Escaping From Poverty

[groovedaddy]

Before I ask for a drumroll and reveal “the secrets” of fighting poverty, a bit of background:
For a quarter-century after World War II, the United States made great progress against poverty. Then in the 1970s, we fumbled. Over the last 35 years, our economy has almost tripled in size, but, according to the United States Census Bureau, the number of Americans living below the poverty line has been stuck at roughly 1 in 8.

One reason is that wages for blue-collar and other ordinary workers peaked in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A second is the breakdown in the family and the explosion in single-parent households. A third is the quintupling of incarceration rates beginning in 1970, making it harder for impoverished young men to play a role in families or get decent jobs.

When those factors converge — a young woman with a 10th-grade education trying to raise a couple of kids as a single parent — poverty proves almost inescapable. Often the cycle is transmitted from generation to generation.

Still, there’s a reason for hope: We’re getting a much better handle on what policies can overcome poverty. We’re now seeing more experiments, modeled after randomized drug trials, that measure carefully whether an approach works and how cost-effective it is. Partly this reflects the rise of economists (at the expense of political scientists and do-gooders) and the rigor they pack in their briefcases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/opinion/25kristof.html?th&emc=th

[M155Y_A1CH]

1. What happened in 1970?

1970-
Dems still opposed the ERA on Labor's grounds that it would flood the job market and create too much labor competition for existing jobs. They flip-flopped in 1972 and it was then passed in the House and Senate,
but was never ratified.
We then began to act as if it was law and two income families became the norm.


What has this to do with the stagnation of wages?


1969-

Husband-lives with family, sole breadwinner,
earns enough to provide alone for the family, usually unavailable (at work) for family needs.

Wife- stays at home or works part-time and is usually available for family needs. Her income equals more discretionary funds.

2010-

Husband- earns little more than half of the family's needs, usually unavailable for the family...

Wife- earns little more than half of the family's needs, usually unavailable for the family...

Fill in the blanks.



This is the Powers That Be's take on equality folks.

[groovedaddy]

2. That sums it up pretty well. n.t

[M155Y_A1CH]

3. It's just MHO on cause and effect re: wages

I'm sure there are other operating principles?
:kick:

[cutlassmama]

5. Which is why the prison rates have quadrupled since 1970. No one home

for the kids.

[uncommon]

11. Men could easily stay home and take care of their kids.

Or at least as easily as women can.

I hate it when people blame economic turmoil on freedom.

[barb162]

13. That's quite true.

And it always makes me wonder why the parents are having kids when they don't have ANY time for the kids.

I have seen some successful ways of handling it, like RNs who works weekends only and their spouses care for the kids on weekends.

[uppityperson.]

4. k/r

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[comeCOMMOTIONocean]

7. Radical reform.

This is my first time posting on this forum, or any forum for
that matter. However, I'm a college student soon to be
drowning in college loans, ensuring that I will be an obedient
worker bee after graduation, and something has got to give. 

I'm going to skip over the rhetoric on the Subprime Mortgage
Crisis and taxpayer bailouts and cut to the chase: regardless
of who or what is to blame for the state of the nation, it
needs to be fixed, and fast. I may not have the answer but I
do have some ideas as I'm sure many of you posting on this
forum do.

I believe that food stamps (or SNAP benefits) are part of a
very flawed system. President Obama is trying to allocate an
additional one billion dollars towards poverty relief in the
form of SNAP benefits. I applaud the fact that he is
addressing poverty as a serious issue, however, I think
quality of food is more important that quantity at a certain
point. Food stamps could potentially be regulated by operating
with a point system rather than the current debit card system.
Fresh vegetables, whole chicken, skim milk, etc. could all
cost the card holder fewer points because of the nutritional
value and the quality of satiety. I personally would like to
see local farmer's markets accept the reformed cards to boost
local agriculture and encourage people to farm. This new
system would help cut back on mandatory spending as well as
obesity and give farmers incentive to cultivate the land. As
it stands, it is far less expensive to fill a family up with
high-calorie processed foods than it is to provide fresh
fruits, vegetables and meat. 

Another area in need of reform that can help cut back on
poverty is the prison system. In my home state of New York, it
costs  approximately forty-thousand dollars a year to house an
inmate in prison, all inclusive. What do these prisoners give
back to their community or their country while in prison?
Nothing, aside from having another criminal off the streets.
The government would be much better off investing in farm land
for prisons, that way inmates who are capable of working could
do so for their "three hots and a cot". The food
grown on location could also help supplement the dietary needs
of the prisoners, saving money once again. The prisoners would
be responsible for tending to the fields and the yield from
the crops could be distributed to local markets. To some
prisoners, our current facilities in the U.S. provides
conditions comparable to college dormitories all on the
working-class' dime. How about the prisoners give back? Repeat
offenders would probably be few and far between comparatively.

[Glassunion]

8. Welcome to DU!

Thanks for the post. I did enjoy reading it you have some very good ideas.

I especially liked the "Point" system. It is a great idea, however the initial costs for retailers would be quite high. I think it would be doable, however quite timely and costly for the retailers.

[comeCOMMOTIONocean]

9. RE:Radical Reform.

Thanks for the feedback!

You've definitely got a good point about start-up cost. That didn't even cross my mind.

[Glassunion]

10. Not to mention...

The startup costs that the taxpayer would have to pony up.

The Dept. of Agriculture would have to take time to define what constitutes a Low Point Value food vs a High Point Value food. Publish it, maintain it, etc...

Then you have the vendor at the other end. Will they fight the new rules stating that they have Low Point value foods? How hard would they fight to have their lower nutritional value foods given lower points? Just look at how the big business farming industries pushed to have the USDA rules relaxed around what is USDA Certified Organic.

Right now the way it works is the retailer is given the cash value of the products purchased. I think using your system, this would work. But if you look at healthier options, they are generally more expensive. Just look at the prices of the healthier options on soup. So you could conceivably have someone obtain higher amounts of good or better quality food, but the taxpayer would have to pick up that difference. But I am ok with that. Because, you would have people eating better. When you eat better, you feel better. You feel better because you are healthier. When you are healthier, you need less medical attention. You save the money in health care.

I really think a system like this would work, but I think the vendor is going to push back the hardest and can ruin the entire thing. I would hate to see Lean Cuisine given the same point values as Stouffer's.

I have been hungry once. I would have liked your system.

[barb162]

12. Dropping out of school, not studying, etc., should also be mentioned

It wasn't a problem in 1900 or 1950 when jobs were in abundance.