carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (12/16/84)
Continuing my dissection of Alien's article: >[Alien describes how his/her family lived tolerably well under the poverty >line and without food stamps.] I always had adequate food, clothing and >shelter. You are a great inspiration to the millions who don't. See future postings of mine on hunger in America (if I ever get around to writing them). >However, other people with the same or more money had serious problems, even >serious malnutrition. Why? Usually the main reason was vice. Cigarettes, >alcohol, junk food. In general, poor money management. Cigarettes are an addiction, not a vice. Obviously, the poor should give up smoking while the affluent continue to puff away. Alcoholism is a serious and tragic illness, not a vice. Eating junk food is the result of poor education, bombardment with advertising, and various factors which together can be called the "culture of poverty" (see below), but it is not a vice. You forgot to mention gambling. Chronic gambling is an addiction, not a vice. Lots of poor people throw away their money on state lotteries. This is not a vice; it is seen by them as perhaps the only way to escape their dreary world. Don't get me started on lotteries. Well, I suppose they're better than playing the numbers rackets. >I've had some rather enlightening talks with social workers. One family >that spent their entire allowance of Food Stamps on soda and potato chips. >That's all they ate. The rest of their money went to support their father's >4 pack a day habit and alcoholism. Yes, the familiar and comforting image of the shiftless, irresponsible poor. Most non-poor Americans simply don't have the faintest idea of what life is like for most of the poor population. From Michael Harrington: "Here is one of the most familiar forms of the vicious cycle of poverty. The poor get sick more than anyone else in the society. That is because they live in slums, jammed together under unhygenic conditions; they have inadequate diets, and cannot get decent medical care. When they become sick, they are sick longer than any other group in the society. Because they are sick more often and longer than anyone else, they lose wages and work, and find it difficult to hold a steady job. And because of this, they cannot pay for good housing, for a nutritious diet, for doctors. At any given point in the circle, particularly when there is a major illness, their prospect is to move to an even lower level and to begin the cycle, round and round, toward even more suffering.... "Poverty in the US is a culture, an institution, a way of life....The family structure of the poor, for instance, is different from that of the rest of the society. There are more homes without a father, there is less marriage, more early pregnancy and ... markedly different attitudes toward sex. As a result of this, to take but one consequence of the fact, hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions, of children in the other America never know stability and `normal' affection. "Or perhaps the policeman is an even better example. For the middle class, the police protect property, give directions, and help old ladies. For the urban poor, the police are those who arrest you....The outsider is `cop', bill collector, investigator (and in the Negro ghetto, most dramatically, he is `the Man')." >I could go on, but I won't. Thanks, I get enough to turn my stomach from such humanitarians as Ed Meese, our future Attorney General. Finally, a conciliatory note to conservatives who found this article as offensive as I intended it to be: I suggest you read the essays of George Will, the Thinking Man's Conservative, or listen to him holding forth on ABC. George will explain to you, complete with quotations from Chaucer or somebody, why conservatives should be strong supporters of the welfare state. You could also read such books as "The Other America" and "The New American Poverty" by Harrington or "Blaming the Victim" and "Equality" by William Ryan if you wish to discuss the problem of poverty with adults. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (12/18/84)
> >However, other people with the same or more money had serious problems, even > >serious malnutrition. Why? Usually the main reason was vice. Cigarettes, > >alcohol, junk food. In general, poor money management. > > Cigarettes are an addiction, not a vice. Obviously, the poor should give up > smoking while the affluent continue to puff away. Alcoholism is a serious > and tragic illness, not a vice. Eating junk food is the result of poor > education, bombardment with advertising, and various factors which together > can be called the "culture of poverty" (see below), but it is not a vice. > You forgot to mention gambling. Chronic gambling is an addiction, not a > vice. Lots of poor people throw away their money on state lotteries. This > is not a vice; it is seen by them as perhaps the only way to escape their > dreary world. Don't get me started on lotteries. Well, I suppose they're > better than playing the numbers rackets. Vice is a word that I do not like to use. It implies a morality that I do not subscribe to. Addiction and illness are frequently associated with conditions that are hard to reverse or are not a direct consequence of one's actions. Both nicotine and alchohol are physically addicting. Gambling is not. The concept of a psychological addiction is quite useless. Picking your nose, watching t.v. is addicting and compulsively doing good work is addicting. A better word for the "vices" previously mentioned might be "poison." Gambling with money that should be used for shelter or sustenance poisons the household that depends on that money (assuming sufficient losses, as are the norm in both state lotteries and numbers games, 'though a good poker player can actually supplement his income...). The words that are used to label the maladies that often strike the poor should not be the point argued. Quite simply, money is spent on things from the frivolous (soda on top of a healthy diet shouldn't lead the average consumer to an early grave) to the deadly (smoking will) when the money is needed for a proper diet, etc. If the problem is that the poor really are in need of a government supplied set of nutrients then it should be fairly simple to prepare a "people chow" that provides the essential vitamins, minerals and protein. I lived for about four months on a diet of a multi-vitamin, some peanunt butter and cottage cheese each day. People chow could be made in large quantities very inexpensively. Now watch all the people who have been clamoring for food for the hungry shout and scream and say how insensitive such a program is, because it is meets the minimum requirement and provides incentive to get away off it (bland food = incentive). People will say that poverty is a vicious cycle, but when a solution to one of the causes of this cycle does not provide incentive to stay within that cycle then it is usually shot down with cries of "inhumane, unsensitive, etc." Everyone who would like to see food stamps replaced with "People Chow" raise your hands. Those of you without your hands up, please explain to me how your objection to "People Chow" is different from the desire to keep a system that both allows the original goal of the program to be circumvented (i.e. buying potato chips) and supplies the poor with a type of "free money" that will be cut back and eventually revoked as the household income continues to rise. Which would you want to hang on to longer: a guaranteed $xx.xx off each weekly grocery bill or a guaranteed delivery of x lbs. of unsavory sustenance? > >I've had some rather enlightening talks with social workers. One family > >that spent their entire allowance of Food Stamps on soda and potato chips. > >That's all they ate. The rest of their money went to support their father's > >4 pack a day habit and alcoholism. > > Yes, the familiar and comforting image of the shiftless, irresponsible poor. > Most non-poor Americans simply don't have the faintest idea of what life is > like for most of the poor population. From Michael Harrington: So Michael Harrington, by virtue of his ability to write prose, has a better idea of what life is like for most of the poor population, better than Alien who claimed to have grown up in a family whose income was below the poverty line, better than the social workers he has talked to, better than the grade school teachers thaI have talked to... > "Here is one of the most familiar forms of the vicious cycle of poverty. > The poor get sick more than anyone else in the society. That is because > they live in slums, jammed together under unhygenic conditions; they have > inadequate diets, and cannot get decent medical care. When they become > sick, they are sick longer than any other group in the society. Because > they are sick more often and longer than anyone else, they lose wages and > work, and find it difficult to hold a steady job. And because of this, they > cannot pay for good housing, for a nutritious diet, for doctors. At any > given point in the circle, particularly when there is a major illness, their > prospect is to move to an even lower level and to begin the cycle, round and > round, toward even more suffering.... So when the circle is finally broken the poor will be able to rise out of the depths of poverty? Once we institute Food Stamps, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, all the problems of the poor will go away, because they can get decent medical care, adequate diets and good housing and hence get a steady job and get better medical care, etc. What is one flaw in this thinking? There are no jobs. There is a program that systematically discriminates against people who have not held steady jobs and do not have a decent education and who may need more sick days than other people. This program is the minimum wage. The minimum wage prevents people who have marginal job skills from working. If someone, for some reason, does not appear to be worth minimum wage to a prospective employer, the employer and employee may not agree to a lower wage while the new employee developes appropriate skills. This is in the same country that provides a safety net for those that do not have enough money to keep themselves adequately fed/housed, etc. If the government already has this safety net, why is it necessary to also have a minimum wage? Who lobbies the loudest for retaining minimum wage? That's right, the unions. Seems a little strange, when you realize that union members rarely get minimum wage. When unemployment for teenage black youths climbs you will hear politicians, both black and white, suggesting a lowered minimum wage for some special class, either by age or locale. Why do they wait until conditions are almost intolerable before such an idea is proposed? If it were really the poor that our entitlements were set out to help then we wouldn't have a minimum wage. The plain truth is that the majority of all the entitlements/subsidizes/protection programs benefit the middle class much more than they benefit the poor. > "Poverty in the US is a culture, an institution, a way of life....The family > structure of the poor, for instance, is different from that of the rest of > the society. There are more homes without a father, there is less marriage, > more early pregnancy and ... markedly different attitudes toward sex. As a > result of this, to take but one consequence of the fact, hundreds of > thousands, and perhaps millions, of children in the other America never know > stability and `normal' affection. > > "Or perhaps the policeman is an even better example. For the middle class, > the police protect property, give directions, and help old ladies. For the > urban poor, the police are those who arrest you....The outsider is `cop', > bill collector, investigator (and in the Negro ghetto, most dramatically, he > is `the Man')." Thanks for a bit of melodrama to lighten my day, but it doesn't matter whether a police officer is called `the Man' or `a Pig', I am not sure whether it is your editing, or Michael Harrington's style, but that last paragraph is incoherent. What is the policeman a better example of? See my other postings about the police, victimless crimes and the poor. If you want to get the cops off the poor people's backs, legalize all victimless crimes, especially the use, sale and possesion of drugs. This will allow people currently addicted to illegal substances to pay for these substances with much less of an expenditure. The other benefits are too numerous to explain here, but I am easily prompted to elaborate. > >I could go on, but I won't. > > Thanks, I get enough to turn my stomach from such humanitarians as Ed Meese, > our future Attorney General. Finally, a conciliatory note to conservatives > who found this article as offensive as I intended it to be: I suggest you > read the essays of George Will, the Thinking Man's Conservative, or listen > to him holding forth on ABC. George will explain to you, complete with > quotations from Chaucer or somebody, why conservatives should be strong > supporters of the welfare state. You could also read such books as "The > Other America" and "The New American Poverty" by Harrington or "Blaming the > Victim" and "Equality" by William Ryan if you wish to discuss the problem of > poverty with adults. Good ol' George Will, if you objected to the use of the word vice labeling smoking, drinking, etc. you should not turn to George Will. The man is quite the moralist. In addition, he believes that whenever the government acts, it has moral implications, it can't really be neutral about "values." I also believe that, but since I do not cherish shoving my morality down other peoples' throats, I am a libertarian. George Will on our country's founding fathers: "the Founders thought they had devised a system so clever that it would work well even if no one had good motives--even if there was no public-spiritedness." Joseph Sobran, writing in the American Spectator Vol. 16, No. 10 -- Oct. '83 p. 11 interprets that quote as "Our Constitution itself was apparently a wrong turn." Again, being a libertarian, I tend to like what our FF created and only wish that it hadn't been watered down through the years. I believe that the FF tried to create a system that was neither paternalistic or maternalistic; it allowed a separation of morality and the state. Beware when conservatives advocate the welfare state. They will have no qualms insisting what is morally acceptable and what is deviant. If you disagree with them and they hold the strings, you better not be on the other end (i.e. poor), lest you want to be part of an experiment in more government mandated morality then you have seen in a long time. > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes --Cliff [Matthews] {purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143
jhull@spp2.UUCP (12/18/84)
In article <251@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >Continuing my dissection of Alien's article: >>Usually the main reason was vice. > >Cigarettes are an addiction, not a vice. Obviously, the poor should give up >smoking while the affluent continue to puff away. Alcoholism is a serious >and tragic illness, not a vice. Eating junk food is the result of poor >education, bombardment with advertising, and various factors which together >can be called the "culture of poverty" (see below), but it is not a vice. >You forgot to mention gambling. Chronic gambling is an addiction, not a >vice. Lots of poor people throw away their money on state lotteries. This >is not a vice; it is seen by them as perhaps the only way to escape their >dreary world. Don't get me started on lotteries. Well, I suppose they're >better than playing the numbers rackets. > This kind of apology makes me nauseous. Everyone is responsible for his/her actions and irresponsible people like you telling the poor or anyone else they are not responsible for their situation does more harm than anything else. Yes, I acknowledge the societal factors that put the poor in their situation; they need correction. Yes, I acknowledge the addictive properties of nicotine and alcohol; people kick their habits every day. No, I am not advocating abandoning the poor to their current situation; but they have to want out enough to do their part of the process. Alien has done so. While I donot know your history, in your articles do not indicate that you have lived this situation. You might try to learn something from someone who has. >>I've had some rather enlightening talks with social workers. One family >>that spent their entire allowance of Food Stamps on soda and potato chips. >>That's all they ate. The rest of their money went to support their father's >>4 pack a day habit and alcoholism. > >Yes, the familiar and comforting image of the shiftless, irresponsible poor. All your rantings will not change the truth. While many in America may use such an image to justify their non-participation and lack of support for efforts to improve the lot of Americans less well off than themselves, that doesn't change the fact that many of the poor are poor today because they are not willing to be anything else. My personal experience includes donating my time to build a housing project for low income people near Ga Tech . My income as a full time student was significantly below the poverty line [about $3600/year in 1973] and significantly below that of many of the people who moved into the project. The dorms and apartments occupied by many Ga Tech students were significantly worse than the newly finished project. Less than 4 years from the time the project was turned over to the poor it was intended for, it was a slum. The people who moved in were not willing to live a middle America lifestyle, EVEN WHEN IT WAS GIVEN TO THEM FOR FREE. The facts are the current giveaway programs DO NOT WORK. I am not against poor people but I am against helping people be poor. And that is what the current programs do. We need to create assistance programs that support people in saving themselves, that show people how they can support themselves, not programs that tell people, "You poor schmuck. Of course you can't take care of yourself. Here. Let me pay your way for you." >Most non-poor Americans simply don't have the faintest idea of what life is >like for most of the poor population. From Michael Harrington: This description is very accurate. So let's develop programs that break the cycle while building up the self-esteem of the people involved. That's what will get them out of their situation. >"Poverty in the US is a culture, an institution, a way of life.... This is what I am talking about. What is needed is the destruction of poverty as a way of life. And the key is building up self-esteem followed by education and training. > >Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes There is a very serious moral and political issue here: should government [especially the federal government] be involved in anti-poverty programs at all? What justification is there for forcibly taking my property and giving it to someone else? Voluntary charity programs, for example, those administered by various churches and temples, are a totally different thing. No. I don't know how to ensure that they are funded at the level needed to take over the load. But I think there are enough creative people out there who could figure it out. I'm sure that some combination of tax protection for donations and advertising and soliciting [or other things I haven't even considered] can be found that will do the job. I absolutely agree, with no reservations, that we, as a society, have a duty to our poorer citizens. We must find a way to allow them to participate in the American dream. But what we are doing today DOES NOT WORK. And increasing the amount of money we pour into existing programs will not change that. We've tried that for 20 years and we are no closer to a solution than when we started. Let me repeat my main point: I am not against poor people. I am against helping people be poor. -- Blessed Be, jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250