Poverty rate growing in state

[TheArtist]

Poor getting poorer, rich getting richer. In a global economy when we have a 30% drop out rate on the one hand and others getting higher learning and starting their own businesses and selling to ever more people. Why shouldnt we expect the drop outs to make less and the others to make more?

That working hard bs isnt going to do anyone any good. Working smart will. Working hard and smart is practically a guarantee.

Working hard in a global economy means your on the level of some rice farmer in China. Not gonna make you a fortune there.

With a 30% drop out rate, those people are not going up no matter how good the economy gets. And frankly I dont think they should. Thats not how the world should work. Why would anyone pay them more? You dont just pay people more for no reason. Especially in a global economy where those people have put themselves on a par with some rice farmer in China.  

Education + Effort = Earnings  

Working hard and stupid you might as well be an ox pulling a cart, and earn about as much. If that ox could program a computer it might make some money. If it created a new computer product and sold it to hundreds of millions on a world market. It would indeed be very very rich. No matter how rich the programmer gets or the entrepreneur gets, that ox is still going to make the same amount or less as he becomes more and more redundant.  

Education + Effort = Earnings

Plug in the initial amounts and see what the results are.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

With a 30% drop out rate, those people are not going up no matter how good the economy gets. And frankly I dont think they should. Thats not how the world should work. Why would anyone pay them more? You dont just pay people more for no reason.

We are talking about the bottom rung of the wage ladder... and we are talking about the working poor who have family... they have children... there used to be this odd, old fashioned concept... I think it was a goal called "equal opportunity."

Getting paid flat, stagnant wages is a WAGE CUT over time.  Plain and simple.  It doesn't keep up with inflation.  When I get a "cost of living increase" at work, it isn't because I did a good job.  It's because we all recognize that the price of groceries goes up, your rent goes up... and the price of gas... the price of fast food items goes up.... etc, etc...

Nobody who ever spent their life getting cost of living adjustments ever made themselves wealthy...

Please don't underestimate the power of insisting that the bottom rung and most vulnerable of our workers make wages that don't shrivel in the face of inflation... think about how much gas cost?... and how much food cost ten years ago... how much was rent 10 years ago?... then tell me how people could be expected to work for stagnant wages at or near $5.15 per hour for an entire 10 years...

[Double A]

The average CEO makes 347 times what the average employee makes and the ranks of the working poor are growing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the rich are getting richer and the rest of us are getting poorer.

[swake]

There is a general lack of compassion for human beings that are not monetarily successful in this part of the country. It's "by your own bootstraps" mentality that I mentioned before.

It is a moral failure of our regional culture, just like our high divorce rate and high unwed mother rate. Places with better social and governmental support networks for the poor and disadvantaged are places with less poverty and higher incomes. And these places have lower rates of welfare, divorce and less unwed mothers and often have less crime. Is this all related? I think certainly think so.

[rwarn17588]

I get what you're talking about the "regional culture," swake, but I think it's a lot more pervasive than that.

I think a huge number of Americans think that poverty is self-inflicted. I encountered this mind-set in Illinois as well as Oklahoma. It's everywhere. They think it's a bunch of people who made bad decisions that prove to have lifetime repercussions.

It could be any number of things: getting yourself pregnant, knocking up a girl, dropping out of high school, drinking too much, drugging too much, running up credit cards, running up big medical bills, etc. Any one of those things can set you back financially in a big way.

Yes, you do have a certain number of people in poverty because of plain bad luck. I suspect it's a relatively small number, although I have no data on this.

I used to be one of those "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" guys when I was younger. But as I get older, I remember times in which I made decisions that put me on the precipice of poverty. Maybe I kept my head. Maybe I took enough precautions. Maybe I simply got lucky.

Regardless, I'm not nearly as inclined to slough off poor people as I used to. I could have been one of them.

I still say education is the best antidote to poverty. A college education may cost tens of thousands of dollars, but most graduates will get all that money back and then some in a relatively short time. A college education is a really good investment.

But I think one thing that needs to be taught more in high schools are home economics classics -- emphasis on economics. Learn how to balance a checkbook. Learn that off-brand food is nearly as good as name brands. Learn to budget. Learn to read the fine print on a credit-card contract, home mortgage or car payment schedule. Start small when buying a home. It staggers me to know how many young people are oblivious about finances such as this.

[iplaw]

quote:I still say education is the best antidote to poverty. A college education may cost tens of thousands of dollars, but most graduates will get all that money back and then some in a relatively short time. A college education is a really good investment.

But I think one thing that needs to be taught more in high schools are home economics classics -- emphasis on economics. Learn how to balance a checkbook. Learn that off-brand food is nearly as good as name brands. Learn to budget. Learn to read the fine print on a credit-card contract, home mortgage or car payment schedule. Start small when buying a home. It staggers me to know how many young people are oblivious about finances such as this.

I agree 100%, but isn't this just a variation of the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" argument.  It takes effort and tenacity to get an education.  Even then, all the education in the world won't be of any benefit to you if you choose not to implement what you've learned.  Even with two advanced degrees I could have decided not to act on my education and I could be dirt poor right now.  

IOW, even education can't obviate the need for each of us to get up every day and take deliberate and calculated actions that help create success.

There is no other place on the planet like the U S and A that offers you the ability to make something of yourself...even without an education.  Hard work and dedication are two things that are RARELY unrewarded in this society.  Look at the guy in the Pursuit of Happyness for example.  

[rwarn17588]

Iplaw, I guess what I've driving at (which I didn't convey very well) is that I'm still a "pull up bootstraps" type of guy. But I also realize I'm quite lucky and that just because you espouse self-reliance doesn't mean you should throw away your compassion and empathy. I've been too close to the other side to simply not care.

[iplaw]

I'm in agreement with ya then...

I guess it also depends on what we mean by compassion and empathy.  I can feel bad for the poor all day long and it won't help them, and I can have compassion on them and temporarily help in a time of need, but that again really won't solve anything in the long term (except make me feel good about myself for what a nice guy I am)...which incidentally is why I enjoy serving the community from time to time (probably should more often).

The only long term solution to poverty is hard work and education.

I can't imagine looking down on someone for having less than me, but I do often wonder why I chose early in life to make decisions that enabled me to be successful now...

[cannon_fodder]

The following is long because many issues were raised.  I tried to be very clear in my response and organized.  I am happy to respond and discuss so long as you attempt to be equally clear and civil - my guess is that in the end, we are not that far from the same position.


1) I am not an elitist.  
I am firmly middle class.  I drive a 1999 Nissan Altima, my wife a 2000 Taurus.  We live in a 1350 Sq foot house we bought for $84,600 in 2003.  I have $77,000.00 in student loans.  My son goes to public schools.  Of the extra money that I do have; I donate to several schools and scholarship programs, the Tulsa Zoo, and various other charities.

That's square in the middle of the road and my only proximity to the upper class is that they are a mile down the road from me.  I plan on working hard, saving some money, and moving there myself someday.  Then I may be an elitist, but I do not think I'm there yet...

2) Minimum Wage increases will not improve the poverty rate.
If government dictation of wages had a real effect on the economy I would be in favor of dictating $50,000 for everyone.  Poof, everyone is middle class and all is well in the world.  The same reasons that will not work, are the same reasons attempting to effect poverty with a minimum wage will not work.

3) I have no sympathy for consumers who live beyond their means and rack up CC debt, payday loans, or mortgages they can not afford.  

The people and companies that make money off of them are clearly an enabling force but you discredit "the poor" when you pretend they are so dumb as to not understand that credit card companies charge high rates.  The people who rack up these debts can struggle to pay them off as I struggle to pay off my debts.  If you take a $300,000 mortgage out on $50,000 in income you have fooled yourself and will probably lose your house.  Likewise, the companies that make these loans get no sympathy when they go bad and are uncollectable.  

The alternative situation would be for the government to tell everyone what kind of house they are allowed to live in and how much money that can barrow.  Not only is that an affront to the capitalist foundations of our country, but our notions of free enterprise, property, choice, and personal responsibility.  The more involved the government is in your life, the less free you are -PERIOD.

There are people worthy of sympathy that are forced to rack of CC debt or default due to serious problems.  However, from my experience in bankruptcy those people are the extreme minority.

4) Entitlement programs really do not help anyone in the long run.  People get used to suckling from the government and study after study have shown a pattern of addiction to government entitlement.  I think that money could be spent number better attempting to FIX THE PROBLEM than just handed out.  Hand a man a fish...

Not to mention, everyone knows we can not really afford to fund our entitlement programs going into the future.  They are unfunded promises waiting to default.  Not a good policy.

A social safety net is an extremely powerful tool to help keep members of society productive and happy.  A government teet to be sucked upon for life degrades the quality of life and sentences large sectors of society into poverty.

5) If the poor get poorer, why is their nearly half the poverty today that there was in the 1950's and 1960's?  

The truth is the rich ARE getting richer, and the poor are getting richer too.  In a historical sense our rich are not nearly as rich as the Robber Barrons of yore, nor are our poor as squallered as the immigrant ghetto's of the same age.  The anecdotes are not supported by the actual data.  

Such cliche's are great for bumper stickers, but serve no useful purpose beyond that and remain detached from reality.  I agree that all is not well, but that statement is patently false.

6) If you are in a job in which your wages are flat, do something!

You act like the poor lowly worker must cower before industry and can't do anything for themselves.  How pathetic, how rude.  Most of the great industries in this nation were created by workers who got fed up with their employers and struck out on their own.  Look at the Fortune 500 and do a check on many of those companies... TONS of them are headed by self made men.

Instead of looking at them and lamenting, even loathing their success - why not mimic it?  If your employment terms are not fair and you are worth more, go forth and get it.  Often you will find you are not worth more in the market place, in which case MAKE YOURSELF WORTH MORE.  Go get some free government loans and get an education or job training.  Sell your new skills.

If you still believe your skills are worth more than the market will pay, prove it.  Start your own company, build the better mouse trap, and the world will pay you what you're really worth. Complaining about the man keeping you down garners no sympathy from me when you remain firmly seated in the company break room.


7) If one is not expected to help himself, then who is expected to help him?

Of course I expect people to lift themselves up "by their bootsraps."  I am happy to have the government provide a shoehorn in the form of social security, medicaid, section 8, title 19, food stamps, wic, small business loans and development, and the litany of other government programs.  But in the end, if that person can not help themselves the government can do nothing more than sustain them.  There is  NO WAY a government can do more than sustain a population - it can not give away enough money to make every prosperous.
- - - -


I agree there are actual issues that should be addressed.  I do not disagree that governmental aid is essential to a functioning society, but I believe that aid should be geared towards empowering people to support themselves.  The answer is not to punish the successful, to beg the government for scraps, nor to discourage industry.

At the end of the day the government can attempt to create opportunity but it cannot make success come to fruition no matter how hard it tries.  Without a labored effort by the individual, government sustained poverty is all that can be expected... and that is not acceptable to most.  Reroute handouts to initiatives to create better jobs, educated the workforce, and encourage entrepreneurship.

At the end of the day, I want exactly the same thing you want.  I want to see a prosperous America with a strong and growing middle class. We just differ on what we think the best way of getting there is.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by swake

There is a general lack of compassion for human beings that are not monetarily successful in this part of the country. It's "by your own bootstraps" mentality that I mentioned before.

It is a moral failure of our regional culture, just like our high divorce rate and high unwed mother rate. Places with better social and governmental support networks for the poor and disadvantaged are places with less poverty and higher incomes. And these places have lower rates of welfare, divorce and less unwed mothers and often have less crime. Is this all related? I think certainly think so.

Are you serious?  That makes absolutely ZERO sense.  "...better governmental support networks for the poor and disadvantaged..." I suppose you are talking of such utopian places like New Orleans, LA, and Detroit?  Plenty of social programs to go around in those nice low-crime havens.

One of my favorite proverbs is: "Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day.  Teach a man to fish and you've fed him for life."

USR-

You obviously are suffering from class envy.

Demonizing and penalizing the wealthiest segment of our society who provide the bulk of private sector jobs either through direct involvement or re-investment of their millions and billions is ludicrous.  They also provide the bulk of personal income tax dollars of which comes social programs which are supposed to help the down-trodden.

I'm hardly an elitest, I don't have a problem with raising minimum wage (I have a problem believing that is a panacea for the average worker, and am convinced it is not the remedy for poverty).  Minimum wage is for entry-level jobs in the marketplace.  Anyone who choses to stay on that rung of the ladder isn't trying real hard to better themselves.  

I was against bankruptcy reform which favored higher profits for abusive credit card companies over working stiffs who are constantly de-frauded over variable and fluid fine print in their lending agreements.

There are plenty of people who graduated from the same high school you did and came from similar circumstances as yourself growing up who are now doing quite well for themselves.  Speaking to choice, one of your fellow alumni a few years older than you started out at tech learning to be a body man.  He worked in a body shop for a year, realized he'd never get anywhere, and went back to school, eventually became a chiropractor and aside from that practice, he also now owns quite a bit of retail space around town and employs people at good (above poverty-level) wages in his practice and other business interests.

People who work with their brains are typically paid more than those who work with their backs and hands.  That's just the way it is.  No one holds a gun to someone's head and tells them to be a concrete finisher instead of becoming a construction manager or structural engineer.  No one says that concrete finisher can't start his own business and hire people for less than he makes while he sits behind a desk or goes from site to site handing out quotes.  That's just the way free-enterprise works.  No one starts a business to wind up making less than their employees.  Some jobs pay more than others either due to skill or educational requirements.

Three of my four grandparents all grew up on farms in the first couple of decades in the last century, the other grew up in a nasty west Texas cattle town.  All four were among the first generation in their families to go to college.

Each of them made a choice.  Stay at poverty level with small family farms in a dust bowl during an evolving economy, or decide to get better educated as the midwest and south transitioned out of an agrarian economy.  Both my grandmothers were teachers, one grandfather wound up in financial services, the other an engineer focusing on the oil patch.

I made a choice 20-some years ago to get out of dead-end minimum wage-paying jobs.  I could have stayed in that realm, or gone off on drugs and eventually been institutionalized at tax-payer expense, or I could educate myself and put forth my best effort to get somewhere.  I didn't have a parent depositing money in my bank account every week to account for my own financial short-falls.  I dropped out of college and worked in a several pud jobs along the way until I wound up in sales.  Either my timing is impeccable with economic up-swings or I must be good at what I do as I've brought growth to every company I've worked for.  

I get rewarded commensurate with my contribution to the company kitty.  That's the way it works.  My job helps provide the payroll for others.  I'm rewarded for it.  Sorry there are people who think it sucks I'm paid more than the people who are the beneficiary of my own hard work which provides a paycheck for them.  If it paid better for me to weld or fit pipe, then I'd do that, and the company would have a hard time finding someone to sell at a crappy wage because they could make more money as a worker bee.

I'm quite compassionate toward the poor, and do what I can via private contributions.  I know how lives can change irrevocably in a second and people can wind up in circumstances they'd never believe they would face.  However, I just don't believe confiscatory taxes on the biggest producers and government intervention are the cure for poverty.

[rwarn17588]

Artist says:

5) If the poor get poorer, why is their nearly half the poverty today that there was in the 1950's and 1960's?

<end clip>

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm betting it's largely because of Social Security.

Before SS, you had a great number of people who, when they got old, lived in poverty or had to move in with younger family members. Social Security pulled a great many old people out of poverty and more independence.

[cannon_fodder]

1) Social Security Income is not enough to raise a single non-working adult out of poverty.  

2)
a)Social Security taxes are higher than social security payouts (more goes in than out).  
b) No one is exempt for social security taxes.
c) Thus, they are more likely than not to drive low income person INTO poverty than lift people out of it.

3) Income from Governmental Programs IS NOT COUNTED in the poverty statistics.  Section 8, Title 19, Food stamps, welfare, medicaid, medicare, social security or other entitlements are not counted as income.

Therefor, Social Security has NO POSITIVE EFFECT, whatsoever, on the poverty official level.  It may have an effect on actual quality of life, but not the statistics - which are based on household earnings.

QED

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by swake

There is a general lack of compassion for human beings that are not monetarily successful in this part of the country. It's "by your own bootstraps" mentality that I mentioned before.

It is a moral failure of our regional culture, just like our high divorce rate and high unwed mother rate. Places with better social and governmental support networks for the poor and disadvantaged are places with less poverty and higher incomes. And these places have lower rates of welfare, divorce and less unwed mothers and often have less crime. Is this all related? I think certainly think so.

Are you serious?  That makes absolutely ZERO sense.  "...better governmental support networks for the poor and disadvantaged..." I suppose you are talking of such utopian places like New Orleans, LA, and Detroit?  Plenty of social programs to go around in those nice low-crime havens.

One of my favorite proverbs is: "Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day.  Teach a man to fish and you've fed him for life."

USR-

You obviously are suffering from class envy.

Demonizing and penalizing the wealthiest segment of our society who provide the bulk of private sector jobs either through direct involvement or re-investment of their millions and billions is ludicrous.  They also provide the bulk of personal income tax dollars of which comes social programs which are supposed to help the down-trodden.

I'm hardly an elitest, I don't have a problem with raising minimum wage (I have a problem believing that is a panacea for the average worker, and am convinced it is not the remedy for poverty).  Minimum wage is for entry-level jobs in the marketplace.  Anyone who choses to stay on that rung of the ladder isn't trying real hard to better themselves.  

I was against bankruptcy reform which favored higher profits for abusive credit card companies over working stiffs who are constantly de-frauded over variable and fluid fine print in their lending agreements.

There are plenty of people who graduated from the same high school you did and came from similar circumstances as yourself growing up who are now doing quite well for themselves.  Speaking to choice, one of your fellow alumni a few years older than you started out at tech learning to be a body man.  He worked in a body shop for a year, realized he'd never get anywhere, and went back to school, eventually became a chiropractor and aside from that practice, he also now owns quite a bit of retail space around town and employs people at good (above poverty-level) wages in his practice and other business interests.

People who work with their brains are typically paid more than those who work with their backs and hands.  That's just the way it is.  No one holds a gun to someone's head and tells them to be a concrete finisher instead of becoming a construction manager or structural engineer.  No one says that concrete finisher can't start his own business and hire people for less than he makes while he sits behind a desk or goes from site to site handing out quotes.  That's just the way free-enterprise works.  No one starts a business to wind up making less than their employees.  Some jobs pay more than others either due to skill or educational requirements.

Three of my four grandparents all grew up on farms in the first couple of decades in the last century, the other grew up in a nasty west Texas cattle town.  All four were among the first generation in their families to go to college.

Each of them made a choice.  Stay at poverty level with small family farms in a dust bowl during an evolving economy, or decide to get better educated as the midwest and south transitioned out of an agrarian economy.  Both my grandmothers were teachers, one grandfather wound up in financial services, the other an engineer focusing on the oil patch.

I made a choice 20-some years ago to get out of dead-end minimum wage-paying jobs.  I could have stayed in that realm, or gone off on drugs and eventually been institutionalized at tax-payer expense, or I could educate myself and put forth my best effort to get somewhere.  I didn't have a parent depositing money in my bank account every week to account for my own financial short-falls.  I dropped out of college and worked in a several pud jobs along the way until I wound up in sales.  Either my timing is impeccable with economic up-swings or I must be good at what I do as I've brought growth to every company I've worked for.  

I get rewarded commensurate with my contribution to the company kitty.  That's the way it works.  My job helps provide the payroll for others.  I'm rewarded for it.  Sorry there are people who think it sucks I'm paid more than the people who are the beneficiary of my own hard work which provides a paycheck for them.  If it paid better for me to weld or fit pipe, then I'd do that, and the company would have a hard time finding someone to sell at a crappy wage because they could make more money as a worker bee.

I'm quite compassionate toward the poor, and do what I can via private contributions.  I know how lives can change irrevocably in a second and people can wind up in circumstances they'd never believe they would face.  However, I just don't believe confiscatory taxes on the biggest producers and government intervention are the cure for poverty.

Your argument pointless, off base and you are attrubuting positions to me that I have not taken.

Class envy? No, but I do have a somewhat impersonal education in what I am talking about. When I was younger my father was the head psychologist a maximum security prison and my mother was the supervisor of a child abuse investigation unit. I got to hear a lot about a some of the people I'm talking about coming and going.

We are a wealthy enough nation that everyone should have basic food, shelter and healthcare.  It's simple and not as costly as NOT doing that.

An example. Shelter and basic healthcare for the homeless. We don't provide this as a society. But we DO pay for not doing so. I have read that the average healthcare bill for a chronically homeless person is over $100,000 dollars a year, for healthcare only.  Add in the cost of the jail time they regulary do, the cost of the charity they receive. Society pays a ton of money for these people, and to keep them in miserable condition. A lot more than we would pay to keep them in some basic form.

We all know that kids that grow up desperate with food and shelter insecurity are much less like to not complete high school and are much more likely to have kids at a young age and to become drug addicts and yes, criminals. Kids that grow up in abusive homes are off the charts with all of those problems and they in turn have lots of kids just like them. We spend nearly nothing on investigating child abuse.  What is the annual healthcare bill for a street drug user? What the annual cost to keep someone in prison? What does it cost in welfare and healthcare when a 15 year old has a child? When a 20 year old has three? The nice anecdotes about kids overcoming these situations are so rare that they rate being on the nightly news.

I don't think we spend too little money, I think we spend it in the wrong way. We spend far more on a prisoners than we do on students. We all pay far more for healthcare than we should because we have a permanent uninsured underclass that uses emergency rooms as a doctors office. We have a fair to poor education system that we love to complain about, but we pay teachers such a low wage that very few top college graduates would ever consider going into public education. But we certainly pay when they drop out and start stealing or dealing. We pay far more than we would if we just did the right thing.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by swake

There is a general lack of compassion for human beings that are not monetarily successful in this part of the country. It's "by your own bootstraps" mentality that I mentioned before.

It is a moral failure of our regional culture, just like our high divorce rate and high unwed mother rate. Places with better social and governmental support networks for the poor and disadvantaged are places with less poverty and higher incomes. And these places have lower rates of welfare, divorce and less unwed mothers and often have less crime. Is this all related? I think certainly think so.

Are you serious?  That makes absolutely ZERO sense.  "...better governmental support networks for the poor and disadvantaged..." I suppose you are talking of such utopian places like New Orleans, LA, and Detroit?  Plenty of social programs to go around in those nice low-crime havens.

One of my favorite proverbs is: "Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day.  Teach a man to fish and you've fed him for life."

USR-

You obviously are suffering from class envy.

Demonizing and penalizing the wealthiest segment of our society who provide the bulk of private sector jobs either through direct involvement or re-investment of their millions and billions is ludicrous.  They also provide the bulk of personal income tax dollars of which comes social programs which are supposed to help the down-trodden.

I'm hardly an elitest, I don't have a problem with raising minimum wage (I have a problem believing that is a panacea for the average worker, and am convinced it is not the remedy for poverty).  Minimum wage is for entry-level jobs in the marketplace.  Anyone who choses to stay on that rung of the ladder isn't trying real hard to better themselves.  

I was against bankruptcy reform which favored higher profits for abusive credit card companies over working stiffs who are constantly de-frauded over variable and fluid fine print in their lending agreements.

There are plenty of people who graduated from the same high school you did and came from similar circumstances as yourself growing up who are now doing quite well for themselves.  Speaking to choice, one of your fellow alumni a few years older than you started out at tech learning to be a body man.  He worked in a body shop for a year, realized he'd never get anywhere, and went back to school, eventually became a chiropractor and aside from that practice, he also now owns quite a bit of retail space around town and employs people at good (above poverty-level) wages in his practice and other business interests.

People who work with their brains are typically paid more than those who work with their backs and hands.  That's just the way it is.  No one holds a gun to someone's head and tells them to be a concrete finisher instead of becoming a construction manager or structural engineer.  No one says that concrete finisher can't start his own business and hire people for less than he makes while he sits behind a desk or goes from site to site handing out quotes.  That's just the way free-enterprise works.  No one starts a business to wind up making less than their employees.  Some jobs pay more than others either due to skill or educational requirements.

Three of my four grandparents all grew up on farms in the first couple of decades in the last century, the other grew up in a nasty west Texas cattle town.  All four were among the first generation in their families to go to college.

Each of them made a choice.  Stay at poverty level with small family farms in a dust bowl during an evolving economy, or decide to get better educated as the midwest and south transitioned out of an agrarian economy.  Both my grandmothers were teachers, one grandfather wound up in financial services, the other an engineer focusing on the oil patch.

I made a choice 20-some years ago to get out of dead-end minimum wage-paying jobs.  I could have stayed in that realm, or gone off on drugs and eventually been institutionalized at tax-payer expense, or I could educate myself and put forth my best effort to get somewhere.  I didn't have a parent depositing money in my bank account every week to account for my own financial short-falls.  I dropped out of college and worked in a several pud jobs along the way until I wound up in sales.  Either my timing is impeccable with economic up-swings or I must be good at what I do as I've brought growth to every company I've worked for.  

I get rewarded commensurate with my contribution to the company kitty.  That's the way it works.  My job helps provide the payroll for others.  I'm rewarded for it.  Sorry there are people who think it sucks I'm paid more than the people who are the beneficiary of my own hard work which provides a paycheck for them.  If it paid better for me to weld or fit pipe, then I'd do that, and the company would have a hard time finding someone to sell at a crappy wage because they could make more money as a worker bee.

I'm quite compassionate toward the poor, and do what I can via private contributions.  I know how lives can change irrevocably in a second and people can wind up in circumstances they'd never believe they would face.  However, I just don't believe confiscatory taxes on the biggest producers and government intervention are the cure for poverty.

Your argument pointless, off base and you are attrubuting positions to me that I have not taken.

Class envy? No, but I do have a somewhat impersonal education in what I am talking about. When I was younger my father was the head psychologist a maximum security prison and my mother was the supervisor of a child abuse investigation unit. I got to hear a lot about a some of the people I'm talking about coming and going.

We are a wealthy enough nation that everyone should have basic food, shelter and healthcare.  It's simple and not as costly as NOT doing that.

An example. Shelter and basic healthcare for the homeless. We don't provide this as a society. But we DO pay for not doing so. I have read that the average healthcare bill for a chronically homeless person is over $100,000 dollars a year, for healthcare only.  Add in the cost of the jail time they regulary do, the cost of the charity they receive. Society pays a ton of money for these people, and to keep them in miserable condition. A lot more than we would pay to keep them in some basic form.

We all know that kids that grow up desperate with food and shelter insecurity are much less like to not complete high school and are much more likely to have kids at a young age and to become drug addicts and yes, criminals. Kids that grow up in abusive homes are off the charts with all of those problems and they in turn have lots of kids just like them. We spend nearly nothing on investigating child abuse.  What is the annual healthcare bill for a street drug user? What the annual cost to keep someone in prison? What does it cost in welfare and healthcare when a 15 year old has a child? When a 20 year old has three? The nice anecdotes about kids overcoming these situations are so rare that they rate being on the nightly news.

I don't think we spend too little money, I think we spend it in the wrong way. We spend far more on a prisoners than we do on students. We all pay far more for healthcare than we should because we have a permanent uninsured underclass that uses emergency rooms as a doctors office. We have a fair to poor education system that we love to complain about, but we pay teachers such a low wage that very few top college graduates would ever consider going into public education. But we certainly pay when they drop out and start stealing or dealing. We pay far more than we would if we just did the right thing.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by swake



Your argument pointless, off base and you are attrubuting positions to me that I have not taken.

Re-read.  "Class envy" was attributed to USR, not you.

quote:
It is a moral failure of our regional culture, just like our high divorce rate and high unwed mother rate. Places with better social and governmental support networks for the poor and disadvantaged are places with less poverty and higher incomes.

You aren't making sense or I grabbed my obtuse glasses off the nightstand this morning.  If those areas have less poverty and higher incomes, then why do they need better social programs?  Better social and governmental support networks are generally there because their is greater poverty, greater instances of unwed pregnancy, and greater instances of crime.  Just what am I missing here?

If you are implying Tulsa doesn't have good support networks from faith, other private, and government sources- you really aren't in touch with what all our region offers the less fortunate.

quote:

No, but I do have a somewhat impersonal education in what I am talking about. When I was younger my father was the head psychologist a maximum security prison and my mother was the supervisor of a child abuse investigation unit. I got to hear a lot about a some of the people I'm talking about coming and going.

We are a wealthy enough nation that everyone should have basic food, shelter and healthcare.  It's simple and not as costly as NOT doing that.

Everyone does have "basic" food, shelter, and healthcare.  Quit pretending it doesn't exist.  

Welfare, Food Stamps, Section 8, Medicaid.

quote:

An example. Shelter and basic healthcare for the homeless. We don't provide this as a society. But we DO pay for not doing so. I have read that the average healthcare bill for a chronically homeless person is over $100,000 dollars a year, for healthcare only.  Add in the cost of the jail time they regulary do, the cost of the charity they receive. Society pays a ton of money for these people, and to keep them in miserable condition. A lot more than we would pay to keep them in some basic form.

Wait.  We don't pay for it.  No we pay a high price when we don't pay for it.  No, wait, we pay $100K per year for homeless healthcare.  Which is it?

quote:

We all know that kids that grow up desperate with food and shelter insecurity are much less like to not complete high school and are much more likely to have kids at a young age and to become drug addicts and yes, criminals. Kids that grow up in abusive homes are off the charts with all of those problems and they in turn have lots of kids just like them. We spend nearly nothing on investigating child abuse.  What is the annual healthcare bill for a street drug user? What the annual cost to keep someone in prison? What does it cost in welfare and healthcare when a 15 year old has a child? When a 20 year old has three? The nice anecdotes about kids overcoming these situations are so rare that they rate being on the nightly news.

I don't think we spend too little money, I think we spend it in the wrong way. We spend far more on a prisoners than we do on students. We all pay far more for healthcare than we should because we have a permanent uninsured underclass that uses emergency rooms as a doctors office.

We have a fair to poor education system that we love to complain about, but we pay teachers such a low wage that very few top college graduates would ever consider going into public education. But we certainly pay when they drop out and start stealing or dealing. We pay far more than we would if we just did the right thing.

My arguments are no more or less pointless or off-base than yours.  My opinion is, you can't spend someone out of bad habits or poor choices.  I've personally tried too many times with family members and friends.

It's just not possible if the individual doesn't take personal responsibility or initiative.  I recognize there are people with mental and physical addictions and mental illnesses who simply cannot make good choices nor take initiative.

It's like a family trying to make a drug user clean by getting them into re-hab or 12-step.  Until that person is really ready to make a change no matter what level of help comes their way, they aren't going to improve themselves until they are ready to do it for themselves.  That is human nature.

Instead of acknowledging what all of us already know, what is your solution?  Spend less on prisons and law enforcement and put more money into colleges?  Put all poor people into $100K houses so we can feel better about our own success?

I really don't see where you are going with this.