freeman

Breaking the cycle of poverty originally created by discrimination is extraordinarily hard

Fate

In the US, you can go as far as your work ethic and talent permit. Period

.

And in these two comments you have the whole arguement. Fate won't accept that the US has become a nation with very little social mobility ...Which means either that
1) those who are poor are largely missing work ethic and or talent and therefore poverty is their fault
2) there is a great deal of socail mobility in the US but the socail scientists and demographers have missed it...

Fate

As for "greater mobility," the problem is the studies you cite have a built-in definition and an objective that is predetermined. Look, it's easier to move from 1 to 3 than from 1 to 10. In some countries, 10 is not an option

If you actually have evidence to back up this last claim Fate, it would be interesting to see. But I think its simply your unrelenting belief in an American myth ...

Mark me down for number 1.

When there are MANY success stories, there has to be a reason. Is it because the successful people are genetically better than those who fail? No. It is through work ethic, commitment, and some luck.

You did not like the choices given by Dr. Fate.

Explain Oprah and her success...
[url]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey[/url]

Explain Oprah and her success...

Some things cannot be explained.

Doctor Fate wrote:Like with public school teachers, I think you'll find the conservative/liberal tilt quite notable. There may be a conservative urban planner in Alaska or Texas, but probably not anywhere else.

Evidence please. And evidence that they are just interchangeable with any other liberal tropes you care to bring up.

Find me evidence that urban planners are conspiring to increase prices and I'll listen

No, you're quite right. That's the President and liberals who want to do that. Coincidentally, they happen to think we should drive less, live closer to work, and stack ourselves on top of each other.

Evidence please, not just another smear.

Not me. I don't think it's government's job to tell people where to live or how to live. I happen to believe in freedom, which is a foreign concept to the American Left.

Providing or enabling social housing is not 'telling people how or where to live'.

Who wants more government intervention in housing? For example, we, in MA, have government-sponsored housing for "moderate" incomes. Why?

And what's wrong with that? Public housing was not just for the poor when I grew up either. It was paid for by the tenants through rents in general - the government made the initial outlay but the income repaid the debt and interest over about the same period as the average mortgage. It meant that social housing was not seen as being for just poor people, and it meant that areas with social housing had people who were in working families, giving a better social mixture and a lower tendency towards reverting to a slum.

Perfect illustration: I want less government. You want more.

I want what works. You want to retreat from reason and make it all about ideology.

By making social housing concentrated, and aimed only at the poor, you wonder how ghettos of poverty, worklessness and crime arise?

Nope. I think it's a government problem.

It is a problem of poor governance, but that doesn't mean it's intrinsic to government.

Even then there are alternatives to cars and public transport out there. The main ones are perfectly suited to an individualist - "walking" and "cycling".

Sure. Try that in a place in which there is snow and ice half the year.

Is that the whole of the USA? Golly.

Anyway, still all you are offering is your own view of what other people think. How about you show me how they think be providing evidence, instead of your own prejudice?

To which you respond with your own prejudice. I'd say that's even.

Yes, because asking you to back up your assertions is 'prejudice'.

bbauska

Mark me down for number 1.

When there are MANY success stories, there has to be a reason. Is it because the successful people are genetically better than those who fail? No. It is through work ethic, commitment, and some luck

.

There are MANY success stories because the USA is a very large country.
The question is why poverty generally is growing in the US? (Despite all the programs like food stamps etc. that represent a large effort at alleviating poverty's effects.)

In November 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau said more than 16% of the population lived in poverty in the United States, including almost 20% of American children,[7] up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993. In 2008, 13.2% (39.8 million) Americans lived in poverty.[8]

wikipedia

If you want to put it down to an increasing number of American citizens possessing no work ethic, commitment or luck .... then there is no answer to poverty.
However when other societies do far better at eradicating poverty you're arguement now means that Swedes have a better work ethic ad commitment than Americans. Those Swedes with the 6 weeks of vacation a year ... You really believe this?

In Sweden and in the EU at large, it is the unemployed who are most at risk of living in what Eurostat dubs "serious material poverty". A person is considered poor if he or she does not satisfy four out of nine criteria, which include:
Not being able to cover an unforeseen expense, not being able to afford to eat meat, poultry or fish more than every other day. It also covers heating your home, having access to one week paid holiday a year, owning capital goods such as a washing machine or a car.
Sweden and Luxembourg have the EU's lowest proportion of citizens or residents living below the material poverty line - both at about 1 percent.

http://www.thelocal.se/46524/20130304/

Jared Diamond, in his latest book "The World Before Yesterday" notes that there is nothing genetically different about peoples around the world that contributes to their varying levels of development. Indeed, New Guieneans were living in the stone age in 1931 but today, two generations later, they are pilots, surgeons, computer programmers ....

The US spends a lot of money keeping its poorest from starving.... But it doesn't seem to eradicate poverty. Rather than depend upon lecturing the poor to copy Oprah WInfrey ( and presumably all beome actoresses and talk show hosts) it seems to me that looking at how countries that have successfully reduced poverty levels spend their money ....
But that would depend upon a rational, logical busness like approach in this investment. What we get from you and Fate are regurgitations of denial based upon myths and rare exceptions like Oprah.

RickyP,
You are correct. America is a large country. One with a great many opportunities. It is not just Oprah. I can list even more than that. That is not the point, though. This is not about who has the largest list...

It is about what the US is responsible for doing. You said that the giving of food has not helped the poverty situation in the US. I agree. I also agree that the support of housing for those in poverty does not help.

I lived in poverty. I grew up in it. I HATED IT!!! Having to use food stamps as a child was embarrassing, and instilled the negative stigma that I have today. We were on food stamps for about two years. Having NOTHING will drive some to achieve more. It did me.

Now you may say that we need to help those who do not have the drive that Oprah, myself, Herman Cain, Wayne Huizinga, Jim Carrey or whoever. I agree that we need to. The question is how.

Since you said giving money away does not help, and I agree; lets move beyond that. Education is the answer in my opinion. We should give a basic education (being done already), and provide opportunity in government service (military is a great option) that will allow the further education and matching funds for education programs.

What do you think needs to be done since you said government support does not help (and the facts back you up on that, btw.)?

bbauska

What do you think needs to be done since you said government support does not help (and the facts back you up on that, btw.)?

Please quote me where I said this... What I said was:

The US spends a lot of money keeping its poorest from starving.... But it doesn't seem to eradicate poverty. Rather than depend upon lecturing the poor to copy Oprah WInfrey ( and presumably all beome actoresses and talk show hosts) it seems to me that looking at how countries that have successfully reduced poverty levels spend their money ....
But that would depend upon a rational, logical busness like approach in this investment.

I've appealed to copying those societies that have done the best job at eradicating poverty ... If you look at that list the common elements are:
-universal health care
- free or very inexpensive education, including post secondary
- generous unemployment benefits
- generous minimum wages

There may be other commonalities but these I'm sure of.. And they are all the product of government but aren't the kind of micro managed programs like food stamps. Or direct welfare.

With the above, the need for food assisatance and welfare assistance (including housing) goes way down. And the ability of children to rise above their born in circumstances increases.

I assumed you were alluding to Food Stamp programs not working when you said:

The question is why poverty generally is growing in the US? (Despite all the programs like food stamps etc. that represent a large effort at alleviating poverty's effects.)

Certainly not a glowing endorsement...

I am for education being available to all (How about vouchers and choice!)
I am all for emergency health care being provided via Medicare and Medicaid
I am not for unemployment benefits (If you want to pay for the unemployment insurance, go right ahead)
I am not for minimum wage. (let the people decide how much they want to work for)

Perhaps we could compromise with that position? You get your two, and I get my two. Sounds like a deal.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Like with public school teachers, I think you'll find the conservative/liberal tilt quite notable. There may be a conservative urban planner in Alaska or Texas, but probably not anywhere else.

Evidence please. And evidence that they are just interchangeable with any other liberal tropes you care to bring up.

Rubbish. Who wants central-planning? Who wants less individual freedom, at least with regard to property rights?

You find a survey of the political beliefs of urban planners. I know a few--and they are very liberal.

Providing or enabling social housing is not 'telling people how or where to live'.

Yes it is. For the poor, it's live there or be homeless. For "moderate income housing," it's "live here or move 20 miles away."

When the government directly intervenes, it distorts market forces.

Perfect illustration: I want less government. You want more.

I want what works. You want to retreat from reason and make it all about ideology.

But, it doesn't "work." Public housing has been a disaster in the US. Welfare, etc., has fostered dependency--sometimes spanning generations.

By making social housing concentrated, and aimed only at the poor, you wonder how ghettos of poverty, worklessness and crime arise?

Nope. I think it's a government problem.

It is a problem of poor governance, but that doesn't mean it's intrinsic to government.

Yes it does. The market HAS to admit failure. The government does not.

Even then there are alternatives to cars and public transport out there. The main ones are perfectly suited to an individualist - "walking" and "cycling".

Sure. Try that in a place in which there is snow and ice half the year.

Is that the whole of the USA? Golly.

No, and I did not say that. However, try riding a bike 53 miles one way to work (that would not be unusual in the Los Angeles area). That makes for a very, very long day.

Yes, because asking you to back up your assertions is 'prejudice'.

Refuting my assertions, most of which are as plain as the nose on your face, with your own assertions, presumes the validity of yours. That is "prejudice."