Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Monday, August 27. 2007Poverty in AmericaOver the past several months, we have posted quite a bit on poverty in America, noting that government has little further power over it because it is usually the product of bad choices (eg drugs, no fathers, and the like), bad luck (catastrophe, mental illness), laziness, or immigration (1/4 of our poor are recent legal or illegal immigrants), and it has been more than adequately demonstrated that the average caring government program only damages people in the end. Now we have new data on American "poverty". If you leave out the illegals (who are included), it looks like the American poor are doing pretty well. Better than I would have thought, and good news for America. Furthermore, our census data on income do not include government benefits such as housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, welfare and the like. We are doing well by our people, and we should recognize that. Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I will also note that most poverty in America is temporary. Of the people who are in the bottom quintile in Year X, only 20% will be there in Year X+10. New immigrants and graduate students are often in the bottom quintile, but well out ten years later.
One group which remains in the impoverished group is the mentally ill. Many of these are indeed quite poor, and while some can find steady jobs and escape, this is an impossibility for some. These are my people, who I work with every day. Whenever I see poverty programs which target those who will likely escape poverty anyway, I know that my folks, the truly desperate, are being left behind again in order to garner votes for some (usually Democratic, but not always) politician. By solving non-problems, we can politely ignore real ones. Re: the mentally ill. Agree with you AVI. Nothing as therapeutic as work for pay. Yes, volunteering is great for the soul and the spirit (provided one has the basic necessities and a modicum of independence), but being able to support oneself and not need charity can be life changing for the mentally ill.
Our disability policies (which have tended to reward more con artists and ambulance chasing lawyers than those patients most in need of help) have suffered from the laws of unintended consequences, just as have other forms of social welfare. Our country has a strange attitude towards the mentally ill and disabled. Flashes of generosity and genuine sympathy, tho usually confined to the "cute kids" or those disabled who seem pitiable and no threat. Flashes of unreasoning fear, which is linked to denial. People can feel good about the Special Olympics, but freak out when waited upon by a higher functioning someone with an eccentric manner in a store. Every time some murderer like the messed up kid at Virginia Tech does something awful, the populace shudders at the dangers supposedly posed by the mentally ill. To my mind, better mentally ill and moral, than "normal" and criminal. The latter group thrive in our society (I know, I know, the Bible weeps at the prosperity of the wicked, so it is no new thing). Reflect for a moment on how Jesus called the wicked to repentance and amendment of life, and healed the sick and told them to pick up their pallet and walk (and presumably get a job). But our society seems better at excusing the past sins of the wicked (particularly if, like Millken, they are so delightfully rich and generous to worthy causes) than at giving the mentally ill a chance to work and support themselves. Given the high degree of social skills increasingly demanded in even the most menial jobs these days, it is actually tougher now for someone slow, or depressed, or obsessively pacing and muttering or hyper to hold a job than in the past. We talk a good game about accommodation, but we are more tolerant of a sullen, non-English speaking helper at the counter with forged documents than of a native born American with a decent IQ, willingness to work and perhaps some awkward and/or disturbing manners and things to say. If one more person tries to encourage me about my autistic kid by saying "Just look at how successfull Temple Grandin was!" I will puke. Not everyone wants to design slaughterhouses for cattle (she brilliantly figured out, from her own sensitivity to touch, sound, etc. derived from her own autism, what might calm and ease the sufferings of cattle on their way to be slaughtered. It enormously helped the meat packing industry. Or if people say "Look at all the millionaire geeks with Asperger's in Silicon Valley". It's about as patronizing and narrow as if I were to say to some anxious black mother "Don't worry about your boy and preserving him from bad influences, everything will turn out fine! Just look at how many black sports figures are making millions a year! Why look at that fine upstanding fellow, Vick, wasn't it...." The point is, citing those who win the employment lottery insults those with different skills and less blind luck. Virtually everyone in my family of origin is "crazy" but all of the ones who have been able to hold onto paid employment steadily have managed to stay married, be good parents, contribute to their churches and communities and not mooch off anyone. Those who have once fallen off the work track have only deteriorated mentally, socially, etc. And it is not necessarily a function of severity of mental illness. You should have heard the ravings of some of my great aunts and uncles....Being a professor at an Ivy or the CEO of one's own multinational business can, of course, cover a multitude of sins, but the point is that if one can be useful, and if people can appreciate one's energy and brains and commitment, mental illness need not define one. This was the beauty of the movie "A Beautiful Mind" for capturing (albeit somewhat Hollywoodized) the mystery and courage of a spirit that illness could not distract from seeking the light, and seeking to share that light with others. In the community where I presently live, hedge fund founders fawned upon by their church governing bodies loot money from people's life savings. Their pictures at charity events with smirking bleached blonde trophies clutter up the papers. They are presumably mentally healthy. But when somebody wants to put a group home for the mentally ill adult children of families from this community, the neighbors unite and hire high powered lawyers to fight it for years. Bad for property values. Who knows what THOSE PEOPLE might do.....Nice! The one thing that encourages me is the sure and certain knowledge that our God cares more about our moral character than our emotional stability, about our industry and our effort rather than which worldly successes we rack up. So I can tell my relatives smarting from the prejudice of the not-yet-diagnosed to just "Make like a rhinocerous, skin-wise, at least!" Sorry to rant. retriever, I don't disagree. I hope for justice in a better world, and hope I pass eligibility to see it. I suspect that some I found irritating or annoying will be way ahead of me there.
So, basically the "poor" in America today live in conditions comparable to the average American in about 1960.
It's in the logic
Let (X, d) be a non-empty complete poverty metric . Let T : X ? X be a contraction mapping on X, i.e: there is a nonnegative real number q < 1 such that for all x, y in X. Then the map T admits one and only one fixed point x* in X (this means Tx* = x*). Furthermore, this fixed point can be found as follows: start with an arbitrary element x0 in X and define an iterative sequence by xn = Txn-1 for n = 1, 2, 3, ... This sequence converges, and its limit is x*. The following inequality describes the speed of convergence: xy+xy-x}. Equivalently,and. The smallest such value of q is sometimes called the Bwanna constant. Note that the requirement d(Tx, Ty) < d(x, y) for all unequal x and y is in general not enough to ensure the existence of a fixed point, as is shown by the map T : [1,?) ? [1,?) with T(x) = x + 1/x, which lacks a fixed point. However, if the space X is compact, then this weaker assumption does imply all the statements of the theorem. When using the theorem in practice, the most difficult part is typically to define X properly so that T actually maps elements from X to X, i.e. that Tx is always an element of X. [edit] Proof Choose any . For each , define . We claim that for all , the following is true: Tx +{tx-Tx2(x-y+TX}. To show this, we will proceed using induction. The above statement is true, poor people aren't. I think you nailed it man. Especially here:
Note that the requirement d(Tx, Ty) < d(x, y) for all unequal x and y is in general not enough to ensure the existence of a fixed point, as is shown by the map T : [1,?) ? [1,?) with T(x) = x + 1/x, which lacks a fixed point. However, if the space X is compact, then this weaker assumption does imply all the statements of the theorem. Thanks Philp,
I had a bit of a time getting past, "The following inequality describes the speed of convergence: xy+xy-x}. but once I busted that it was all downhill. Another great article saved for reference. So, It appears that a tenth of the poor are really poor or about 1% of the population. And of that 1%, nobody is dire African poor ( i.e starving). So what is the Breck Girls problem? Theres no real poverty in America.
Off the subject. I'd like to propose a "Who got the worst Senators" contest. I'd like to nominate mine, Hilary and Chucky. Theyr'e pretty bad, but in all honesty I don't think that they can beat out the poor folks senators from Mass and California. Or how about Mi, NJ, Vt, or Pa. Sean,
You haven't received a business card from Senator Craig have you? Shumer is the worst..like when the shumer hits the fan! What's really not fair is, over-50s have to have all these aching joints, while under 30s have none of that. I propose Sen Edwards do something about THOSE two Americas.
Here's two Americas for you. Family man, U.S. senior Senator from Idaho, Board of Directors, National Rifle Association, leading opponent of gay marriage, early contributor and member of Romney for President campaign--looks for 'love' and 'affection' in men's toilet from stranger taking a crap.
He can be Barney Franks bitch.
Re-erect Idahole Senator Larry Craig ..he's a no holes barred kinda guy!! Appointments not necessary, just have a seat in the next stall. This time I think the Democrats are going to have a leg up on Senator Craig. He'll try to give them a hard time but they'll just hold on tight and lick him in November.
He's given them an opening and I think they'll take full advantage of it. Well said Mr Renee:) but I don't think Craig will be in that race. I don't think he will be running again. I hope he doesn't resign, as I want a wide open primary for the republicans, and I don't want the governor to appoint someone in the interim. He'll serve out his term, then quit. We here have know of or suspected this little quirk for quit sometime. It doesn't come as a big surprise.
Was it Dr. Johnson that said, or was it said of Dr. Johnson-- a man can be many things. POVERTY IN AMERICA: Beyond the Numbers
To call attention to the needs of Americans trapped in poverty this holiday season, Catholic Charities USA will release findings of its annual survey showing how Catholic Charities agencies are working to address the pervasive issue of poverty in this country. As one of the largest social service networks in the country, Catholic Charities agencies serve 4.1 million people living below the poverty line. That’s 1 in 10 people living in poverty. These agencies understand the consequences of poverty first-hand, and also know the solutions for helping individuals get on a path to self-sufficiency. Please join us as we address the challenges facing those in poverty and the opportunities for reducing poverty in America by half by 2020. Ø Gain a greater understanding of what’s behind the survey numbers Ø Learn about successful evidence-based case studies for addressing poverty Ø Take a state-by-state look at how and where Catholic Charities agencies are serving the greatest numbers of individuals in need of healthcare, food, employment, and housing services, as well as the many social services that build stronger families and communities Ø Trace the trends in the needs of Catholic Charities’ clients since 2002 Ø Hear more about Catholic Charities USA’s Campaign to Reduce Poverty in America, an ambitious plan to cut poverty by half by 2020 Ø Find out about the 3Ps for Reducing Poverty—the way you can ensure that presidential candidates focus on this issue during the primary season and beyond When: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, November 15, 2007 Where: Hall of the States 444 North Capitol Street, NW Room 383/385 Washington, D.C. RSVP: Monica Maggiano, Catholic Charities USA mmaggiano@catholiccharitiesusa.org Media Contact: Shelley Borysiewicz, Catholic Charities USA 703/236-6218, sborysiewicz@catholiccharitiesusa.org |