Why are the poor, poor?

[Artiste]

May I repeat one post:

       A number of posts here have mentioned forms of involuntary labor as de facto slavery, but you don't have to find parallels -- chattel slavery is alive and well.  Some of the worst examples are in Africa, with the worst and most brutal conditions being in Sudan and Mauritania. 

Interestingly, trafficking in human beings has replaced the drug traffic as the most widespread and lucrative illicit business on the planet.


             

[Artiste]

And thank you Marge_Innavera !

And now such slavery starting too secretly in the USA, Canada, and other so-called free countries ?


Au revoir,
hugs!

[Luvlylittlewing]

Lotta trouble with that article.

And this Yet, although work and marriage are reliable lad­ders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both.

You do know that marriage has a failure rate of about 50%?  So what if a poor person marries?  There is a good chance they'll be divorced soon and right back where they started.  So much for that "reliable ladder".   

A lot of women get pregnant not because of the good ole welfare benefits, but in hopes that the child's father will marry her.   And even if he does, what if he is out of work?  Where is the ladder out of poverty in these cases?

[Luvlylittlewing]

Now, the Iraq War is hardly the gold standard for success or cost-effectiveness, so in that sense it's an unappealing comparison. On the other hand, the War on Poverty undoubtedly hasn't killed as many people, hasn't caused as many people to hate us, and so far seems to have made more people better off.

Let's hope we're not having this same discussion about the effectiveness of the Iraq War in 40 years!

Amen!

[Artiste]

Wow, guess with Iraq and other such areas, we will be like in film for unknown years!

And poverty will increase for us all ?

[Artiste]

The thing is that:
1- the rich are getting too rich;
2- the poor are getting to be too poor and starve;
3- and, there is becoming no more middle class in the world ??

What to think about that?

Au revoir,
hugs!

[brokeplex]

Not quite that simple. First of all, the poverty rate was reduced 8% nationally in the following 10 years, not 45.

From Wikipedia:

In the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level to date: 11.1% . They have remained between 11 and 15.2% ever since. Since 1973 poverty has remained well below the historical U.S. averages in the range of 20-25%

What economic and cultural contributions have been made by those millions of would-be poor people who are instead taxpaying productive citizens -- helping pay for those very programs!    -- is a more complex calculation than I am able to make. What I can say is that there are millions of people out there who probably do not consider the project a failure.



 

Here's something I just noticed: On an annual basis, the War on Poverty has cost about as much as the War in Iraq: about $100 billion a year. (The WoP has cost $5 trillion over 45 years; the WiI has cost $500 billion over 5 years).

Now, the Iraq War is hardly the gold standard for success or cost-effectiveness, so in that sense it's an unappealing comparison. On the other hand, the War on Poverty undoubtedly hasn't killed as many people, hasn't caused as many people to hate us, and so far seems to have made more people better off.

Let's hope we're not having this same discussion about the effectiveness of the Iraq War in 40 years!

this was your quotation:

"When the War on Poverty was introduced in 1964, the U.S. poverty rate was 19 percent. Over the following decade, it dropped to 11 percent, and currently hovers around 12 percent."

1964 LBJ War on Poverty starts and poverty rate is 19%. Curently it hovers around 12%  lets see ( 19 minus 12 = 7 ) sure looks like it came down a full 7% points from the 1964 numbers, and for the trillion dollar tax investment, that is sorry! any private sector company with that kind of track record would have gone out of business a long time ago. gov just isn't able to succeed in its social engineering programs. the only thing which will permanently lower the poverty rate and keep it lowered is economic opportunity for the underclass, and that will never happen as long as the gov poverty pimps have the poor by the throat.   

[Artiste]

Broketrash merci and, may I pray that that is true !!

Governments in power tend to change the figures and twist them so facts are towards their favour!!

I know of data changed when government in power changed the regulations when it came to the unemployed; even them could not contest the persons living on the streets, but it did not count those, unfortunately!

Nevertheless, 12 percent for me is way too high for any civilisation !! Right ?

Au revoir,
hugs!  We need job create to get the economy going, not slaves nor starving persons who can not purchase item (s) made in one's country !! - may I say !!

[brokeplex]

My idea is basically to educate women. By educating women, you are educating their children (and thus future generations) as well. And not just what you can learn in the public education system but practical living tools and survival techniques as well. Currently many poor women either willingly or unwillingly serve as free entertainment for idle men. With education and self-esteem, they can learn to say no, why to say no, alternatives to pursue, and how to deliver a swift kick to the groin. They need to know the birth control options, and there is absolutely no rhyme or reason why forced abortions, sterilization, or chastity belts or whatever else you have in mind should even be considered! Even tho birth control is the domain of the female, technology has managed to introduce new safe nonhumiliating reasonably priced methods. Yes, we have male birth control, they are called condoms and how well have they worked among poor men, among men in general? Piss-poor is how.

In societies where women are educated and have some measure of self-esteem, family size goes down, crime goes down, and quality of life rises. Women hold the key.

Exactly, that is the type of thoughtful response that keeps a discussion going! I agree education is a key to understanding how to take control of one's life, whether you are a male of female. How many times many of us had wished that Ennis and Jack had more options.

As I said in an earlier post on this thread. Both women and men have to take responsibility for the decisions which lead to poverty. I especially like the "swift kick to the groin". Women need to stand up for their individual autonomy and not let skanky men dog them and then move on to the next victim. That man who dogs you is not going to help you with the baby. And there is the problem, we the tax payers get stuck with paying the bill for the work of the dog and the woman who allowed him in. "kick him in the groin" by all means.

You last sentence is especially correct, among heterosexual men, women hold the key!

[brokeplex]

Well, in defense of one of the few parts of broketrash's agenda that I agreed with, I must point out that slaves didn't get paid, weren't allowed to select different employment options, couldn't choose where they wanted to live, had little control over the fates of their children and family members, etc.

To me, as I mentioned in an earlier post, tying welfare benefits to public service reminds me more of Roosevelt's Works Progress Administration and Civilian Conservation Corp, Depression-Era work-relief programs that were considered quite successful. Many public parks still feature beautiful structures built by the WPA.

For many poor people, a big hurdle to being self-supporting is that they've simply never held a job. They aren't used to the procedures and habits. Providing welfare recipients an opportunity to be productive and gain employment experience, while also letting them give back something in return for their benefits, has always seemed to me like a good thing, so I've never quite understood the objection to it. Maybe I'm missing something, though. 

Of course, it goes without saying that if people are expected to work, they must have access to affordable child care, transportation and so on.


Yes, I agree, and as broketrash also said, the structure of the system contains disincentives to work harder, save, get married -- the very things that would help people become more self-sufficient. Doesn't mean the whole baby should be thrown out with the bathwater, but it does seem it could use some fixin.

good point about the child care and the transportation. all these factors must come together in order to achieve a solution that breaks the present paradigm. and by the way, it is not just liberals who are blocking progress in this area. some conservatives would rather give a moral lecture than find a solution. what I have tried to do, is find answers that have worked in the past here in the US, and are working in other countries.

we will have to as a society consider all of the options if we are ever to break the back of the endless welfare cycle.