Choices Matter in Avoiding Poverty

[roo_ster]

Who'd a thunk it?

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2012/07/choices_matter_in_avoiding_pov.html

Yesterday the [NY]Times ran a huge news article (more than two full pages), "Two Classes, Divided by 'I Do,'' on the economic and social plight of single mothers in a society marked by rising income inequality.

Coverage of the facts, by the knowledgeable reporter Jason DeParle, is solid. The problem is that single mothers are presented as victims of a tsunami of inequality that has little or nothing to do with their own behavior. The language is passive. Two-income families are presented as a sort of unfair advantage that descends on some married women more often than on single ones. One featured woman had "a troubled relationship that left her with three children..." and "marriage and its rewards (are) evermore confined to the fortunate classes." Who does this confining? We never learn.

"Ron Haskins, co-author of the Brookings study, which looked at Census Bureau data on a sample of Americans, wrote that the analysis found that young adults who finished high school, worked full time and got married after age 21 and before having kids "had a 2 percent chance of winding up in poverty and a 74 percent chance of winding up in the middle class (defined as earning roughly $50,000 or more). By contrast, young adults who violated all three norms had a 76 percent chance of winding up in poverty and a 7 percent chance of winding up in the middle class."

Yeah, flashes of the obvious, but...see my sig.

Also, Charles Murray's latest book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960–2010.

I look forward to the next NYT story indicating that there is some hard-to-define link between extramarital sex and children born out of wedlock.  Expect to hear a line like, "...sexual continence and its rewards (are) evermore confined to the fortunate classes."

[brimic]

Wait,what?
So are you saying that allof theTV shows that depict a 20-something single mother with an executive level job and a glamorous social life are mostly...fiction?

[cambeul41]

As a white community college teacher in Detroit, I often have to hold my tongue. A lot of inner city people know perfectly well where the problems lie -- but they don't want to hear it coming from a white face. When someone brings up the topic, I just zip my lips and gesture them to continue the discussion without me.   

I can, however recommend Walter Williams' writings, especially this one  found at http://capitalismmagazine.com/2005/05/how-not-to-be-poor/ and other websites.

Thomas Sowell and Starr Parker are also popular as sources of extra credit readings,
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp
http://www.urbancure.org/

[zahc]

Everyone talks about single mothers; nobody seems to care about single fathers. As expected, I guess.

[Tallpine]

Everyone talks about single mothers; nobody seems to care about single fathers. As expected, I guess.

It's all part of a sexist plot.

Men have this unfair advantage that they don't get pregnant. 

[Nick1911]

Psssh.  Haven't you been listening to our elected leader at all?  Some people just get unlucky in life.  They weren’t born into fortunate situations; that's all.  Should we penalize them and condemn them to life of misery because of their poor luck?  It's like the people on the other side of the spectrum - some people get lucky.  Some people own businesses; and it's not just because they worked hard and made sacrifices - they just got lucky.  They won the lottery of life, and they should help those that didn't.  It's the fair thing to do!

We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.  We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more…

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

[BlueStarLizzard]

OK, this is total thread drift, but it bugs the crap out of me. How does one say that the "government" or al gore "created" the internet?

I was always under the impression that a bunch of geeky types from MIT and such "created" the internet. Sure, they got some .gov funding, but the freeking polititions and their lackys wern't the ones writting code and fiddling with circuits.

"created" this word, I think they not know what it means.

And that's my mini rant of the day. Carry on with your regularly scheduled programing...

[Nick1911]

I believe it was an outgrowth of ARPANET, which was a multi-university networking project funded by DARPA.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I believe it was an outgrowth of ARPANET, which was a multi-university networking project funded by DARPA.

"funded" is still not the same as "created". and, from what I remember from Hackers (the nonfiction book, not the angilina jolie movie) and a brief scan of the wiki article about the history of the internet, that's just part of it.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't think we need to deny that government had a hand in creating (or at least funding) the technology used for the internet. As a DoD project, it may even have been constitutional.

But the government only laid some groundwork. It was the private sector that built the eBays and Wikipedias and Twitters, not to mention the old-media web sites. Even if someone points to the role of public universities, there are private universities, too.

[Jamisjockey]

Not particularly interested in seeing this turn into a single mother bashing thread. *expletive deleted*it happens.  Not all single mothers get there by squirting out a bunch of kids super young and quitting high school.
Be mindful of that in this discussion, please. 

[Tallpine]

Not particularly interested in seeing this turn into a single mother bashing thread. *expletive deleted* happens.  Not all single mothers get there by squirting out a bunch of kids super young and quitting high school.
Be mindful of that in this discussion, please. 

There's always a guy involved, too 

[De Selby]

The premise of this is silly - choosing abstinence is not going to make people who've grown up abused, malnourished, and raised by parents with no skills into successful middle class employees.

The reasons for the lack of economic success in these cases are the same as the reasons why they don't form stable relationships - never had the skills to do so in the first place, but I guess if we all repeat the mantra "they chose it!" that will make all of the other factors irrelevant.

Inevitably, the high levels of malnourishment and abuse get shouted down with stories of "my cousin zeke ate motor oil his first two years and now he's on wall street!".  Nevermind the science.

Poverty and broken families have nothing to do with abstinence or even birth control.  

[Scout26]

Poverty and broken families have nothing to do with abstinence or even birth control.  

Study after study after study after study have shown that delaying having children until marriage IMPROVE the child's chances of NOT ending up in poverty.   No, it doesn't make it certain, but following the three norms (Finish HS, Work Full time, and wait until 21 to get married and have kids) dramatically improves the odds.

[Perd Hapley]

The premise of this is silly - choosing abstinence is not going to make people who've grown up abused, malnourished, and raised by parents with no skills into successful middle class employees.

Then it's a good thing that's not the premise.

[De Selby]

Study after study after study after study have shown that delaying having children until marriage IMPROVE the child's chances of NOT ending up in poverty.   No, it doesn't make it certain, but following the three norms (Finish HS, Work Full time, and wait until 21 to get married and have kids) dramatically improves the odds.

That is a correlation - the reason why people delay children is that they're mostly getting educated, advancing their careers, and planning for a future family.  Those are skills they have because they were properly reared and educated.  Those skills are what improve the odds, not tqhe date on which their kids were born, because those skills are what make people employable and successful.

Having no skills and a relatively underdeveloped brain due to malnutrition will limit employment and income potential regardless of family choices.  

That's why some single moms are executives, and some two parent families live in cycles of homelessness.

[Scout26]

Ahhh, I see, so it's all about malnutrition....

Good thing Mrs. Obama is a strong proponent of getting in shape and the expanding (now with record numbers of people) the Food Stamp/EBT/SNAP programs.


FTR, the good old USofA has the fattest poor people in the world.
 

[Tallpine]

What a surprise - irresponsible children who have children, have irresponsible children who have children ...

 

[Jamisjockey]

What a surprise - irresponsible children who have children, have irresponsible children who have children ...

 

A cycle supported by the welfare state.




DS:
Would you consider processed foods, high sodium, sugar to be contributors to malnourishment?

[De Selby]

A cycle supported by the welfare state.




DS:
Would you consider processed foods, high sodium, sugar to be contributors to malnourishment?

Seems to be part of the problem, along with a lack of other nutrients - its pretty tough to condemn kids for their choices when they've been set up with inadequate hardware :(

[Jamisjockey]

Seems to be part of the problem, along with a lack of other nutrients - its pretty tough to condemn kids for their choices when they've been set up with inadequate hardware :(

There are those who actually consider it humane to hook the poor on welfare, and then allow them to make those bad choices.  In some states, EBT cards can be used to buy any food including fast food.
One need only look at those who are "compassionate" to see where the real problem lies.

[De Selby]

There are those who actually consider it humane to hook the poor on welfare, and then allow them to make those bad choices.  In some states, EBT cards can be used to buy any food including fast food.
One need only look at those who are "compassionate" to see where the real problem lies.

True, but they aren't the only problem - how realistic is it that they'd be eating nutritious food of we did away with state assistance altogether? 

[brimic]

In some states, EBT cards can be used to buy any food including fast food.
One need only look at those who are "compassionate" to see where the real problem lies.

Its not easy to borrow a cookbook from the library or download recipes from the internetz, or switch the channel from jerry springer to the food channel to learn how to cook a vegetable or serve a fruit. With all the lack of free time, its much easier to go to McD's than it is to learn even the most basic of skills.

[brimic]

True, but they aren't the only problem - how realistic is it that they'd be eating nutritious food of we did away with state assistance altogether?

A whole family would be better nourished for an entire day eating beans and rice, a multivitamin and a few apples that can be bought for less than the cost of a single extra value meal.

[MrsSmith]

I raised three kids with little help from their father, my family, the gov, etc. Three kids, same home, same rules, etc. Daughter is conservative (mostly), in school on her own dime, and has made intelligent choices. Two sons, neither in school, neither making choices I would prefer they make, but both working and living on their own. So far, no grandkids or marriages or addictions or abuse, or any other serious issues have arisen. Twins are 22, youngest is 20 - and he's struggling and giving me fits right now, but nothing a little "mom" in his face won't fix.

Yeah, it would have been a lot easier if I'd been able to stay married, finish my degree, had a normal family support systems, etc. But I really believe it comes down to the individual. Everyone has choices and how they react to the consequences of those choices is the deciding factor.