quite true. Having parents who care about education, morals, and your future makes all the difference in the world. And I would wager that most (not all, but most) conservatives would agree with that statement.

That said, what do you propose we DO about it? We can't force parents to care. Handing them free money certainly doesn't install in them the inspriation to teach their children properly. What would you have us DO about it? Lecturing that poor kids often can't help turning out the way they do is all well and good, and lecturing conservatives they should "care more" about the poor is nice as well. But what would you have us DO?

The truth is we care and we don't want grinding poverty in the US, but we damn well know the welfare state doesn't prevent it. Got any ideas?

I read an article years ago (forget the author) who quantified the reduction in poverty if a person:
1. finished high school
2. got married before having children, and stayed married
3. avoided drugs and other illegal activites
4. worked full time

That list was pretty much the same as yours, except that avoiding drugs and crime replaces having more than two kids. Based on the statistics he looked at, those four behavior changes would eliminate over 95% of all poverty.

I think avoiding drugs/crime is probably more important than having three or more kids, so I like the older list better. You did a better job explaining the source of the problem however, imho.

I'm surprised how many people think that, because the circumstances of your birth can influence your values, it is fine to simply ignore the values entirely and only give credit to the birth. Yes, if you're born to people who are ignorant and irresponsible, you're likely to be ignorant and irresponsible to. But it is the ignorance and irresponsibility that keep you down, not your birth.

A person born into a culture which disdains things like marriage, education, and hard work does have a tough life ahead of him -- but mostly only because it is very difficult to choose to reject the inferior culture of your parents and peers in favor of the superior culture of middle-class America.

It's amazing that only one person actually had the guts to even start a email debate with me. Why do you think I included my email address, twice? randyjg2(at)yahoo.com

You would think Janes "superior class" wouldn't be afraid of engaging in a debate with such a social and intellectual inferior.

Comon guy n' gals, I really had hopes of a dialog here. Surely you can take up your rich mans burden and convey your wisdom to such a misinformed low class wretch as myself.

Actually,
1) It isn't that bad a neighborhood, just not rich
2) its where I grew up.
3) We help each other.. a lot. How do you think I know those stories?

Look, heres the real issue. Most of the poor are there because of either catastrophic illness in the family or unemployment due to economic dislocation.

In my case, both. We don't show up in the statistics because we have a strong work ethic, and when we need help, our church (or temple) steps in, not the government. One church I belong to has 500 local members, and spends most of its effort simply doing "good works", sorta like a real world "Seventh Heaven".

I suppose it comes naturally, Christ never thought less of poor people (though his opinion of rich people involved needles, eyes and camels, at least according to some guy named Matthew), and, to tell you the truth, we take his opinions pretty seriously.

In case you are wondering, I am a republican (rational arm, not neocon) and a conservative. (even about to get involved in the republican primaries, if they'll have me.) Most poor people are.

Thats a very important point. Most poor people (and I have known thousands) believe, in America, and in their responsibilities as Americans. Who do you think voted for Bush in the last election? THe rich ARE a minority in this country, and getting smaller by the day.

And thats why those people were screaming at their rescuers in NOLA. They expect that on the few occasions when when the government is called upon to execute its responsibilities, it will do so with the same attention and effort that they have put into being good citizens.

Which is why they don't show up on welfare rolls or studies of the "poor", they consider those who do so part of a conspiracy to cheat America.

which is also why they didn't deserve the trashing Ms. Galt gave them in her post. They've kept their end of our social compact, and, as a republican, a conservative, and a religous man, I felt obligated to defend them, as part of my obligation to the social contract that is America.

The poor are impoverished for one reason. They don't have money. No value judgement, no other reason is necessary or sufficient.

However, mostly the reason is that they choose responsibility, to their families, to their community, over amassing wealth. The poor you debate, and encounter in statistics, are the ones who didn't make that choice. Those are a minority, stop confusing us with them.

Most of the differences Jane suggests between the perpetually poor and the consistently middle class can be explained largely by a difference in Time Preference.

http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap18sec2.asp

Dear Mr. Gordon:

It's not lack of "guts", as you say; it's just common decency. I'm not in the habit of e-mailing people in their private inboxes, even if they are foolhardy enough to expose their real e-mail addresses. If you'd had issued your challenge in your first comment, likely you would have received more responses.

Finally, the assertions that you make in your last post are laughable at best. Do you have any evidence for such a conventional wisdom-shattering concept: that a majority of the poor are 'down on their luck' or have chosen their responsibility to their families over material wealth? Do you really believe that?

Just because four statistics are linked to poor people, doesn't mean there is a causal relationship. Low income may be the causal factor. It probably goes both ways.

Myron Magnet addressed this issue some years ago in his "The Dream and The Nightmare". He expanded on the theme by pointing out that the well-off who promote this values-free behavior generally have an anchor to windward, a job, an education, a trust fund.
They can survive the consequences of poor behavior, and in fact may not be promoting it until they've actually behaved well long enough to be proof against the consequences.

Those who start with nothing are different.

I have some black clients who make me--the stereotypical straight arrow--wince at the determination with which they aim at middle-class values for themselves and their children. They know the score.

As to culture, or subculture, Thomas Sowell says, "Cultures vary and differences have consequences." Anybody want to contradict that?

You claim:
"If poor people did just four things, the poverty rate would be a fraction of what it currently is. Those four things are:

1) Finish high school
2) Get married before having children
3) Have no more than two children
4) Work full time"

Baloney. Life is not that simple. There are a helluva lot of people who were in the path of Katrina and a few other storms in the year who will never be anything but poor for the rest of their lives. You dumbass. Shit happens and statements like you just made are just your way of disconnecting yourself from feeling the least bit obligated to help fellow humans unless they profess your dogma. The conservative dream that if everyone was like you there would be no poor, self responsiblity would bring the "American Dream" everyone could keep teaching their kids that Santa is real and we would all grow rich together. Maybe 75% of the country believes this shit but only about 2% ever get close to what you are calling success. Easy for you to say.

I read and re-read your post. I think there are some very good points. However, when you stated that conservatives think poor people are "bad" you lost me. I see no evidence for this. Do I think that conservatives think poor people make bad choices? Sure. But the amazing amount of support that I have seen from the American people, and most conservatives I know, would not be made to 'bad' people.

My wife teaches at an inner-city school. The amount of 'poor' people is really complex. One of her students couldn't "afford" a pair of tights for the dance class. Her family was too 'poor' to get them. She does own an iPod, her own tv, every top HipHop CD available, and recently got an ATV from her dad. But $7 tights for school... nope.

That is a choice. Not color or ethnic. It is the 'mindset' of people whe see themselves as poor. While middle class people place certain values on the future of their kids, poor class people have a different set of values. Most of her students who end up pregnant (about 10 - 15%) refer to the children as "it", "him", "her", or "my baby". Can you imagine spanking a 10 month old baby for being, and I am quoting here, "a manipulative bitch".

When my wife works hard to get a scholarship for her students, she is often met with obstacles from the parents and the peer group. She has lost count of how many times she has heard... "I can't go to College. My parents think it will turn me white."

And still this conservative woman gets up everyday and works harder and harder to help her kids. There are a few successes, and that's what keeps her going. There should be more. Are they 'bad?' No. But the lifestyle that turns people into the chronically poor is certainly not 'good' in any definition.

Actually, Richard Aubrey, your comment neatly tracks the thoughts of Theodore Dalrymple, a British doctor who worked with the (primarily white) underclass in Britain. While he often chastised his wards for the poor decisions that they made (even when they knew them to be); he saved his most vindictive statements for those who advocated the kind of thinking and policies that most hurt the underclass, even though the advice givers/thinkers would never abide by their own philosophies.

I think this is the study Megan is referring to:

http://www.reason.com/rauch/092203.shtml

The value of an education can never be over estimated. I've screwed up more than once but having a college education with a good GPA has helped my to always land on my feet. A few years ago I took further college classes to broaden my knowledge and skills although I already had a M.S. degree. The classes helped my career immensely. The ability to accept delayed gratification (spending time getting educated) is often necessary to break out of poverty.

Chronic drug use tends to be a symptom of PTSD. Those with long term PTSD problems have had severe trauma (such as sexual molestation) and a genetic make-up that causes fear memories to decay slowly.

If we dealt with the root cause ( child abuse among others ) we would have far fewer chronic drug users.

What we do now is persecute those in pain. It is a lot of fun. Costs a lot of money, and keeps a lot of folks employed. Other than that and being a form of Republican Socialism: price supports for criminals, I can't see the good it does. Probably a moral defect on my part.

Police and PTSD

Who do you think voted for Bush in the last election?

The middle class and the wealthy. Kerry outpolled Bush among people making less than $30k a year, and Bush outpolled Kerry among people making more than $50k a year. Among people making $30k-$50k they were statistically tied.

I am a republican and a conservative.
Most poor people are.

Sorry, but that's completely false. Democrats outnumber Republicans in the lowest two income quintiles (people earning $35k/year or less); Republicans outnumber Democrats in the upper three.

THe rich ARE a minority in this country, and getting smaller by the day.

I guess that depends on what you call "rich". You seem inclined to throw the label and Jane and the other economically literate people in this thread. But using a definition of "rich" broad enough to cover us would render your statement untrue -- we outnumber the poor, and our percentage of the population is growing. The poor, meanwhile, have remained roughly constant (flucuating between 11 and 15%) since 1966. Roughly as many households earn in excess of $100,000 a year as live below the poverty line.

A useful table is here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty04/table3.pdf

Among the interesting statistics therein: only 2.8% of people who worked full-time in 2004 are below the poverty line, and only 5.4% of married couples are poor. Which pretty much puts a bullet in the "the poor do plenty of work" and "marriage isn't a factor in poverty" theories.

The poor are impoverished for one reason. They don't have money

No, the poor are impoverished because they don't have income. And the important thing to determine is why they don't have income, and what can be done to help them earn a living.

Elambend. I read Dalrymple. Yeah, he scathes, to coin a phrase.

My wife--then a colleague and sort of girlfriend--and I did some work in a community center in a poor neighborhood when we were in college.

It was frustrating trying to follow the reasons/excuses for doing counterproductive things, or not doing productive things when the opportunity to do same was bascially presented on a platter. It was also illuminating.

I would say I learned a lot--negatively--about how to live by this experience. I watched child-rearing practices which made absolutely no sense. Ditto spending. Driving habits.

Unfortunately, in some circles, saying "You are hopping around because you shot yourself in the foot. Let me suggest you stop aiming at the other one." is considered blaming the victim and is not allowed.

But Jane doesn't (seem to) give enough credit to the role rewards and penalties play in guiding one's life decisions.

Full post here... I tried trackbacking but got error messages...

Bob Huckabee writes:

"The conservative dream that if everyone was like you there would be no poor, self responsiblity would bring the "American Dream" everyone could keep teaching their kids that Santa is real and we would all grow rich together. Maybe 75% of the country believes this shit but only about 2% ever get close to what you are calling success. Easy for you to say."

This is why there will always be a Democratic Party and why they will never get it right. Notice the implicit arrogance: 75% of the country is clueless, but not Bob. Bob is on top of it--only 2% of us get close to what we call success, which I assume means membership in the middle class. Fascinating. If I read this right, the vast majority of the country is poor, their circumstances have nothing to do with their life choices, and they are completely unaware of their condition.

Excellent post, once again, Jane.
It's hard for me to scare up any interest in debating those who cling to the marxist "class" myth. They filter all data through the class lens, and all human interactions are thus explained. It's an irrefutable thereom, and hence not a scientific one, but rather a delusion. Where we agree to abide by the evidence, they reject all evidence that doesn't fit. It's typical high school debating chicanery. Only even more dull, if that's possible.

Their only useful comeback is to disdainfully claim that those supporting capitalism "worship in the curch of the the free market". As Thomas Sowell once said to WF Buckley (IIRC), "I don't have faith in the market, I have empirical evidence from countries around the world on the superior performances of free markets."

I have to admit, the class worshippers do tell nice stories, though. Such pathos, such bathos, such smugness. If only the world really ran like they wished, then I'd finally have my boat on a river with tangerine trees and marmalade skies.

Excellent post, Jane. If we want to change poor societal outcomes, somehow we have to change to culture, in the areas where education is actively disparaged -- this is part of the cultural problem, too.

Here's my own anecdote: ten years ago, I was at a local nature preserve, on an observation platform, when I noticed a father and his four children, about 8 to 14. The kids were well spoken and polite. After a bit, the father and I got into a conversation, and this story came out.

The family lived in Alexandria, VA, on the wrong side of the tracks. The public schools tend to be populated by kids who call other kids "oreos" if they try to do well in school. The father explained that he and his wife believe that the local schools, far from teaching kids well, actually are a major source of disfunction: kids who attend such schools, they believe, learn to disrespect learning, teaching, and authority; to have sex early; to do drugs and alcohol; and in general learn every counterproductive behavior. They don't learn it from the schools, clearly, but from their fellow students. The schools, though, at least the public ones in the area, seem powerless to stop the problem. So his wife quit her job and homeschooled the kids. The results, as far as I could tell, were very positive.

What this anecdote told me -- in conjunction with loads of articles about poor schools and cultural influences on learning -- is, as Jane says, that culture and in particular peer group influence really matter.

So how do we change the culture? Slowly, one child at a time is the best I can come up with. Charter schools may be an important part of the answer in many localities: not that they are always excellent, but that on average, they are a little better. Many charters have been able to deal with these culture issues better than many local urban schools. Vouchers, too, are something I support: a neighbor of mine came from a tough background, but she got to attend a Catholic school which she credits for what she has been able to do with her life, which is quite impressive. (She attended before vouchers were available, but vouchers could allow others to have what she had.)

I have to agree with Tom. The idea that four or five fairly simple rules can be followed to reduce your chance of living in poverty used to be common sense. Now such basics are routinely challenged, and lengthy 'scholarly' treatises pretend to purport that we are born in chains. Again, ideas so foolish that only intellectuals could believe them. And many do.

As we used to say about learning a new technique: See one. Do one. Teach one. It should apply here. Edmund Burke thus spoke of the family as "the little platoons", providing the instruction to advance each generation another step or two; it was the bulkwark of civilization. Rebuilding that lost cultural knowledge can only be accomplished by taking back the schools at every level, and starting over.

The leftists need to go.

Bob Huckaby writes:

Baloney. Life is not that simple. There are a helluva lot of people who were in the path of Katrina and a few other storms in the year who will never be anything but poor for the rest of their lives. You dumbass. Shit happens and statements like you just made are just your way of disconnecting yourself from feeling the least bit obligated to help fellow humans unless they profess your dogma.

So, what you're saying is that people are poor, not because of choices they make or even because they lack the necessary parenting/peer/community structure to encourage their educational development, it's because "shit happens and everyone knows it". Really, you should write a book. I smell Pulitzer.

The conservative dream that if everyone was like you there would be no poor, self responsiblity would bring the "American Dream" everyone could keep teaching their kids that Santa is real and we would all grow rich together. Maybe 75% of the country believes this shit but only about 2% ever get close to what you are calling success. Easy for you to say.

No, I don't think she's saying that at all. I think she's saying that there are four indicators that if you do not follow them, you are MORE LIKELY to be poor. Are you trying to tell me that if you don't finish high school, have a bunch of kids without getting married and don't work full time, you have an equal chance of being poor as someone who doesn't do that?

And 2%, huh? Care to enlighten us as to what constitutes success in your world that only 2% make it? How about a married couple, a teacher and a cop? Together they make maybe $75,000-90,000 a year? How's that? Are they rich? A success? Do you have to be a CEO to be rich? Can a plumber who makes $100K a year running his own business be considered successful? Success is relative to how you define it.

Really with your tone and those comments, do you really expect to sway anyone at all to your point of view? Perhaps we're all just "too stupid to understand".

Why are anecdote's like noses?

Everyone has one and they all smell.

One big problem with many in the Republican party is their reliance on anecdote over statistics. This is one reason why a larger percentage of Republicans are atagonistic towards science.

"Oh, Mr. Science Man, you can say what you will with your statistics and experiments, but my brother's friend actually saw the exact opposite."

A couple things I'd like to add: 1) "Poor" people have many, many more material possessions than my middle-class family had when I was growing up in the '40's and '50's. My parents knew real poverty, having come of age in the depths of the depression. Poverty pimps keep moving the goalposts. 2) A very, very small percentage of minimum wage earners are heads of household. Most of them are entry-level, staying at minimum only months.

A personal acquaintance of mine had three jobs within two weeks of her release from state prison! Jobs are out there for those who are willing. If it's part-time, get two or more.

Inspired, from start to finish.

The part about peer groups is so true. I’ve been preaching “culture and character” as success determinants for a while now. Peer groups are the major source of both for most teens.

Your mistake is in thinking that your friends just chose you. You chose your friends, too. That is, you chose to hang out with people who didn't "swallow razor blades", "steal cars", "drop out of school", or "run dime bags."

The flip side of letting losers play victim politics by not taking personal responsibility for their actions is winners not taking personal credit for their good behavior.

Is this a partial or a general equilibrium analysis? And does that matter? I am not really sure. But it's worth thinking about.

Why not cut to the chase? "Poor people sure are lazy!"

Does anyone here know anyone who is hungry today? If so, is this a chronic or 1-off situation?

Losing everything does not mean you will die poor. I've lost everything.....twice. No, I didn't file a chapter. I'm not poor today.

Kilroy wrote:

Why are anecdote's like noses?

Everyone has one and they all smell.

One big problem with many in the Republican party is their reliance on anecdote over statistics. This is one reason why a larger percentage of Republicans are atagonistic towards science.

"Oh, Mr. Science Man, you can say what you will with your statistics and experiments, but my brother's friend actually saw the exact opposite."

Ya mind giving us some stats relevant to this discussion Mr. Science Guy? Are you talking about anything specfic?

If everyone adopted Jane's four points of advice, poverty wouldn't suddenly end -- but I don't think it's even arguable that it wouldn't diminish, unless you're willing to argue that screwing up your life and multiplying expenses are somehow economically beneficial.

And if there were less poverty to fight, it might be possible to concentrate our resources on those truly hard-luck cases where government assistance would make a real difference. Instead, money that could have paid for Randy's friend's poor cat's euthanasia is going to prop up my brother-in-law, who decided at age thirty that even though he wasn't ready for the commitment of marriage, it was time for him to become a father, and whose record for holding a job appears to be about six months, since he often decides smoking something or other is more fun than working.

You critics of Jane's points, are you seriously arguing that acting irrationally has no negative effect? That I'd be just as well off if I stayed home from work for the next few days because I felt like it?

One ofthe best things Ive read in recent years, thanks for the post. I was the oldest of 5 kids raised by a truck stop waitress with mental illness. Long periods of welfare dependency, mom 16 when I was born, dad 17. Father in and out of the house, frequently violent. Except for race, I fit all the criteria for the underclass, and know what it's like to feel like an immigrant when exposed to a middle class environment.
The main reason I consider myself a conservative is because I hope we have a sea change on the Supreme Court to address the most pernicious doctrine developed during the 1960's; the so called "right to privacy." There is no moral or legal basis for sanctioning child abuse in this manner, and I think future generations will view our pig headed obstinence on this issue as ridiculous. As long as we, as a society, have abandoned laisses faire economics in social welfare policy we cannot avoid requiring the disorganized and incompetent to practice manditory birth control. We have the technology to enforce these rules unobtrusively, and the benefit to society, and more important the children involved, would be more dramatic than any other single effort our country could make at this time to help the poor.

Jane:

I would disagree with you that conservatives view poor people as somehow worse people. I think most conservatives would agree with you that the reason people are poor stem ftom the reasons you mentioned. I would add alcohol/drug abuse as another factor among many poor people. I would also add some form of mental illness since, the laws were changed so that society can not take care of thise with mental illness many are disfunctional and in poverty. Many quote unquote middle class people are also one or two paychecks away from being homeless.

Bob Huckabee,

Maybe 75% of the country believes this shit but only about 2% ever get close to what you are calling success. Easy for you to say.

What was Jane "calling success"? I never saw her define "success," and I am quite sure that she wouldn't define it, as you apparently are doing now, as something so rarefied that fewer than 2% of Americans achieve it. The vast majority of Americans don't strike a sane eye as conspicuously "unsuccessful."

Jim,

If alcohol/drug abuse is a symptom of PTSD then what?

Police and PTSD

Why do poor people make bad decisions? We know that folks with PTSD problems make bad decisions.

Might there be a correlation?

It could be in part genetic.

Genetic Discrimination

Bad child rearing practices do not help. I favor education over enforcers.

BTW turning poor neighborhoods into war zones does not help.

Do they still teach alcohol prohibition history in America?

'I think that we should remove the barriers, like poor schools, that block achievement from without'

No doubt, allwe need to do is snap our fingers. Oh wait, pouring a trillion dollars down a rathole doesn't work? What will we do then?

Actually, I am deliriously happy at this point. At least there isn't the initial ex cathedra pronouncements of whats wrong with the poor. Some of you are actually examining the basis for your opinions, if only slightly.

Look, I have lived among the poor for many decades, even though I have been pretty successful at times (and been homeless once and totally broke several times), I never used drugs, never took unemployment, never did anything wrong, survived somehow. Kept my family alive and comfortable through 18 years of serial catastrophic illnesses, and thier aftermath. And I have friends who can top any of my stories a dozen times over.

I know these people, in a way your antiseptic statistics and tentative contacts in "safe" areas can't reflect.

What has happened to the American social contract, the bill of rights that said you can't discriminate against someone on the basis of wealth? Have we totally abandoned that? Abandoning the constitution is now the definition of a Conservative?

I never said conservatives hated poor people, quite the opposite. For one thing, I am a conservative. And a Republican. And it's my party too, whatever the neo-cons claim.

I did say that this readership generally had a very low opinion of the poor, and,be honest now, even a cursory scan of the comments here says that they do.

I mean, the unspoken assumption that that drug use is endemic to any particular segment of our population. I mean, really. Didn't that go out with the Great Gatsby?

Betty Ford isn't filled with the poor, y'know. And as the TV advertisement goes, if 40% of all drug users are in the city, where do you think the rest are?

Instead, we might talk about welfare recipients, or substance abusers, in which case Ms Galt's comments are at least somewhat justified.

I know that, I lived for 11 years on South King Drive in Chicago, a block from one of the the most dangerous high schools in the city and across the street from a housing project. I am under no illusions of exactly what horrors can occur. Statistics take on a whole new meaning when you know some of the numbers personally.

Lets try a thought experiment. I am a Gordon, Irish, German, Russian, and who knows what else (very broad minded family).

Particular emphasis on Irish. Suppose Ms Galt had said the main problem with the Irish was their addiction to alcohol and there tendency to violence, not making plans, and having too many kids. How many of you would be offended then? And how different is that than the general tone of the description of the poor in the readership's comments?

Someone said my original post was "bizarre". I suppose I should have expected a literary allusion to be picked up that easily. But think about it. How far are the comments from the sort that were made by pre Revolutionary French aristocrats?

More importantly, how many of them did it take to start the tumbrels rolling? The reason the founders insisted on equal rights was practical. They knew things change all the time, and a protection for someone else now is protection for them in the future.

randyjg2(at)yahoo.com

One big problem with many in the Republican party is their reliance on anecdote over statistics

Now that's just damned funny, given that it is the economic conservatives in this thread who are citing statistics and the left-wingers who are saying "oh yeah well I once knew a poor person who worked hard so obviously all the poor work hard".

What has happened to the American social contract, the bill of rights that said you can't discriminate against someone on the basis of wealth? Have we totally abandoned that

It never existed in the first place so, no, we didn't abandon it. There's nothing in the Bill of Rights forbidding discrimination on the basis of wealth. If there were, the estate tax and the progressive income tax would be unconstitutional.

Heck, when the United States was first established, poor people were generally not even allowed to vote.

Betty Ford isn't filled with the poor, y'know

That's because poor drug abusers go to prison instead of rehab. In any case, denying that the poor are more likely to be drug users is just silly. Drug abuse increases your risk of becoming poor (if you're middle class or wealthy) and of staying poor (if you were poor to start with). So naturally drug abusers are overrepresented among the poor, because drug abuse *creates* poor people.

Kilroy Was Here --

Strange. You see, The Bell Curve has a massive section on statistical correlations with poverty, yet I've never seen a liberal/Democrat respond with anything but anecdotal counter-evidence.

For example, let's say you are a white woman with children, who was born to the very poor (two standard deviations poorer than the average American). What are the chances that you are living in poverty? If you're not married, ~40%. If you are married, holding all other factors even, it's about 10%.

Now take white women with children, born to parents who were 2 standard deviations above mean in personal wealth. What's their chances of living in poverty? Holding all other factors steady with the above, ~2% if they're married, ~30% if unmarried.

So, a mother born poor but who has kids in wedlock is three times less likely to wind up poor than a mother born wealthy who has kids out of wedlock. Imagine, then, what would happen to poverty if we went back to 1950s sexual morality . . . .

Randy,

You said:
"Suppose Ms Galt had said the main problem with the Irish was their addiction to alcohol and there tendency to violence, not making plans, and having too many kids. How many of you would be offended then? And how different is that than the general tone of the description of the poor in the readership's comments?"

The problem with your "thought experiment", Randy, is that addiction to alcohol, a tendency to violence, not making plans, a