September 13, 2005

Poverty

Katrina has put poverty on, well, the middle burner these days. An op-ed in the Post Dispatch by Francie Broderick linked Katrina with recent roll backs in Medicaid coverage in Missouri noted this exchange thoughts it inspired:

"Two years ago, I was in Jefferson City when legislators debated the question of saving health care and social services by raising some taxes and closing some corporate loopholes. A woman opposing this approach literally shouted in my ear: "People should take care of themselves." I made the mistake of responding. "Some people simply can't," I said, to which she again shouted "Well, they just have to do better."

...

Why have things changed so much? Why did we decide to let the most vulnerable fend for themselves? I think part of the answer is that we have been asking the wrong questions. Instead of asking "How do we make things better?" we have been asking what the individual has done or not done to get themselves in their situations. In other words: How is it their fault?

I think we also should be asking: What systems and policies have to change so that people can take better care of themselves and their families? What do we know that will work? How can we make it happen? "

Now, those are some excellent questions - I'm always a fan of "How do we make things better?" but I think it ignores the difference between people who can't take care of themselves (or adequately participate in a market economy) and those who won't. And for me that's a huge difference, and oddly enough one of my problems with doctrinaire libertarianism since they want to reduce the problem to one for which they already have a solution, so doctrinaire libertarians simply the problem to one in which we are all adults sound of mind and body. But we aren't and even my simple dichotomy of can't and won't isn't so simple in real life as there aren't simple binary functions of can/can't and will/won't, let alone can't/won't.

So if you look at the poor and see the problem of poverty as one of people who can't, one set of solutions becomes clear; if you look at the poor and see the problem of poverty as one of people how won't, a different set of solutions becomes clear. And since the tendency is that feedback from life only reinforces your previously held assumptions and beliefs, people of one camp find it hard to see the poor in any other way. I guess I look at it both ways, and that what's needed for one group won't do much for the other. For people who can't participate adequately, whether through physical or mental issues, money by itself is a significant part of the solution. For people who won't, money by itself only enables them in their won't-ness and is something that they will be able to earn once they are no longer won't-ers.

There is clearly a social/cultural aspect to poverty; I can remember watching an older writer being interviewed by Tim Russert and the writer related how he was talking to a friend of the same generation and they were talking about growing up poor during the great depression, which got them to talking about poverty today and the differences, and the writer said that the difference was that when he was growing up, the poor were middle class people without money but that being poor today is about far more than money.

Megan McArdle first looks at the poor and Katrina and has suggestions on why and how a "self-evacuation" in the face of a storm means the middle class and rich leave without difficulty and the poor stays behind. Then she effectively explores the difference between the poor and middle class, and hint, it isn't about money:

"So I think that conservatives are right that many of the poor dig themselves in deeper. But conservatives tend to take a moralistic stance towards poverty that radically underestimates how much cultural context determines our ability to make good decisions.

Sure, I go to work every day, pay my bills on time, don't run a credit card balance and don't have kids out of wedlock because I am planning for my future. But I also do these things because my parents spent twenty or so years drumming a fear of debt, unemployment, and illegitimacy into my head.

...

In other words, middle class culture is such that bad long-term decision making also has painful short-term consequences. This does not, obviously, stop many middle class people from becoming addicted to drugs, flagrantly screwing up at work, having children they can't take care of, and so forth. But on the margin, it prevents a lot of people from taking steps that might lead to bankruptcy and deprivation. We like to think that it's just us being the intrinsically worthy humans that we are, but honestly, how many of my nice middle class readers had the courage to drop out of high school and steal cars for a living?"

It is often said by advocates who only see those who can't that nobody chooses to be poor. Well, I don't choose to be fat, but I have looked in the mirror lately. So yes, some people choose to be poor, only the choice is never put in those terms. It's the sum of a whole bunch of decisions not all of which seem related. And the poor have a host of influences that lead to poor decisions; the middle class has has a host of influences that lead to better decisions. So what can we do to influence the influences? And how much can government do as part of that influence? I leave these as excercises for the reader.

And to round out the trifecta, I turn to Joe Carter to has reposted his thoughts on the relativeness of poverty:

"I’m always hesitant to share this story because we in America tend to have a knee-jerk sympathy for the “down and out.” There are, however, many times, like in my family’s case, when pity is completely unwarranted. A lifetime of foolish decisions by my parents, rather than a dismal economy or lack of opportunity, led to our being poor. We reaped what they had sowed.

But while being poor can be difficult, it isn’t the tragedy that many might be inclined to believe. From an early age I knew that while many people had more than I did, others had it much, much worse. That lesson was seared into my conscience while sitting in a pew watching Baptist missionaries present a slideshow detailing their latest mission trip. The images of true poverty gave our tiny congregation a glimpse into the everyday life in Ethiopia, a time of famine when a bucket of unshelled peanuts would be considered a feast. I was struck by the realization that as little as we had, these people had less. I was white-trash Texas poor; these people were Africa poor. "

My summation is that I know as a Christian I should help those in need; but I have to be careful not just because all needs aren't equal, but all needs aren't the same. A lack of money has many causes and the best help addresses the cause even as it addresses the lack. Even rich people have needs that money cannot solve.

Posted by Kevin Murphy at September 13, 2005 12:30 PM | Culture
Comments
We welcome comments. However, use no profanity and be civil.

When we spoke tonight I hadn't read this entry yet, it's funny how the Megan McArdle post resonated with both of us. It's a good observation that money or the lack of it is not most people's challenge. I offer two quotes from Maimonides that provide an interesting perspective on poverty and charity.

"Anticipate charity by preventing poverty."
-- Maimonides

8 levels of tzedakah (charity) by Maimonides

1. reluctantly
2. less than one should, but cheerfully
3. enough, but only after being asked directly
4. before being asked
5. in a way so the giver doesn't know who receives the tzedakah
6. in a way so the receiver doesn't know who gave the tzedakah
7. in a way that neither knows who the other was
8. in the form of providing work or money so the receiver will not need tzedakah again.

Posted by: Sean Murphy at September 14, 2005 1:52 AM