Is Kevin Orr living too large?

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

I always know something's an attack when it includes 'on the backs of'.

Couldn't agree with you more, Wes. It is not even possible to do something on "the backs of the poor" because they don't have money. I think people are implying that money spent in one place is then not spent of on the poor. But that's ridiculous. We spend [[and continue to spend) an enormous amount of money on anti-poverty programs. But those programs ignore the truth [[start flaming me now) that poverty is to a great extent a lifestyle choice. Why do some people make it out of poverty? Why do some people brought up with money end up broke? They make bad decisions, that's why. Circumstances beyond your control can help or hurt you, but you yourself are the biggest contributing factor to whether or not life goes well for you. If you're poor and 5 years old, that is not your fault. If you are poor and 50, it is.

[Crumbled_pavement]

Couldn't agree with you more, Wes. It is not even possible to do something on "the backs of the poor" because they don't have money. I think people are implying that money spent in one place is then not spent of on the poor. But that's ridiculous. We spend [[and continue to spend) an enormous amount of money on anti-poverty programs. But those programs ignore the truth [[start flaming me now) that poverty is to a great extent a lifestyle choice. Why do some people make it out of poverty? Why do some people brought up with money end up broke? They make bad decisions, that's why. Circumstances beyond your control can help or hurt you, but you yourself are the biggest contributing factor to whether or not life goes well for you. If you're poor and 5 years old, that is not your fault. If you are poor and 50, it is.

So please explain to me why more people born into wealth continue to live above poverty most of their lives, and most people born into poverty continue to be impoverished most of their lives? Why do people try to put their kids in the best schools when that doesn't matter, all that matters is how hard the child is willing to work? What you wrote was powerful, it sounded great and stirred up a very warm feeling in my heart. I was inspired to go out and conquer the world after reading it. Too bad it doesn't hold up in the real world and practically no one follows such silly reasoning. People wouldn't be breaking their backs working their fingers to the bone to raise their kids in the best neighborhoods and send them to the best school if the choice was solely on the individual. They know like you and I, the better opportunities and chances a person has, the better opportunities and chances that person will realize. Most Metro Detroiters wouldn't raise their kids in Detroit because they wouldn't want their kids to face the grim future that most Detroit children face. Although they continue to deny that Detroit children face a grim future.

[Wesley Mouch]

So please explain to me why more people born into wealth continue to live above poverty most of their lives, and most people born into poverty continue to be impoverished most of their lives? ...

Most is not all. But let's accept your premise. That fate or situation determine you future. What to do?

What we've been doing since we established our social safety net hasn't worked. So what will work? More of hte same? That doesn't seem smart to me.

[Crumbled_pavement]

Most is not all. But let's accept your premise. That fate or situation determine you future. What to do?

To accept my premise you have to first get my premise right. You assume like too many that life is black and white and there is no gray areas. WRONG!

My premise isn't fate or situation determines your future, it is that your situation FACTORS into your future. It's retarded to think one's own actions have nothing to do with where they end up in life. It's equally retarded to think the situations one is born into have nothing to do with where one ends up in life either. It's a combination of both. Crazy, isn't it? A gray area? Who would of thunk it?

[Wesley Mouch]

To accept my premise you have to first get my premise right. You assume like too many that life is black and white and there is no gray areas. WRONG!

My premise isn't fate or situation determines your future, it is that your situation FACTORS into your future. It's retarded to think one's own actions have nothing to do with where they end up in life. It's equally retarded to think the situations one is born into have nothing to do with where one ends up in life either. It's a combination of both. Crazy, isn't it? A gray area? Who would of thunk it?

We thus agree that neither fate nor situation determines your future. Certainly one's starting situation has a lot to do with your current situation.

Starting situation is of course complex. Its not just money. Its everything. Prenatal through hospice care. I'm all in favor of a basic social safety net. But going beyond the basics hasn't proven to do anything about changing one's 'situation'. So let's stop trying.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

So please explain to me why more people born into wealth continue to live above poverty most of their lives, and most people born into poverty continue to be impoverished most of their lives?

Anyone who graduates high school, doesn't become a parent before age 20 [[and is married when they do), and avoids drugs and alcohol has statistically almost no chance of spending much time, let alone a lifetime, in poverty.

Why did my friend Jowell in New York move to the US in 2000 from Haiti with no education, no money, speaking almost no English and now owns 2 very successful small businesses? How did he do it? HE WORKED HARD, SAVED HIS MONEY, AND PROMOTED HIS OWN IDEAS. And he is about to become a citizen. Great guy. No one ever told him his circumstances were permanent or out of his control. He wanted things and he obtained them. No hand outs, no complaining. He spent years working in bars, starting at the lowest rung. But before striking out on his own, he was running a bar for someone else. He rose from $5/hour [[plus tips) barback to head bartender making bank in 4 years. When his T-shirt, and then record label, took off, he was able to give that up. He has earned everything he has from scratch. He has more than most people do, and started with far less not that long ago.

As far as helping kids, getting kids out of non-schools that we call Detroit Public Schools is the best thing society can do to help them. Even if your intentions are good, not favoring a broad school choice program is to condemn most kids in this city to getting a crappy education. The entire United States Treasury could not turn our schools around; lack of money is not the issue. So lets abandon them, and allow kids to attend other schools [[public in other districts, charter and private anywhere) where they would have a shot at an education. The kids are more important than the system.

[mwilbert]

Anyone who graduates high school, doesn't become a parent before age 20 [[and is married when they do), and avoids drugs and alcohol has statistically almost no chance of spending much time, let alone a lifetime, in poverty.

First of all, that statistic is from a 2009 Brookings Institution study that doesn't say quite that. It says that they have a small chance of ending up in poverty, but not that they will only be in poverty for a short time.

But more importantly, this tells us less than you appear to think it does. In particular, poor men have a hard time finding women to marry, and because of the shortage of eligible poor men, so do poor women. So by looking at how married people do, you are already excluding the poor people with the worst prospects.

Anyone who says that the poor have no ability to improve their lives is wrong, at least in general. But anybody who thinks there is a three-step process to get out of poverty is also wrong. We know that moving up the economic ladder in the US is difficult. Not impossible. In the Detroit area [[not Detroit proper), according to the national study out last week by Raj Chetty et al, there is about a 5% chance that a child born into a household in lowest 20% of the population will reach the highest 20% [[by income). That is a lot more than zero, but a lot less than it should be. Incidentally, in New York City, it is over 10%, fortunately for your successful immigrant friend.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

MWILBERT, I think I have a slightly different point of view than a lot of people do. I don't think anyone has a right to get out of poverty. They just have a right not to be kept there by someone else's actions. Someone not giving you their money doesn't make you poor. I think people should and do sink or swim on their own. There will always be poor people. My uncle John is a bum who has chosen to drink and bet his money [[or other people's money) on the ponies his whole life. I am angered to this day that this man who did nothing productive in his life, literally stole money from friends, family, and strangers [[did jail time for it), is now on the dole in his old age. He had every opportunity in the world, including education, but he squandered it all. I don't think he is owed anything by anyone. No one is entitled to money someone else earned, no matter how poor you are or how rich they are. Note: I am not rich and do not hang out with rich people. I have just sweated enough for my money that I am sure that someone who didn't sweat for it doesn't deserve it.

Question for my liberal friends: what is the amount of money that can be given to someone to end their poverty? Is there such a number? Of course there isn't. Lottery winners frequently end up broke. Why? Becasue long term responsible living and intelligent decision making make you prosperous.
If there was a check we could write that would end poverty, I would favor writing that check once. But there isn't. There will always be achievers and non-achievers; that's the human race.

A person who takes a mimimum wage job is a lot more likely to be well-off in a decade than someone who spends their time protesting the lack of living wage jobs. It's easier but a lot less productive to choose to not work.

[mwilbert]

MWILBERT, I think I have a slightly different point of view than a lot of people do. I don't think anyone has a right to get out of poverty.

Well, I guess I would say I don't really think there is any need for anyone to be in poverty in the United States, but I agree that our society hasn't established a right not to be poor. I just think it is harder for people to escape poverty than you seem to. I think the evidence is on my side, but it isn't cut-and-dried.

But let me ask you this. What kind of life should drug addicts have? Let's talk, of what Alfie Doolittle called the undeserving poor. Do they have to live on the street with no teeth? I think it is entirely appropriate that they be less well-off than the working poor [[who I think should be better-off anyway), but how much worse off? And what about the children of the undeserving poor? We can say we think that people shouldn't have children without the means of raising them, but it doesn't seem that we have been able to prevent it. What are the appropriate living conditions for those kids?

The other thing is that this is only going to get worse as more jobs are lost to automation. US inequality is already at levels that have historically been destabilizing [[i.e. 1890's and 1920's). Eric Brynjolfsson thinks that 65% of the jobs in the economy can be eliminated in the foreseeable future. The only answer to widespread poverty is going to be giving money to people, either in conjunction with some kind of work requirement or not. The US political system is not ready for this, but it probably is going to need to start working on it pretty soon.

[old guy]

Well, I guess I would say I don't really think there is any need for anyone to be in poverty in the United States, but I agree that our society hasn't established a right not to be poor. I just think it is harder for people to escape poverty than you seem to. I think the evidence is on my side, but it isn't cut-and-dried.

I have to agree. I think it's much harder for people to escape poverty now, than it was several decades ago. I also agree with some of the points that Mikeyinbrooklyn makes.
People need to work at it, whatever it takes. Take a lesson from people that are crossing the Mexican border because their families are starving, and they have no other recourse. Like it or not, they're attempting to feed their families and stay alive, no matter what it takes.

I feel sorry for the coming of age people of this country because I don't know what's in store for the general populace. There doesn't seem to be enough opportunities to bring people out of poverty. It's always been a problem, but seems to be at an historical low.

[Hermod]

First of all, that statistic is from a 2009 Brookings Institution study that doesn't say quite that. It says that they have
a small chance of ending up in poverty, but not that they will only be in poverty for a short time.

But more importantly, this tells us less than you appear to think it does. In particular, poor men have a hard time finding women to marry, and because of the shortage of eligible poor men, so do poor women. So by looking at how married people do, you are already excluding the poor people with the worst prospects.

Anyone who says that the poor have no ability to improve their lives is wrong, at least in general. But anybody who thinks there is a three-step process to get out of poverty is also wrong. We know that moving up the economic ladder in the US is difficult. Not impossible. In the Detroit area [[not Detroit proper), according to the national study out last week by Raj Chetty et al, there is about a 5% chance that a child born into a household in lowest 20% of the population will reach the highest 20% [[by income). That is a lot more than zero, but a lot less than it should be. Incidentally, in New York City, it is over 10%, fortunately for your successful immigrant friend.

In other words, poor women should keep their knees together.

[Wesley Mouch]

In other words, poor women should keep their knees together.

Yes. Until they've created an environment to best raise their children. Of course.

Women serve themselves and their future children best by having high standards.

Do we think this will happen 100% of the time? No. Should this be our goal? Without doubt.

Not just 'poor women', but all women. Isn't this obvious?

[cassiesmom1]

Yes. Until they've created an environment to best raise their children. Of course.

Women serve themselves and their future children best by having high standards.



Do we think this will happen 100% of the time? No. Should this be our goal? Without doubt.

Not just 'poor women', but all women. Isn't this obvious?

I agree. Why would I want to give birth to a child for whom I cannot provide a good life?

[Downtown Lady]

In other words, poor women should keep their knees together.

Oh, do men play no role in child creation?

[TKshreve]

Oh, do men play no role in child creation?

A lot of the time the answer will be NO if you are referring to the post-birth portion of that situation.