2016 Presidential Horse Race

[EddytoNow]

Hillary Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks After Controversial Week: Poll - NBC News

Typical up and down poll change. Not great news for Hillary, but not good news for Trump either. Hillary has just had her worst week of the campaign and still leads Trump.

My prediction for the next few months. Hillary will get a bump when Bernie endorses her. Trump will get a bump from the Republican Convention, if the Republicans can unite behind him. Then Hillary will get a bump from her choice of a VP and the Democratic Convention. The end result will have Hillary up 5-10% as we approach the Fall. The debates will show that Trump has no understanding of the issues, and Hillary wins easily. Something like Hillary 49-50%, Trump 39-40%. Johnson 7-8%. As it becomes more and more apparent that he is going to lose, Trump's rhetoric will return to nasty name-calling and mud-slinging. Trump gets a regular slot on Fox News where he will be a regular critic of every decision Hillary makes. Finally, like Sarah Palin, Trump becomes old news and goes back to his businesses or retires and turns things over to his children.

 

[GoIrish41]

I was talking about people who lived in that neighborhood...see, I think somewhere in the discussion we transitioned from a race discussion to a poverty discussion as someone mentioned race isn't a big factor for those in poverty...even if those in poverty are disparately black...once you are there, getting out is really hard no matter your race. But if you took it to mean the those black people, them, the enemy "their"...thats kinda my point.

Well, the "people who lived in that neighborhood" were black. If you say you weren't talking about black people when you talked about engaging in a "war on police" and "burning down their own fucking neighborhoods" I'll let it alone. However, I completely disagree that race isn't a big factor in poverty. Yes, it is difficult for anyone to escape poverty -- I know from experience. It is far more difficult for black people to escape poverty, which should be clear by the percentages of black people who are generationally poor. Conversations about poverty are pretty closely tied to race no matter how you slice it.

 

[kmoose]

The number of people who are in poverty in minority communities is staggering.

It only takes 2 full time minimum wage jobs to pull a family of 5 out of poverty...

 

[phgreek]

So you were not talking about black people when you talked about engaging in a "war on police" and "burning down their own fucking neighborhoods?" If you say so, I'll let it alone. However, I completely disagree that race isn't a big factor in poverty. Yes, it is difficult for anyone to escape poverty -- I know from experience. It is far more difficult for black people to escape poverty, which should be clear by the percentages of black people who are generationally poor. Conversations about poverty are pretty closely tied to race, no matter how you slice it.

I think the principles discussed here about getting out of poverty work. I can't say if it would take longer for black folks to see fruit from their efforts, I can say I think they would see fruit.

I think I got back in the discussion when everything tilted to solving long standing poverty, and was trying not to get into race discussions for the reasons I stated when I jumped back in. I suppose some form of race issues are inseparable, but again, I think there are things that can be done to break the chain of poverty for everyone regardless of race...

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I don't know where your statistics are based, but my own son who graduated from a 2-year program recently had no financial assistance, unless you are including student loans. And we all know how that program is working out.

And regarding the cost of room and board. If a poor student must pay for an apartment and food, that places a heavy burden on a poor family. If they lived at home, there would be no additional expense for living accommodations (the family already has that expense). So the family would have to come up with a few hundred dollars a month to pay rent or invest in an automobile so their son or daughter can drive back and forth to school on a daily basis and to work at their minimum wage job.

Either way, a family that has no extra cash lying around must come up with a few hundred dollars each month to either: 1.) Pay rent for their son or daughter to live closer to college or 2.) Buy an additional car and pay car insurance so their son or daughter can drive back and forth to school and work. They have the money to do neither.

The average college grad leaves school with $40k in loans. I have to imagine, without even doing the research, that trade schools and 2 year tech schools are much more forgiving financially.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

She'll get a bump from Bernie's endorsement today, and will start to pull away after the Dem convention.

I listened to the rousing speech on the radio. Hillary and Bernie named every group they were going to save:

the poor/ low income
college kids are going to get free tuition
transgender/ LGBT
middle class and working families
illegal immigrants
senior citizens who rely on SS, medicare, medicaid...

I think the only group they forgot was the VA. Weird...

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The discussion here has centered around the 2nd requirement that you list, although I have qualified it by adding that it must be a good-paying job. If you're working 40 hours per week at minimum wage, you are still living in poverty. My position is that there are not enough good-paying full-time jobs to go around. Furthermore, there is nothing inherent in the culture of poor people that holds them back. They simply do not have the opportunities that used to exist.

This is the heart of the disagreement between Progressives and conservatives when it comes to addressing poverty. And the weight of the sociological evidence is overwhelmingly against your position, Eddy. In order to remove the race factor, let's focus only on poor whites. See J.D. Vance's new book Hillbilly Elegy (here's a good review of it), Kevin D. Williamson's article The White Ghetto, and Charles Murray's book Coming Apart. The former two authors grew up in blue-collar Scots-Irish communities in Appalachia, and their blistering condemnations of that culture come from first-hand experience.

Progressives favor a Marxist analysis that supports their all-consuming narrative of class warfare. It's overly reductive, obscuring more than it illuminates, and it also robs the poor of moral agency.

It's a lot like parenting. If your kid is selfish, immature, and running with a bad crowd, he's not going to turn into a model citizen by simply throwing money at him and telling him that his bad behavior isn't really his fault, he's just been disadvantaged, etc. Similarly, kicking him out on the street and withholding all financial support until he boot straps himself onto the honor roll isn't realistic either. Maybe he needs a mentor? Maybe one kid needs the promise of carrots, while another needs the threat of a bigger stick? Most probably some combination of both.

You'll see in the review of Vance's book above that one of the most toxic aspects of that culture is a widespread fatalistic belief that the poor don't have any control over their own lives; that every negative outcome is ultimately someone else's fault. Your outlook, well-meaning though it may be, hurts much more than it helps by reinforcing that fatalistic belief. Which is, ironically, the main driver behind Trump's success; he's good at stoking blue collar resentment towards others-- the Chinese economy, Mexican immigrants, Establishment fatcats, etc. There's some truth in his pitch, but you don't help someone by convincing him he's got no control over his own life.

Culture is upstream from politics, and theology is upstream from culture. Once you get to the politics of poverty, you're too far away from the real source of the problem to effectively address it.

 

[ACamp1900]

The average college grad leaves school with $40k in loans. I have to imagine, without even doing the research, that trade schools and 2 year tech schools are much more forgiving financially.

Not really, at least not in my experience working in higher ed... per year costs tend to be quite a bit higher at your average trade school or career college... obviously the community college route is much cheaper on average.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Not really, at least not in my experience working in higher ed... per year costs tend to be quite a bit higher at your average trade school or career college... obviously the community college route is much cheaper on average.

Not sure what things are like where you live, but this school near me offers programs in solid fields for tuition rates comparable to traditional 4 year colleges circa 1996.

Thaddeus Stevens College of Technology Tuition and Fees

Tuition: $3,800 per semester
Room: $2,300 per semester
5 Day Meal Plan: $1,675
7 Day Meal Plan: $2,115
Breakfast (per meal): $4.10
Lunch (per meal): $8.35
Dinner (per meal): $8.50

 

[RDU Irish]

The average college grad leaves school with $40k in loans. I have to imagine, without even doing the research, that trade schools and 2 year tech schools are much more forgiving financially.

$40k loan at 7% for 20 years is a $310/month payment. Works out to a little under $2/hour to pay that loan. If you do not think you will get a $2/hour benefit from your education then don't do it.

 

[wizards8507]

$40k loan at 7% for 20 years is a $310/month payment. Works out to a little under $2/hour to pay that loan. If you do not think you will get a $2/hour benefit from your education then don't do it.

The problem is that the people at the high end of the distribution are the ones who aren't getting the financial benefit from their degree. The people with the highest debt are the private school liberal arts majors who go on to graduate degrees immediately after their undergrad programs. The student debt crisis isn't the product of STEM and accounting grads who graduate with $20K in loans and a starting salary of $60K.

 

[GoIrish41]

It only takes 2 full time minimum wage jobs to pull a family of 5 out of poverty...

Let’s make a budget, then, and put your theory to the test. Pre-tax income ($7.25 an hour x 40 hours x 52 weeks x 2 parents) -- $30,160

This calculator USDA Calculator from the USDA allows us to calculate the costs of raising a child per year up to age 18. I entered 1 child under 1, one child at 3, and 1 child at 5 years old – two parents, in the Midwest. I came to $21,918 a year to raise children, a little below the national average cost of $22,246. $30,160 – 21,918 = $7,914 left for the two adults to live on.

Obviously they can’t afford a car, so let’s pay $1.50 a fare each way on a bus to and from work. That comes to $6 a day, or $1560 a year. We are down to $6,354.
They have to eat, right? Or else, who is going to work those shitty jobs and take care of the kids? Even though these are two adults, I’m only going to assign each of them what it costs for food each year for one of their kids. $920 x 2 = $1840 per year. We’re down to $4500.

The companies who own the businesses where these people work are probably going to want the parents to wear clothing when they go to work – shoes, pants, shirts. Let’s say they each only buy a single pair of shoes this year at $50, and 3 sets of clothing at $240. That’s $480 for clothes for both parents per year and $100 more for shoes -- $3934 and counting.

Let’s go crazy and say that one of them has to go to the doctor – dad hurt his back at work. Not without insurance, right? Thanks to Obamacare, the family can get insurance for $600 a year, but that doesn’t come without deductibles. Let’s say the first $1000 is out of pocket, and there is a co-pay of $8 on the muscle relaxers and pain medication the doctor prescribed, and dad has to take these medications for two months ($16). And of course, the co-pay for the doctor’s visit of $15. That’s $1031. We’re at $2903. Let’s be generous and say the utility bills these folks have to pay at $1500 a year. That leaves $1403 to pay Uncle Sam what they owe and we’ve accounted for every penny.

Not another dime for one other thing. No vacation days. Nothing but sitting in our furniture-less, TV-less, run-down apartment for us every night after working a crap job and sending our kids to garbage schools that are the best available in the only place we could afford to live. For the kids, its home from school, do homework, and play outside, where all the crack heads and gang bangers are.

Now, tell me the difference between this family and one that living in poverty. Your contention that two incomes at $7.25 an hour can raise a family of five out of poverty is nonsensical.

 

[kmoose]

I entered 1 child under 1, one child at 3, and 1 child at 5 years old – two parents, in the Midwest. I came to $21,918 a year to raise children, a little below the national average cost of $22,246. $30,160 – 21,918 = $7,914 left for the two adults to live on.

You already entered the two adults. What other two adults are using up the $7,914 that is left?

Obviously they can’t afford a car, so let’s pay $1.50 a fare each way on a bus to and from work. That comes to $6 a day, or $1560 a year. We are down to $6,354.
They have to eat, right? Or else, who is going to work those shitty jobs and take care of the kids? Even though these are two adults, I’m only going to assign each of them what it costs for food each year for one of their kids. $920 x 2 = $1840 per year. We’re down to $4500.

The companies who own the businesses where these people work are probably going to want the parents to wear clothing when they go to work – shoes, pants, shirts. Let’s say they each only buy a single pair of shoes this year at $50, and 3 sets of clothing at $240. That’s $480 for clothes for both parents per year and $100 more for shoes -- $3934 and counting.

Let’s go crazy and say that one of them has to go to the doctor – dad hurt his back at work. Not without insurance, right? Thanks to Obamacare, the family can get insurance for $600 a year, but that doesn’t come without deductibles. Let’s say the first $1000 is out of pocket, and there is a co-pay of $8 on the muscle relaxers and pain medication the doctor prescribed, and dad has to take these medications for two months ($16). And of course, the co-pay for the doctor’s visit of $15. That’s $1031. We’re at $2903. Let’s be generous and say the utility bills these folks have to pay at $1500 a year. That leaves $1403 to pay Uncle Sam what they owe and we’ve accounted for every penny.

The $21,918 a year figure already accounts for:

Food
Transportation
Clothing
Health Care
Child Care and Education
Other

Why are you estimating those costs again, and then adding them in? You're charging them twice for all of those items.

You chose the word "poverty". I looked up the Federal definition of the Poverty Level.

https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FPL/

What you are arguing is the level of comfort, not poverty!

 

[RDU Irish]

Poverty sucks - why is it being implied that it should not suck? At the same point - many people are more than happy with a subsistence living - I grew up around plenty. Working was the absolute worst thing many of them could imagine and would take extreme measures and live in squalor to avoid it.

 

[EddytoNow]

This is the heart of the disagreement between Progressives and conservatives when it comes to addressing poverty. And the weight of the sociological evidence is overwhelmingly against your position, Eddy. In order to remove the race factor, let's focus only on poor whites. See J.D. Vance's new book Hillbilly Elegy (here's a good review of it), Kevin D. Williamson's article The White Ghetto, and Charles Murray's book Coming Apart. The former two authors grew up in blue-collar Scots-Irish communities in Appalachia, and their blistering condemnations of that culture come from first-hand experience.

Progressives favor a Marxist analysis that supports their all-consuming narrative of class warfare. It's overly reductive, obscuring more than it illuminates, and it also robs the poor of moral agency.

It's a lot like parenting. If your kid is selfish, immature, and running with a bad crowd, he's not going to turn into a model citizen by simply throwing money at him and telling him that his bad behavior isn't really his fault, he's just been disadvantaged, etc. Similarly, kicking him out on the street and withholding all financial support until he boot straps himself onto the honor roll isn't realistic either. Maybe he needs a mentor? Maybe one kid needs the promise of carrots, while another needs the threat of a bigger stick? Most probably some combination of both.

You'll see in the review of Vance's book above that one of the most toxic aspects of that culture is a widespread fatalistic belief that the poor don't have any control over their own lives; that every negative outcome is ultimately someone else's fault. Your outlook, well-meaning though it may be, hurts much more than it helps by reinforcing that fatalistic belief. Which is, ironically, the main driver behind Trump's success; he's good at stoking blue collar resentment towards others-- the Chinese economy, Mexican immigrants, Establishment fatcats, etc. There's some truth in his pitch, but you don't help someone by convincing him he's got no control over his own life.

Culture is upstream from politics, and theology is upstream from culture. Once you get to the politics of poverty, you're too far away from the real source of the problem to effectively address it.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm proposing "throwing money at the problem". I have said throughout this discussion that good-paying job opportunities are needed. That's not throwing money at the problem. That's working hard and being paid fairly for your work. When the poor have a middle-class income, the other things will follow. Things like a Catholic school education, college, better neighborhoods, etc. Advantages that are available to those who can afford them. Until they have the financial means to rise out of poverty, we are spinning our wheels.

 

[irishroo]

I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm proposing "throwing money at the problem". I have said throughout this discussion that good-paying job opportunities are needed. That's not throwing money at the problem. That's working hard and being paid fairly for your work. When the poor have a middle-class income, the other things will follow. Things like a Catholic school education, college, better neighborhoods, etc. Advantages that are available to those who can afford them. Until they have the financial means to rise out of poverty, we are spinning our wheels.

But you're not advocating the creation of new, skilled jobs that actually have a high value. You're advocating artificially inflating the hourly wage of people who work low-skill jobs while doing nothing to actually improve the situation of that person other than, literally, throwing money at them.

 

[GoIrish41]

You already entered the two adults. What other two adults are using up the $7,914 that is left?



The $21,918 a year figure already accounts for:

Food
Transportation
Clothing
Health Care
Child Care and Education
Other

Why are you estimating those costs again, and then adding them in? You're charging them twice for all of those items.

You chose the word "poverty". I looked up the Federal definition of the Poverty Level.

https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FPL/

What you are arguing is the level of comfort, not poverty!

It accounts for food, transportation, clothing, health care, child care and education for the children -- not the parents. Notice I didn't put cable TV, cell phones, video games, computers, vacations -- all of those things are "comfort." Using every resource at your disposal and winding up with nothing -- that's survival.

What I'm arguing is that if there is no difference between poverty and living a life of minimalist misery, what happens? Despair. And once despair sinks in, all bets are off. I can picture 100 scenarios in which that kind of existence over generations could lead people completely losing hope. Do you have any doubt that men who cannot provide for their families feel shame and self loathing? Do you think that any of them conclude, well, I'm going to get mine by doing something that is outside the law? I mean, this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. All cultural realities play a role in what goes on in the minds of poor people. When everyone they come in contact with has more and better everything, and they are working just as hard, what role does that play. When hope is lost, what's left? Caring about their communities? Education? Why bother? Life never changes -- not for the folks who try to work their asses off to get out, and not for those who sit on stoops at night drinking 40s. Imagine that existence. Not a lot of positive things come from consigning people to an existence of despair.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Let’s make a budget, then, and put your theory to the test. Pre-tax income ($7.25 an hour x 40 hours x 52 weeks x 2 parents) -- $30,160

This calculator USDA Calculator from the USDA allows us to calculate the costs of raising a child per year up to age 18. I entered 1 child under 1, one child at 3, and 1 child at 5 years old – two parents, in the Midwest. I came to $21,918 a year to raise children, a little below the national average cost of $22,246. $30,160 – 21,918 = $7,914 left for the two adults to live on.

Obviously they can’t afford a car, so let’s pay $1.50 a fare each way on a bus to and from work. That comes to $6 a day, or $1560 a year. We are down to $6,354.
They have to eat, right? Or else, who is going to work those shitty jobs and take care of the kids? Even though these are two adults, I’m only going to assign each of them what it costs for food each year for one of their kids. $920 x 2 = $1840 per year. We’re down to $4500.

The companies who own the businesses where these people work are probably going to want the parents to wear clothing when they go to work – shoes, pants, shirts. Let’s say they each only buy a single pair of shoes this year at $50, and 3 sets of clothing at $240. That’s $480 for clothes for both parents per year and $100 more for shoes -- $3934 and counting.

Let’s go crazy and say that one of them has to go to the doctor – dad hurt his back at work. Not without insurance, right? Thanks to Obamacare, the family can get insurance for $600 a year, but that doesn’t come without deductibles. Let’s say the first $1000 is out of pocket, and there is a co-pay of $8 on the muscle relaxers and pain medication the doctor prescribed, and dad has to take these medications for two months ($16). And of course, the co-pay for the doctor’s visit of $15. That’s $1031. We’re at $2903. Let’s be generous and say the utility bills these folks have to pay at $1500 a year. That leaves $1403 to pay Uncle Sam what they owe and we’ve accounted for every penny.

Not another dime for one other thing. No vacation days. Nothing but sitting in our furniture-less, TV-less, run-down apartment for us every night after working a crap job and sending our kids to garbage schools that are the best available in the only place we could afford to live. For the kids, its home from school, do homework, and play outside, where all the crack heads and gang bangers are.

Now, tell me the difference between this family and one that living in poverty. Your contention that two incomes at $7.25 an hour can raise a family of five out of poverty is nonsensical.

While no one will paint poverty or min wage as living a luxurious life, I do think when doing something like this you need to be a bit more calculated in your response. Take into consideration net tax (with EIC is usually a net inflow for the family you described, food voucher programs, rent assistance programs, childcare assistance programs, etc). I think what you would find, is that while not luxurious by any stretch of the imagination, they would be able to survive. The problem comes when it comes time to, perhaps, work their way up and their hourly earnings rise, but their situation doesn't improve b/c programs begin to get phased out. Where is the incentive in that case?

 

[GoIrish41]

But you're not advocating the creation of new, skilled jobs that actually have a high value. You're advocating artificially inflating the hourly wage of people who work low-skill jobs while doing nothing to actually improve the situation of that person other than, literally, throwing money at them.

The problem here is that minimum wage, for example, has been the same for 7 years as prices of just about everything have risen dramatically. It's not artificially inflating the hourly wages -- it's bringing them in line with reality. Every hour an employer pays an employee less in real dollars than he paid him the year before is a cheaper hour for the employer. Employees are getting ripped off when prices go up but their wages stay the same.

 

[GoIrish41]

While no one will paint poverty or min wage as living a luxurious life, I do think when doing something like this you need to be a bit more calculated in your response. Take into consideration net tax (with EIC is usually a net inflow for the family you described, food voucher programs, rent assistance programs, childcare assistance programs, etc). I think what you would find, is that while not luxurious by any stretch of the imagination, they would be able to survive. The problem comes when it comes time to, perhaps, work their way up and their hourly earnings rise, but their situation doesn't improve b/c programs begin to get phased out. Where is the incentive in that case?

So you are suggesting supplementing a family who is not in poverty with programs designed to help people who are in poverty? I mean, they are either poor or they are not. My argument was that a family of 5 being able to be supported by two minimum wage earners. Don't go all liberal here and start supplementing their incomes with my hard-earned tax dollars when Moose clearly says they can do just fine without any handouts.

 

[EddytoNow]

But you're not advocating the creation of new, skilled jobs that actually have a high value. You're advocating artificially inflating the hourly wage of people who work low-skill jobs while doing nothing to actually improve the situation of that person other than, literally, throwing money at them.

Not at all, I'd love to see millions of industrial jobs created so the poor can earn their way out of poverty over two or three generations, like the Irish did. But in the absence of those types of jobs, poverty will continue and probably grow to encompass more and more of the population. And where is it written that $8.50 an hour is what desperate workers (both skilled and unskilled) deserve? That wage is kept artificially low because people are desperate for work of any kind, and because there are people willing to de-humanize and exploit them.

We've tried it your way, which is doing nothing to change the current situation for the poor. As Sarah Palin likes to say, "How's that working out?" The answer to that question depends upon whether you're poor, middle-class, or wealthy.

 

[kmoose]

So you are suggesting supplementing a family who is not in poverty with programs designed to help people who are in poverty? I mean, they are either poor or they are not. My argument was that a family of 5 being able to be supported by two minimum wage earners. Don't go all liberal here and start supplementing their incomes with my hard-earned tax dollars when Moose clearly says they can do just fine without any handouts.

What I've said is that they are not living under the Federal Poverty Level. And I have never said that nothing should be done to help them. In fact, I specifically said:

I believe that people who live in a free society have the obligation to make their best effort to provide for themselves first, and that society should pick them up, when their best effort fails. If they are unwilling to make their best effort, first, then I believe that they forfeit their right to demand help from the rest of society. Others may still choose to help them, and that's fine. But that is their choice.

All I am saying is they are obligated to try their best. Look at the number of poor children born out of wedlock, and then being raised without a father around. That's not their best effort. Social programs are going to have to include mentoring of men, so that someone, somewhere, is reminding them of their responsibilities. Social Programs are going to have to include local involvement and volunteerism. Simply creating jobs is not going to make a man suddenly realize his obligations as a father. Simply creating jobs is not going to make the preteen kid care about school, when his friends' parents aren't enforcing good learning habits on them, and his buddies get to "hang out" instead of "wasting time" in school. I'm not pointing fingers at any race. These issues generally effect ALL races that are poor. But there is an old saying....... "You can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy." Poor people are not going to change habits that have been formed over decades, just because they get a new job and move to a suburb. Not every poor person is in need of "morals counseling", but the hardest hit ones often appear to be the ones most in need of it.

 

[kmoose]

It accounts for food, transportation, clothing, health care, child care and education for the children -- not the parents. Notice I didn't put cable TV, cell phones, video games, computers, vacations -- all of those things are "comfort." Using every resource at your disposal and winding up with nothing -- that's survival.

Overall Annual Estimated Costs

(Household Type = Two Parents, Income = Less Than $61,300, and Region = Midwest)





Housing

Food

Transportation

Clothing

Health Care

Child Care and Education

Other

Total

Your Costs: $6,950 $2,839 $2,714 $1,310 $1,435 $5,195 $1,474 $21,918
National Costs: $7,254 $2,987 $2,886 $1,349 $1,505 $4,945 $1,318 $22,246



Overall Annual Estimated Costs

(Household Type = One Parent and Income = Less Than $61,530)





Housing

Food

Transportation

Clothing

Health Care

Child Care and Education

Other

Total

Your Costs: $6,656 $3,253 $1,943 $831 $1,380 $4,285 $1,341 $19,688
National Costs: $6,656 $3,253 $1,943 $831 $1,380 $4,285 $1,341 $19,688


Q: Then why do those same three kids cost a single adult household less?

A: They don't. A single adult household costs less because there is one less adult factored in.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm proposing "throwing money at the problem". I have said throughout this discussion that good-paying job opportunities are needed. That's not throwing money at the problem. That's working hard and being paid fairly for your work.

That requires, among other things, poor men who want to work, who form stable households and stick around to support their wives and children, etc. And for cultural reasons outlined in the sources linked in my previous posts, those factors aren't present today. Older Progressives seem to valorize the poor based on their experience of a much more culturally coherent post-WWII America. The cultural gap between rich and poor today is massive, and not remotely comparable to what you experienced growing up.

When the poor have a middle-class income, the other things will follow.

Middle class income and stability requires cultural resources that the poor simply don't have.

Things like a Catholic school education, college, better neighborhoods, etc. Advantages that are available to those who can afford them. Until they have the financial means to rise out of poverty, we are spinning our wheels.

Contrary to the Progressive narrative, most of the advantages of growing up wealthy are cultural. Focusing simply on the material trappings of privilege is missing the forest for the trees. And insisting that peace and justice will flower once we (somehow) extend those trappings to everyone is magical thinking.

 

[GoIrish41]

What I've said is that they are not living under the Federal Poverty Level. And I have never said that nothing should be done to help them. In fact, I specifically said:



All I am saying is they are obligated to try their best. Look at the number of poor children born out of wedlock, and then being raised without a father around. That's not their best effort. Social programs are going to have to include mentoring of men, so that someone, somewhere, is reminding them of their responsibilities. Social Programs are going to have to include local involvement and volunteerism. Simply creating jobs is not going to make a man suddenly realize his obligations as a father. Simply creating jobs is not going to make the preteen kid care about school, when his friends' parents aren't enforcing good learning habits on them, and his buddies get to "hang out" instead of "wasting time" in school. I'm not pointing fingers at any race. These issues generally effect ALL races that are poor. But there is an old saying....... "You can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy." Poor people are not going to change habits that have been formed over decades, just because they get a new job and move to a suburb. Not every poor person is in need of "morals counseling", but the hardest hit ones often appear to be the ones most in need of it.

Well, creating jobs would be an excellent start ... lets start there.

Old habits are indeed hard to break, and these habits have been baked in under years of mistreatment and indifference. It isn't just African Americans who have work to do ... its all of us. We, as a nation, have laid the foundation of the problems that we have today, and we, as a nation, need to work to repair them. That requires a level of understanding that, frankly, does not exist today ... not in the black community, and not in the nation. Conversations must be started. Understanding sought. Trust earned, if the problems are going to be rooted out once and for all. But, there has to be a gold ring on this merry go round for people to grab. Otherwise it's more talk in a political year that will fall that has been uttered and heard a thousand times before. Poor people don't want to be political pawns, but in truth, that seems to be the only value they are ever given by anyone outside of their predicaments. It's dehumanizing and destructive to progress. If we decide to add life skills training to credibly good jobs that can lift families from poverty, so be it, as long as it doesn't come across as self-righteous. But the heavy lift here is creating the jobs in the first place, and rooting out bad policies that consign people to lives of poverty. Without that, everything else is just talk that will fall on deaf ears.

 

[RDU Irish]

That requires, among other things, poor men who want to work, who form stable households and stick around to support their wives and children, etc. And for cultural reasons outlined in the sources linked in my previous posts, those factors aren't present today. Older Progressives seem valorize the poor based on their experience of a much more culturally coherent post-WWII America. The cultural gap between rich and poor today is massive, and not remotely comparable to what you experienced growing up.



Middle class income and stability requires cultural reinforcement that the poor simply don't have.



Contrary to the Progressive narrative, most of the advantages of growing up wealthy are cultural. Focusing simply on the material trappings of privilege is missing the forest for the trees. And insisting that peace and justice will flower once we (somehow) extend those trapping to everyone is magical thinking.

BINGO!! It's a simple road map but so much easier to make excuses than to reinforce a path for success that has been proven to work for generations.

I grew up in poverty - but the expectations put upon myself and my siblings made it hard to fail. We had all the advantages without any of the "wealth".

 

[RDU Irish]

Well, creating jobs would be an excellent start ... lets start there.

Old habits are indeed hard to break, and these habits have been baked in under years of mistreatment and indifference. It isn't just African Americans who have work to do ... its all of us. We, as a nation, have laid the foundation of the problems that we have today, and we, as a nation, need to work to repair them. That requires a level of understanding that, frankly, does not exist today ... not in the black community, and not in the nation. Conversations must be started. Understanding sought. Trust earned, if the problems are going to be rooted out once and for all. But, there has to be a gold ring on this merry go round for people to grab. Otherwise it's more talk in a political year that will fall that has been uttered and heard a thousand times before. Poor people don't want to be political pawns, but in truth, that seems to be the only value they are ever given by anyone outside of their predicaments. It's dehumanizing and destructive to progress. If we decide to add life skills training to credibly good jobs that can lift families from poverty, so be it, as long as it doesn't come across as self-righteous. But the heavy lift here is creating the jobs in the first place, and rooting out bad policies that consign people to lives of poverty. Without that, everything else is just talk that will fall on deaf ears.

I disagree - Talk is cheap. Pull up your pants and get to work. If you want to be respected, be respectable.

 

[kmoose]

Well, creating jobs would be an excellent start ... lets start there.

How? If it's so easy, then you must have a clear path to creating these jobs?

Well, creating jobs would be an excellent start ... lets start there.

Old habits are indeed hard to break, and these habits have been baked in under years of mistreatment and indifference. It isn't just African Americans who have work to do ... its all of us. We, as a nation, have laid the foundation of the problems that we have today, and we, as a nation, need to work to repair them. That requires a level of understanding that, frankly, does not exist today ... not in the black community, and not in the nation.

Why do you always insist on classifying the poor as African American, or Black? I specifically said that I was speaking of the poor of ALL races. This is just another example of you trying to paint someone as racist, by substituting "Black" for the words that they are actually using.

It isn't just African Americans who have work to do ... its all of us.

But you resist every notion that poor people have to do their part as well. Because you think that's the same as blaming them. It's not. It's an honest assessment of what needs to be done. And as long as you absolve them of any responsibility, then you are asking only the rest of society to do any actual work.

I would create tax incentives for companies that invest in jobs in poor neighborhoods. But I would also have the police crack down on ANY crime in the neighborhood. If that means that some ethnicity is detained/cited/arrested more often than others............... tough shit! I'd do everything I could to involve the local community in the protection of their jobs at a company facility. No company is going to bring facilities to places where their property, or their employees' property/safety, is at (increased)risk. So you have to clean it up. If you target these jobs at mostly ethnic neighborhoods, then that means that the majority ethnicity is likely to make up the majority of police interactions. Then people will be crying about the institutional racism in the police.

HOWEVER.............

The criminal element will always follow prosperity. As people have more disposable income in these areas, the criminals will certainly try to take it from them. Without good family values, the youth of these areas will be at risk of falling prey to the criminal gangs and/or individual predators. If unchecked, or if allowed to flourish because of some PC bullshit about too many arrests of X ethnicity, then the jobs will simply go away. So you can't just do one, and hope the other follows.

 

[NDohio]

Well, creating jobs would be an excellent start ... lets start there.

Old habits are indeed hard to break, and these habits have been baked in under years of mistreatment and indifference. It isn't just African Americans who have work to do ... its all of us. We, as a nation, have laid the foundation of the problems that we have today, and we, as a nation, need to work to repair them. That requires a level of understanding that, frankly, does not exist today ... not in the black community, and not in the nation. Conversations must be started. Understanding sought. Trust earned, if the problems are going to be rooted out once and for all. But, there has to be a gold ring on this merry go round for people to grab. Otherwise it's more talk in a political year that will fall that has been uttered and heard a thousand times before. Poor people don't want to be political pawns, but in truth, that seems to be the only value they are ever given by anyone outside of their predicaments. It's dehumanizing and destructive to progress. If we decide to add life skills training to credibly good jobs that can lift families from poverty, so be it, as long as it doesn't come across as self-righteous. But the heavy lift here is creating the jobs in the first place, and rooting out bad policies that consign people to lives of poverty. Without that, everything else is just talk that will fall on deaf ears.

I have been trying to hire a service technician in Charleston, SC for 8 months. We have used Monster, put ads in the paper, used the state hiring agency(SC Works), and just recently did a job fair on a military base. The job is not that complicated - basic mechanical aptitude and a clean driving record(they will drive a company vehicle[with all gas paid for]) are the two most basic requirements. The job pays $18.00 an hour and has full benefits(including the insurance premium being paid for by the company!). Between the folks that can't pass the drug test or have a DUI on their license I get either one of two responses: A) why would I take a job for $18.00 when I can sit at home and live the same lifestyle, or B) nope - that's not enough money. I have interviewed ~ 25 applicants and am beyond frustrated. The job is in a new market for us and the opportunity to move up the ladder as we grow this market is there for the taking. There are a lot of people that flat out do not want to work because they are too comfortable in their current environment while receiving assistance. How do we change that?

 

[GoIrish41]

How? If it's so easy, then you must have a clear path to creating these jobs?

I'd start with clean energy. American workers could be the leader in the development and production of solar panels, wind turbines, etc. They could be put to work replacing aging infrastructure like our century old power grid and manufacturing and installing new water systems to replace those that are failing all over the country. The electrical wiring that could connect wind farms in the deserts or on our shores have to be connected to the grid to be useful -- those are jobs that Americans could fill. Repair our crumbling highways and bridges -- make the investments that will put people to work FDR style and offer poor people the dignity of work to take care of their families. Around these investments would inevitably pop up new industries to support them -- much like the states that saw the rise of auto parts manufacturers thrive as Detroit was at its height. The jobs that went away since the 80s are not coming back. Any presidential candidate who says that they are going to bring jobs back are blowing smoke. Replacing those jobs with new industries is how we get jobs back on our shores.

What I'm trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to do is to point out that all of the blame does not fall on the poor. While they certainly played a role in shaping the outcome, we -- all of us, them, us, our parents, grandparents, and so forth, share in the blame for this situation -- by not doing what was right 100 years ago, 20 years ago, and last year. We allowed poverty to take hold and fester in our society, and here we are. Of course poor people have to do the hard work of climbing out of poverty -- nobody is arguing that they do not. But when there are structural obstacles keeping that from happening, they should be removed. These are the things that Eddy and I and a few others have been talking about for the past couple of days in this thread.

I'm sure you'll tell me why I'm wrong about this, but it seems the argument from your side is to reject the responsibility that made the negative circumstances not only possible, but inevitable in the first place -- to focus only on the negative circumstances. This includes refusing to consider that structural changes would enable the change we all say that we want. And, frankly, I don't get that.

There are deep problems in impoverished neighborhoods -- cultural problems, no doubt. Understanding how those problems came about is the beginning of finding solutions, in my estimation. Scolding folks who have lost hope and telling them to suck it up and get with the program has never worked. I'm not sure I understand why anyone would think continuing down that road would somehow change the dynamic. And yes, they too have lots of work to do if there is going to be change on the poverty front. But so do we all.

I'm not poor but I try to see the world from their point of view. Their lives are needlessly complicated by political decisions beyond their control. They have no hope of changing their circumstances without help of fair minded people. Incidentally, as this is the Presidential race thread, that is why many of them look to the Democrats -- because they, like me, believe the rhetoric of the Republicans seems to clearly indicate that the GOP is not on their side. A little empathy for their history, their circumstances, and their perspective, goes a long way. Democrats have made it their business to demand political change that will level the playing field for the poor. Republicans have not.

It isn't and has never been at easy as insisting poor people pull themselves up by their bootstraps and change their wicked ways. If it was that simple, so many more would have done that already and we wouldn't be having this discussion. There are a lot of forces that make that sort of change very difficult -- some in their communities, some from outside forces. We would all do better to understand that both sides have made mistakes. And it is unfair to heap all the blame on a group of people who have had every roadblock put in front of them -- often for generations.

I appreciate that you think I'm absolving them of any responsibility. I'm not. They share in the blame for this, too, and have lots to do to correct the problems in their communities. Do you appreciate that by placing all of the blame on them, that we are absolving ourselves of any responsibility for what we have done, as a country, to these people? I've been to the worst neighborhoods in Baltimore, to the coal regions of West Virginia, to horrible neighborhoods in Oakland and Washington, D.C. Poverty isn't some regional blip where some great disaster caused people to be confronted with terrible circumstances, its a nationwide problem that needs to be solved by the nation.