The Culture of Poverty, the Culture of Cruelty: How America Fights the Poor and Not Poverty

[ZiprHead]

We could set up morality commissions. This is where, in order to get assistance, the poor person has to be examined by a panel of judges to demonstrate that they are morally worthy of assistance. They were very popular towards the start of the century. That way, money can be channelled to morally worthy people, and we can let everyone else starve or turn to crime. That seems a little harsh though, so it would probably be better to set up a little suicide booths, so that those who make life choices we don't approve of can be encouraged to take an easy way out that reduces the burden on us richer folk.

Because otherwise, some small % of the assistance we give people might be wasted, and there's nothing worse than that. Nothing.

Perhaps Soylent Green wasn't a bad idea.

 

[Derec]

Why not?

Because then you are excusing their irresponsible behavior.

Seriously? Why can't someone be poor for more than one reason? Let's say I like buying slushies, a sugar drink associated with tooth decay. And then someone comes along and hits me in the mouth with a baseball club. Is my slushie evidence that I didn't lose my teeth due to being hit with a club?

Of course people can be poor for more than one reason. But your analogy is a poor one as a baseball bat is sufficient to knock out healthy teeth as well.
Let's say two families making the same get an unexpected bill, say their car's head gasket blows or the transmission needs to be rebuilt. Would Abbots, who are over-leveraged with things they can't afford be in a good position to take care of it? Hardly. But Abbots prime, who did not rent-to-own from Buddy's but instead have some savings and worked to fix their credit can.
So yes, there are different reasons but these work together, one bad hit doesn't make prior poor decisions irrelevant - quite the opposite! Poor decisions have a detrimental effect in one's ability to absorb financial hits.

Yes, I know you don't. But then you aren't the person in situation making the decision. The article cited several reasons, from 'wanting to feel normal' through to the fact that the old sofa was gouging holes in the floor (A serious problem in a trailer)

You mentioned a fancy new sofa being conducive to getting a new job. As to their stated reasons, how about putting something (like furniture pads or a rug) under the legs of the old sofa to prevent it damaging the floor? As to "wanting to feel normal", how is digging ever deeper into the debt hole going to help with that?
Listen, I am not opposed to them getting new furniture if they do not want to buy from Craigslist. But IKEA has an Ektorp sofa for about $500, a matching loveseat for $379. You do not have to buy them together. They could have waited a few months, set money aside, bought the sofa for cash, rinse and repeat for the loveseat. May not be the $1,500 set they really wanted but we all have to compromise in life.

Two people sitting in close proximity used to imply a courting couple, hence love seat.

Thanks.

All of which were mentioned in the article that you read.

Yes, I did read their excuses. Except they do not hold water. They did not have to have the furniture at once. If they waited a month or two they could have afforded a gently used Craigslist sofa. A few more months and they could have paid for one of the cheaper brand new sofas at a place like IKEA. In the end they could have had new furniture and saved thousands. It would just have taken a bit of patience and strategic planning. It's really like that marshmallow experiment.

Again, I'm not sure why you want to get into the business of analysing the choices of the poor, and lambasting them from your armchair. Can you give a reason why this is useful?

Because I think that their lives would be better in the long run if they spent money more wisely. Also because when I am on the computer at home I am usually sitting in my office chair, bought last year from Craigslist for $20.

So the problem is that they shouldn't have nice things?

I do not have a problem with them having nice things. But they should work on getting out of poverty first and then they can afford nice things. Buying nice things now and digging deeper into debt is really counterproductive.

I didn't ask you for a solution, I asked you why it was an important problem

People drowning in debt is a problem I think. Especially if it's not from something unavoidable but due to utterly preventable poor choices.

Ok, so poor people aren't allowed to have nice things. There's an easy solution - just make theft legal from anyone who earns less than a certain amount per year.

Or we alternatively make it legal for people making under a certain amount per year to steal from stores. That way they can have all the nice things they want without going into debt. Two can play the "modest proposal" game.

That way they'll only ever have stuff no one else wants, and eat stuff no one else wants to eat, to show that they're poor.

It's not a matter of "showing they are poor". It's the matter of what they can afford. It's a matter of prioritizing spending to improve one's long term financial situation.

However, I'm still waiting for some explanation as to why this is a problem. You say it's a problem, but not why.

Frankly, I fail to see how you do not understand how people living well beyond their means is not a problem.

Are you jealous of their trailer?

Hardly. But I do not want them to lose it either. And if they continue acting and behaving like they do they are in real danger of doing that.

Or is it just that a rocking mini-sofa is too good for them?

Mini-sofa? It's a full sofa and a loveseat. Cash price $1,500. Total price $4,150. Yes, I do think that it is too good for them at this point in their lives.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

We as a society can not make each and every individual perfect.

And if we are moral, we can not allow the imperfection of a single individual or even a group of individuals bind us from aiding as we can other individuals.

But we can make are society as a whole more conducive to certain outcomes. We can make society a place where it is harder to exploit human weakness, and easier to cultivate human strengths.

but we won't if we take the extreme actions of a few as an excuse to hate, complain, and change nothing for the majority of people.

 

[Emily Lake]

WHY?

Because I like you and I don't want you to go insane in this thread!

Actually, it's for completely self-serving reasons. I want to have a rational conversation with you, and learn more about a topic that is relevant to my interests. You have some insights and perspectives on poverty (as well as race) that I lack. I want to incorporate them into my views. To do that, I really need discussion and the opportunity to "roll it around" with my current views.

I have observed that in these sorts of discussions, there's a core of people with whom you are often at odds. You and they see things from diametrically opposed perspectives. The result often seems to be an endless loop of semantic nitpicking and anger. This leads to you being angry at them, and to that anger bleeding over to everyone in the thread. It creates an environment of "us and them". It makes it impossible for me to disagree with any portion of your stance; doing so gets me cast into the fiery pit of "them". This makes it impossible to have a rational discussion with you, because I feel that I must either accept everything that you say as whole cloth, or I must fight you every step.

Thus, I want you to ignore all of the people that you know from experience won't change their perspectives based on your arguments. I want you to selectively focus on only those few people with whom you have an opportunity to shape perspectives and change minds.

I live in a state that is being run by tea party republicans bent on disenfranchising black people, underpaying poor people, and polluting the air and water of all people. Because the democrats didn't answer back fast enough and forcefully enough.

Personally, I can't let a LIE stand or a sin be held equal to moral act.

I marched for the desegregation of the schools of SE NC when I was four holding my Gramma's hand. I have been in the fight now for going on 46 years. I have been manhandled by the police, arrested, and maced, all for things I believed were right and just and true. and now I should sit silent while people who have not done any of that for any reason pontificate the righteousness of their of shortcomings, prejudices, and inadequacies?

Emily I like you.

But that dog won't hunt.

Athena, there are millions of idiots the world over. Do you feel obligated to hunt down every one of them and yell in their faces? Do you feel obligated to bludgeon them with your viewpoint until they give in and submit to your way? Of course not. You can't change every mind.

What you can do is lead by example.

Even in this thread there are people whose minds you cannot change, no matter what you say, no matter how well said and how logical. Belief is insurmountable by force.

But you can discuss the topic with people willing to listen and interested in learning and discussing like rational beings. And you can allow those who are steadfast in their belief to watch that discussion. You needn't respond to every post they make. You simply state your case and allow them to read. Discuss with me, and with those few who treat you reasonably, and allow the others to follow along. If they're going to be swayed, that's what will sway them.

If they're not going to be swayed, no amount of screaming at them will do it. So why waste your breath and give yourself a headache?

 

[Emily Lake]

We as a society can not make each and every individual perfect.

And if we are moral, we can not allow the imperfection of a single individual or even a group of individuals bind us from aiding as we can other individuals.

But we can make are society as a whole more conducive to certain outcomes. We can make society a place where it is harder to exploit human weakness, and easier to cultivate human strengths.

but we won't if we take the extreme actions of a few as an excuse to hate, complain, and change nothing for the majority of people.

I agree with the sentiment expressed here. I would say that wanting to limit or minimize the exploitation of the desire to help is part of making society a place where it's harder to exploit humans. In other words, we should seek to make it harder to exploit human weakness and also make it harder to exploit human good nature.

Con artists are con artists, no matter the scenario. Those who are exploiting someone's charitable impulses to take advantage of them, are still exploitative - and their exploitation directly prevents help that would otherwise have gone to someone else.

 

[arkirk]

Emily: The appearance of a con argument by a con man represents a threat to civil society. It is every bit as criminal an act as any other crime. Not to challenge these cons is to allow them to continue their influence and even expand their influence. Today our society and government is awash with billionaire con men who are every bit as corrosive to our society as slave owners were in the past. It is the con man who thrives on complex and paradoxical explanations of social and environmental problems for the purpose of maintaining unfair advantage. Athena's arguments are simply in the face of these paradoxical propositions. There is a genuine clash here and it is one area of human activity some of us feel morally obligated to not let stand. To simply retreat to your close circle of friends and let this paradoxy to float out there unchallenged is to unleash its most virulent effects....those of belief...belief that empowers action.

What I am trying to get at here is that the issues are real and need to be addressed virtually everywhere or they will come around and visit you in the form of authority later. That can and does hurt a lot.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

We as a society can not make each and every individual perfect.

And if we are moral, we can not allow the imperfection of a single individual or even a group of individuals bind us from aiding as we can other individuals.

But we can make are society as a whole more conducive to certain outcomes. We can make society a place where it is harder to exploit human weakness, and easier to cultivate human strengths.

but we won't if we take the extreme actions of a few as an excuse to hate, complain, and change nothing for the majority of people.

I agree with the sentiment expressed here. I would say that wanting to limit or minimize the exploitation of the desire to help is part of making society a place where it's harder to exploit humans. In other words, we should seek to make it harder to exploit human weakness and also make it harder to exploit human good nature.

Con artists are con artists, no matter the scenario. Those who are exploiting someone's charitable impulses to take advantage of them, are still exploitative - and their exploitation directly prevents help that would otherwise have gone to someone else.

Con artists exist. Cheaters exist. Killers, rapists, used car salesmen. All exist.

Now that we have acknowledged that, let's get on with doing what's right for many.

 

[J842P]

We as a society can not make each and every individual perfect.

And if we are moral, we can not allow the imperfection of a single individual or even a group of individuals bind us from aiding as we can other individuals.

But we can make are society as a whole more conducive to certain outcomes. We can make society a place where it is harder to exploit human weakness, and easier to cultivate human strengths.

but we won't if we take the extreme actions of a few as an excuse to hate, complain, and change nothing for the majority of people.

That is fundamentally the issue. Do we, at the expense of many people who desperately need help, withdraw help to avoid the risk of some people gaming the system?

 

[bilby]

We as a society can not make each and every individual perfect.

And if we are moral, we can not allow the imperfection of a single individual or even a group of individuals bind us from aiding as we can other individuals.

But we can make are society as a whole more conducive to certain outcomes. We can make society a place where it is harder to exploit human weakness, and easier to cultivate human strengths.

but we won't if we take the extreme actions of a few as an excuse to hate, complain, and change nothing for the majority of people.

That is fundamentally the issue. Do we, at the expense of many people who desperately need help, withdraw help to avoid the risk of some people gaming the system?

Goodness me no. That would be immoral and reprehensible.

What we should do is find a tiny handful of examples of people who may have gamed the system (it only needs to be a single digit number in the whole nation), and then bang on about these examples endlessly in the media, until the public DEMAND that we withdraw help from everybody, to avoid the risk of some people gaming the system. That way we can do the 'right' thing by simply bowing to popular opinion and conforming to the public consensus, rather than doing the wrong thing and being heartless and cruel as individual politicians.

The result is the same, but we get to avoid accepting any of the blame for the desperate hardships that result. And the best part is, our popularity with the voters can actually increase!

I call this the 'But he has nice sneakers' principle; although if it ever breaks as the scandalous political chicanery that it is, no doubt it will be called 'sofagate'.

 

[thebeave]

Threads like this always remind me of the Muffin Top episode of Seinfeld:



Honestly, it sounds like to me that many poor people have either too much pride or are trying to keep up with the Joneses. Or they have this idea that middle and upper class people spend their evenings jumping into big piles of cash every night for fun, smoke fancy cigars and eat cavier and they feel like they're missing out. I make pretty good money, but I still buy stuff like I was a poor college student. I get all my clothes (except socks and underwear) at Goodwill, I eat Top Ramen regularly, and pretty much all of my furniture is hand me downs or was bought used. I even bought used Ikea furniture! I don't buy fancy expensive, organic food. I don't buy bottled water (which I see poor day laborers do! WTF?)...I drink straight out of the tap. I had over 360,000 miles on my last vehicle before I finally gave up on it earlier this year, and did all my own repairs and maintenance on it. I buy no-name sneakers on sale at Big 5 Sporting Goods for less than $25 about every 6 months. None of that bothers me in the least. If others think I'm cheap or not trendy enough, honestly, they can just fuck off! You'd be surprised how many middle class people are just like me in regard to spending money. Its how you build wealth and help secure your future.

 

[Toni]

I used to work for a program for low income children and families. I also live in a town big enough to have some pretty poor people and some very wealthy ones and of course everyone in between. And they all have kids most of whom went to public schools. So the kids from low income families were in scouts or soccer or whatever with the kids of doctors, lawyers, millionaires because this place isn't big enough for much separation. Oh and scholarships cover fees for youth programs if the parents can be convinced to ask for them. You'd be surprised how many wont.

In fact the schools try hard to get families to apply for free/reduced lunch so that a) the kids get a good meal and b) the school can access some funds for schools with a high percentage of free and reduced lunch students. It is surprising how many wont apply out of pride. They don't see themselves as poor or don't want their kids to feel poor. I remember people who were ashamed to take the coupons for free holiday turkeys although without the coupon there would be no turkey. Or much dinner. Who hid the fact that they got assistance from anyone who didn't also get assistance--or tried to. Who felt shame if their kid couldn't have whatever stupid toy was in that year. Or didn't have the cool sneakers.

They all had jobs. Sometimes two or three. None full time or with benefits because well, that's how all of our town's self made millionaires made their millions: low wages/low benefits to the workers and keeping as many under full time as possible.

Most of the time I knew of money being spent 'foolishly' it was cigarettes and booze or something for the kids.

Denying yourself and your kid ordinary luxuries such as a toy or a pizza or ice cream gets exhausting. And seems useless and foolish if you don't see any way out of the pit you find yourself in because your husband can't get work since he ruptured his disc or he died in a car crash or found a younger, prettier woman or because you got laid off or dozens of other reasons.

If you never feel like you can win the game, you don't have as much interest in playing.

 

[Togo]

Because then you are excusing their irresponsible behavior.

I am? How?

You're telling me that some poor people make what look like bad choices. I'm asking why this is an occasion for moral outrage.

Seriously? Why can't someone be poor for more than one reason? Let's say I like buying slushies, a sugar drink associated with tooth decay. And then someone comes along and hits me in the mouth with a baseball club. Is my slushie evidence that I didn't lose my teeth due to being hit with a club?

Of course people can be poor for more than one reason. But your analogy is a poor one as a baseball bat is sufficient to knock out healthy teeth as well.

And a factory closure will knock out the thifty and frugal alike. That's the point of the analogy. In a landscape of historically low income, widespread part time working and tight credit, you reckon the real issue is that poor people in general spend too much on sofas?

So yes, there are different reasons but these work together, one bad hit doesn't make prior poor decisions irrelevant - quite the opposite! Poor decisions have a detrimental effect in one's ability to absorb financial hits.

And financial hits can make good decisions irrelevant. Either way, whether you can get a full-time job is more important than what sofa you buy.

Listen, I am not opposed to them getting new furniture

Yes you are. You are specifically and exactly complaining about them gaining new furniture, because you feel that they can't afford it, and that because they are poor they shouldn't have it. Poor people shouldn't have nice things. They should have poor things, to save money and reflect their status. It's not a pretty conclusion.

if they do not want to buy from Craigslist. But IKEA has an Ektorp sofa for about $500, a matching loveseat for $379. You do not have to buy them together. They could have waited a few months, set money aside, bought the sofa for cash, rinse and repeat for the loveseat. May not be the $1,500 set they really wanted but we all have to compromise in life.

Sure, but we don't compromise all the time. You're taking one decision, and claiming that they should have compromised on that. Has anyone ever done that to you?

Again, I'm not sure why you want to get into the business of analysing the choices of the poor, and lambasting them from your armchair. Can you give a reason why this is useful?

Because I think that their lives would be better in the long run if they spent money more wisely. Also because when I am on the computer at home I am usually sitting in my office chair, bought last year from Craigslist for $20.

Sucker. I got an office chair from staples, marked down once for being end of the line and unsold, and marked down again for being the display model. The store manager was so desperate to get rid of it they threw in free delivery. But not all my buying decisions are like that.

Ikea is, or so I'm told, not well regarded in the South. Something about the designs being unsuited to high humidity?

So the problem is that they shouldn't have nice things?

I do not have a problem with them having nice things. But they should work on getting out of poverty first and then they can afford nice things.

So.. you do have a problem with them being poor and having nice things.

I didn't ask you for a solution, I asked you why it was an important problem

People drowning in debt is a problem I think. Especially if it's not from something unavoidable but due to utterly preventable poor choices.

And are the problems of the rural poor in the south down to low pay, an excess of part-time contracts, little or no social safety net, poor health cover and predatory lending, or is it down to a rash of sofa-buying?

However, I'm still waiting for some explanation as to why this is a problem. You say it's a problem, but not why.

Frankly, I fail to see how you do not understand how people living well beyond their means is not a problem.

I'm not convinced that's what we're looking at. We're just looking at people with very little in the way of means, and no real way out. Look, they could buy the sofa outright by saving money. After a year or two of no sofa, which might cost the manual labourer his livelihood and damage their home, they could afford a crappy sofa which may or may not last a while. Or they can get a nice sofa now, and enjoy it until they suffer from a minor disaster, can't afford the payments, and have to return it to the store. I can see why you might feel the former is better, but the latter isn't totally irrational.

Or is it just that a rocking mini-sofa is too good for them?

Mini-sofa? It's a full sofa and a loveseat. Cash price $1,500. Total price $4,150. Yes, I do think that it is too good for them at this point in their lives.

Are their lives likely to change if they refrain from sofa-renting? Or will it stay more or less the same until he gets more work?

 

[Emily Lake]

I agree with the sentiment expressed here. I would say that wanting to limit or minimize the exploitation of the desire to help is part of making society a place where it's harder to exploit humans. In other words, we should seek to make it harder to exploit human weakness and also make it harder to exploit human good nature.

Con artists are con artists, no matter the scenario. Those who are exploiting someone's charitable impulses to take advantage of them, are still exploitative - and their exploitation directly prevents help that would otherwise have gone to someone else.

Con artists exist. Cheaters exist. Killers, rapists, used car salesmen. All exist.

Now that we have acknowledged that, let's get on with doing what's right for many.

Okay.

Are you agreed that resources are not unlimited?

 

[Emily Lake]

That is fundamentally the issue. Do we, at the expense of many people who desperately need help, withdraw help to avoid the risk of some people gaming the system?

Goodness me no. That would be immoral and reprehensible.

What we should do is find a tiny handful of examples of people who may have gamed the system...

Or perhaps we could try a more pragmatic and reasonable approach wherein we investigate those situations where gaming of the system has occurred, determine how large those loopholes are, and take reasonable steps to reduce the likelihood of repeat occurrences. In that fashion we can ensure that the funds and resources intended to help aren't lost.

 

[ksen]

Or perhaps we could try a more pragmatic and reasonable approach wherein we investigate those situations where gaming of the system has occurred, determine how large those loopholes are, and take reasonable steps to reduce the likelihood of repeat occurrences.

We should be doing this for financiers and large corporations first.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Con artists exist. Cheaters exist. Killers, rapists, used car salesmen. All exist.

Now that we have acknowledged that, let's get on with doing what's right for many.

Okay.

Are you agreed that resources are not unlimited?

what exactly do you mean? That we live on a finite planet? Yes.

That the distribution of the resources of this finite planet is not so skewed that manmade scarcities in certain communites rise up over and over and over again? no.

 

[Emily Lake]

Okay.

Are you agreed that resources are not unlimited?

what exactly do you mean? That we live on a finite planet? Yes.

That the distribution of the resources of this finite planet is not so skewed that manmade scarcities in certain communites rise up over and over and over again? no.

I mean that the government collects a limited amount of funds each year in the form of revenue, and that at least some of that revenue must go toward other things like the cost of running the government itself, necessary services like fire and police, and to some extent the military. Not to mention grants for research and the arts.

The amount of monies available to support those in need is not infinite.

 

[bilby]

what exactly do you mean? That we live on a finite planet? Yes.

That the distribution of the resources of this finite planet is not so skewed that manmade scarcities in certain communites rise up over and over and over again? no.

I mean that the government collects a limited amount of funds each year in the form of revenue, and that at least some of that revenue must go toward other things like the cost of running the government itself, necessary services like fire and police, and to some extent the military. Not to mention grants for research and the arts.

The amount of monies available to support those in need is not infinite.

The number of people in need is not infinite either; so that is not a problem - in fact, that truism is not only not a problem, it isn't even saying anything substantive at all.

If you want to claim the much less obvious, but more useful, "The amount of monies available to support those in need is not sufficient", then you will need to get agreement on what is sufficient; and then prove that the amount of monies available cannot be made to match that target - both of which are very hard to do indeed.

 

[ZiprHead]

If you never feel like you can win the game, you don't have as much interest in playing.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Togo]

Or perhaps we could try a more pragmatic and reasonable approach wherein we investigate those situations where gaming of the system has occurred, determine how large those loopholes are, and take reasonable steps to reduce the likelihood of repeat occurrences.

We should be doing this for financiers and large corporations first.

If nothing else, it's a far more efficient use of funds. A call to investigate and regulate the money wasted by poor people is a call to spend money on trying to save money. And the amount you spend will always be greater than the amount you recoup, because the individual sums are tiny and the problem is spread out over vast numbers of people. By contrast simply inspecting tax and market irregularities of banks, corporations, financiers and the very rich is almost self-financing - one successful case pays for the team for a year or more, a very successful large case pays for it for a decade. Yet we don't spend money on that, because that makes rich people unhappy.