The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
By now many Ricochet readers will have had their attention drawn both to the alarming statistics released on poverty today and to the excellent Heritage Foundation study on what constitutes “poverty” in America. On the one hand, poverty has certainly increased under President Obama. On the other hand, poverty is being so loosely defined as to become virtually meaningless. Of course, the political capital to be gained by statistics related to poverty almost always redounds to the advantage of the Left. Or so it has until now.
As the Heritage Foundation points out, though, virtually all households living in poverty have a refrigerator, a television, and a stove and oven. The vast majority have air conditioning, a microwave, a DVD player, and cable television. Almost forty percent have a personal computer; a third have more than two televisions; thirty percent have a video game system; and 22% have more than one DVD player. These figures are for 2005, by the way, the horrible Bush years.
Such statistics are confirmation of what Adam Smith said long ago. An “improved” commercial society, relying principally on the workings of the market, may distribute wealth unequally (the rich are much richer than the poor); but that is better than all being equal in squalor. And even the poorest people living in commercial society will be better off than the wealthiest and the rulers of unimproved society.
These facts lead me to the inescapable conclusion that the poor should be poorer in America. I mean that in two senses. First, as the Heritage Foundation report urges, we need to redefine poverty to be in line with what most people imagine when they hear the word: that the impoverished are suffering from want of food, housing, clothing, and other basic necessities. The line “30 million Americans are living in poverty” is nothing more than fodder for demagogic Democrats.
Yet I mean this in a second sense. We should look at these figures and be outraged at the welfare state. My household does not have a “non-portable stereo,” though 49% of the “poor” do. My home has only one television, though a third of the “poor” have more than two. I do not have a printer, though 27.9% of the “poor” do. Should we—you and I, as taxpayers—pay for the poor to live with more luxuries than we have in many cases? What incentive do the poor have to get off the dole if their food is paid for with food stamps, their health care is paid for through WIC and other programs, and their daycare is paid for through “early childhood” centers masquerading as schools? The poor should be poorer in America (i.e. have their social programs cut) so they will have an incentive to quit feeding at the public trough. What would happen then to the “poor”? What would then happen—according to Econ 101—is that the money saved from no longer “helping” the poor might actually be invested by people who understand markets in order to create more and better jobs. There would be fewer poor. Republicans can win on this issue. Reagan did.
- Comment (32)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Feb '11
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
wilber forge
Never quite got the Puffed Wheat commercials about being shot from guns thing.
Imagine that ad today, Hmm... · Sep 13 at 7:25pm
Culture. It introduced kids to the 1812 Overture. Why else would Quakers talk about guns?
Nov '10
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it
- Benjamin Franklin
Feb '11
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
It's like the old punchline "I have money for gambling, it's food money I need from you."
Nov '10
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
No less important than ensuring that the term "poor" is used realistically is ensuring that it is not essentialized.
Being poor does not mean one is permanently a member of a class of poor people. Similarly, being rich does not mean one is permanently a member of a class of rich people. There is substantial social mobility.
Moreover, there is a general pattern: most people get richer as they grow older, because they accumulate experience, skills, and reputation. Hence, the poor (now) include more youths than adults, and the rich (now) more adults than youths. This means that the poor today include many to-be-rich, and the rich today many have-been-poor.
Thus, over the lifetime, there is less wealth inequality than is suggested by one-time indices thereof. Indeed, you could logically have perfect lifetime wealth equality and substantial one-time wealth inequality.
As regards individual income mobility (which, excluding household-derived benefits, conservatively estimates wealth mobility) 57.6% from lowest quintile move up over 10 years, and 30.6% from the highest quintile move down. Plenty of inertia, true; but much mobility too.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf
Edited on September 14, 2011 at 10:59amFeb '11
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
paulebe:
I'm reminded of my eldest son's college pre-freshman "experience" session.
I don't know what college that was, but if it were my kid he'd be receiving a one way ticket home and and an admonition to take some time off - or better yet, spend a few years in the military - and research his options a little better. Failing that, I'd tell him to pay for his indoctrination himself.
It is depressing to note that by those standards I wouldn't go to my own alma mater now. You may rest assured, the latter doesn't get one crummy nickel of my money.
Edited on September 14, 2011 at 1:49pmDec '10
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
Libruls know these statistics just as well as we do. Their concern isn't to make the poor richer. It's to make the rich poorer so as to appease their god of Equality. That's why they have no concern over the degradation of the character of society and individuals in a welfare state. Danger on the Left.
Jun '10
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
Valiuth: I'm sorry to sound like a contrarian on this, since I'm sure I'm closer to you on this isssue than I am to Obama, but presentation matters. Conservatives take many things for granted and between us we accept certain things as given, but I feel most people don't so we need a good, clear, positive way to make our point. That will help us sell it to everyone else.
· Sep 13 at 7:38pm
Exactly. Partly because I grew up in a home that didn't have a color TV unitl we won one in a church raffle in 1975, I do find the ubiquitous electronics found among the poor to be quite startling. When reading Angela's Ashes, one of my favorite books, I kept thinking, "She's always sitting around smoking fags....how does she have the money to buy them?"
On the other hand, we who believe in welfare reform must not come across like the Church Lady, being sour and pettty as we count every "luxury" the poor person may own. The presentation should be almost evangelical --- celebrating the nobility & transformative power of honorable work, thrift, and delayed gratification.
Sep '10
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
Snow Bird
paulebe:
I'm reminded of my eldest son's college pre-freshman "experience" session.
I don't know what college that was, but if it were my kid he'd be receiving a one way ticket home and and an admonition to take some time off - or better yet, spend a few years in the military - and research his options a little better. Failing that, I'd tell him to pay for his indoctrination himself.
It is depressing to note that by those standards I wouldn't go to my own alma mater now. You may rest assured, the latter doesn't get one crummy nickel of my money. · Sep 14 at 4:45am
Edited on Sep 14 at 04:49 am
I went through a similar experience in a corporate setting several years ago, and I think the exercise does help one understand the situation others may be in, regardless of the cause. What amazes me is the fact that when... "they introduced the "Appalachian" region, they were defined as "poor by choice"." Now THAT is radical. I actually wanted to praise the college--where was it?
Oct '10
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
David John: I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it
- Benjamin Franklin · Sep 13 at 10:51pm
That sounds disturbingly close to the old Poor Laws in England. What poor people need are jobs, and social programs tied to work, not punishment as if they are criminals. Work requirements have a lot of purposes, but punishing the poor is not one of them.
Feb '11
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
KaneCountyFarmboy
I went through a similar experience in a corporate setting several years ago, and I think the exercise does help one understand the situation others may be in, regardless of the cause.
I'm afraid I'm an immovable object on this one, with respect to both the academic and the corporate morphs as well as all the other variegated mutations. It was my immense good fortune that the academic strain was not in vogue when I matriculated. Regarding the corporate, I've had more than adequate opportunities to watch this sort of stuff from safely detached vantage points (and a couple unfortunately less detached). For the sake of my blood pressure, I will not elaborate further.
In the case of the university I graduated from (a moderately large well known institution), the ensuing decades have seen it dive head first into the slough of PC, submerging itself completely in the muck. Today, I wouldn't send my dog there. It amazes me that anyone manages to graduate from some of these schools without being completely ruined. I greatly admire the spirit and determination of those who do.
Edited on September 14, 2011 at 10:27pmFeb '11
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
Wow. One of the thoughts I've never had while wondering about the fate of the many many people I've known who've lost their jobs is to hope they don't have a stove, so they'll learn the value of work.
I bet most people haven't either. That's why when they see this sort of opinion they tend to get a rather low opinion of Republicans.
I can't blame them. In fact I'd say this post helps me understand how people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama win votes. They might be corrupt and incompetent, but at least they don't set out to make losing a job as horrible as possible, as a policy goal.
The odd thing is, I sort of agree. The welfare hammock is too (expletive) comfortable. People have no right to expect the public to buy them a cell phone, cable, or restaurant meals.
People have a right to the money they earn, not the money other people earn.
Instead of wishing suffering upon people, I humbly suggest we concentrate on that aspect of the morality of welfare.
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
For those still following this post, I shall clarify. When the government defines poverty in the way it does; and when social programs continue to be thrown at the "poor" (not all but most of whom are getting substantial assistance from the government); and when the poor make poor choices about how they spend their money (not having to choose between, say, an X-box and shots for their children because the shots are covered); then the taxpayers end up indirectly buying luxury items for those living in poverty--luxury items beyond what many taxpayers have. But if social programs did not take capital out of circulation, there would be more money for investing that would lead to "the poor" having more and better jobs. On top of that, taxpaying America would have more money to give to charity--which "the rich" and middle class always do. The difference is that that charity would have real charity behind it (from Latin caritas, love) and would be better administered. What we need is better administered welfare? How can anyone believe that after the last half century of failed social experiments? Finally, where is the warrant for federal welfare in the Constitution?