All of these comments are interesting. Is anyone interested in contributing to the Delly Pulpit Substack, a nonpartisan platform to share ideas and stories like these? I'm just getting it organized. https://dellypulpit.substack.com/p/take-your-turn
Her name is Isabel Wilkerson, and тАЬThe Warmth of Other SunsтАЭ is one of the best nonfiction books I have ever read. She is such a brilliant writer that I am tempted to read Caste despite what I have heard about it because I have a hard time believing that anything she writes wouldnтАЩt at least be good.
People get paid a wage based on the supply and demand for what they do. Jobs like janitor are never going to be paid a lot (note, my mom was a janitor for probably 30 years). It's not a skilled job. There's plenty of people willing to do it. You're never going to support a family especially on one income with a job like that.
As for gangs I agree they are a problem. But the only way you stop the gangs is with drug legalization.
It's been 40 years of the War on Drugs, we've spent over a trillion dollars, locked up millions of people, and anyone can get any drug they want at any time. We can't even keep drugs out of prisons.
Not to mention of course that it's none of the government's business what I put in my body.
Is that so? The ones that do certainly play a disproportionate role in the underworld commodity distribution system. Really. If street gangs aren't involved in drug trafficking these days, then what are they doing?
The supply routes and wholesale trade in meth, cocaine, and opioids are run almost entirely by organized trafficking networks affiliated with American street gangs at the retail end.
The gang members in prisons control the drug trade behind the walls. There are at least 200,000 gang members in the total US inmate population of 1.5 million. There are few non-gang affiliated drug dealers in prison. And many prisons are drug infested.
I'm old enough to remember when street gangs were found in only a few of the country's largest cities. They were local and mostly carried on their activities within their one neighborhood, their home turf. They had no regional or nationwide networks. Now they do; not only that, they have international networks. I remember when the marijuana trade was fed by thousands of independent smugglers, and the money was very small-time. I remember when the potency and the price skyrocketed, too, and the sources shifted to stateside cultivators. Most of them were independents, too. But by the mid-1990s, the Mexican syndicates- "the cartels"- began getting involved in large-scale growing operations in California, of unprecedented size. Every time the career criminals moved in, they forced the independents out of the business
"Middle and upper class liberals have no real interest in changing the status quo, because it works for them."
Oh, bullshit. I am a middle-class liberal and I desperately want every American to enjoy the benefits and responsibilities of living in the richest and most powerful nation on Earth. Poverty doesn't "work for me," it works against me, by making my society more dangerous and more desperate. When everybody is doing well, when everyone earns a living wage for the important work they do--janitors are just as important as anyone else in keeping the nation functioning--I do better and the nation is less hostile.
You're right, the terms *are* subjective. But when any segment of American society is so dirt-poor that they have to choose between food and heat, you know we have a problem.
Statistics, no. Personal situation, yes. I grew up in a working class family in a tiny rural village south of Chicago. 1950s-60s. Dad had a steady job as a village policeman and a part-time gig on days off. Mom was at home with us kids, but did part-time work. Both tended a large vegetable garden in summers. Even with that, the paychecks did not stretch quite far enough. They would have to borrow food for a few days every couple months to make sure us kids were fed. (We had no idea, always thought food just showed up every day.) Most people borrowed food from each other every now and again to make ends meet.
So, we always had heat, but not always food. Without the help of family and neighbors--and our help to them--it would have been a choice between food and heat, or food and something else. Pick a tradeoff.
I'm not crying poor mouth, because we were not and did not feel poor. But we did not live in genuine poverty-stricken neighborhoods, either. How many in this country do? Maybe they buy both food and heat. But they don't see a doctor when they're sick. Can't fix their car. Etc.
See also my question to Smith, above, concerning Kentucky.
What you describe sounds like the way society should work and how the Holy Scriptures tell us to live and treat people. If you have abundance, you share with those who do not. You work or you do not eat. I do not see a problem with the life you describe.
I grew up much the same way in the '80s. My story is a bit different though because my parents chose to spend money on booze and drugs, but still got help from family when they fell short on paying bills. My parents chose a path that was less industrious than they could have. Should someone else have paid for the shortfall that caused them? We were "poor" by today's standards, but I didn't know it. We heated our house with wood, we had a big garden, we also canned food for winter. Society would do well to go back to that way of life. Families and communities taking care of their own, of their own volition, not at the end of a government gun. Now covetousness is the rule of the day. If someone has more than you, they must not be paying their fair share. Elected officials, who are mostly millionaires, by the way, should be empowered to take from "rich", a term as subjective as the word "poor" is, and give to those they deem "poor". We have spent some 30 + trillion dollars on the war on poverty since 1965. What do we have to show for it? I contend we have a weaker society both socially and morally.
I say if you are worried about those around you who are living in poverty, start helping them out. It builds community, trust, and appreciation in the gift you are giving, as opposed to the distrust, entitlement, and division the current government redistribution of wealth creates.
Since you've been around the nation on mission trips, tell me this: do you think there is real poverty in this country? Not compared to Mexico or other nations, but within the United States. If so, how real *is* their plight, or is mostly made for TV news?
I ask because the one time I was in western Kentucky to visit a friend's family, one place we stopped the family did have to choose between heat and food, in that they couldn't afford both. So they got a third-hand potbelly for the shack and scrounged wood for fuel. They did pay for food, but I don't know if it was on their job(s) or from public assistance.
I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely curious because you've been there 25 times and I haven't. Also, where in the U.S. are these pockets--one region, or across the board? Thanks for any enlightenment you can share, Smith.
Thanks for your eyewitness account, Smith, very much appreciated.
Given what you said at the end--"l never saw anybody starving unless it was their choice (to not move, or not take the handouts, or misuse the handouts)"--then I would have to agree with you. My position on food vs. heat was based on the assumption of no access to government assistance, which was more common in the early to mid postwar era than now. If you have access to and accept the help, then yes, you will have enough heat and food to get by.
The refusal of able-bodied people to work astonishes me. I grew up in a work culture and am always shocked when people think it's better to avoid it--i.e., sitting around drinking beer while YOU fix their houses. I'd be embarrassed.
Liberals are very much the enemy, whether by design or by serendipity, for it is their wrong-headed policy decisions that lead directly to poverty and misery for the most people. As Churchill noted, the inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Sometimes liberals are well-meaning dupes, sometimes malicious soreheads who have never accomplished anything and can't stand it that there are people who have, but in either case the effect is the same.
"Liberals are very much the enemy. Sometimes liberals are well-meaning dupes, sometimes malicious soreheads who have never accomplished anything and can't stand it that there are people who have, but in either case the effect is the same."
This is the single-most-stupid statement on this thread. You just can't stand it that we are right about some things.
Poverty. I have no problem with Trump supporters, and count a few among my friends. I don't like Trump at all, but I don't take that out on those who voted for him for honest reasons.
Depends on how you define "liberal". I know for a fact that yes all liberals want everyone to earn a living wage, but I also know for a fact that the vast majority of middle class liberals benefit from the depression of wages for gardeners and landscapers, agricultural workers, restaurant staff, nannies, construction workers, etc., etc., and also happen to have zero interest in supporting politicians who would act to enforce the immigration laws the violation of which depresses those wages for those workers. It's also hardly coincidental that the places where they hold the most power like San Francisco and New York are also the places where the cost of housing and transportation for low-wage workers is the highest, whereas it's the opposite in Florida and Texas, where they don't hold much power.
But yes, middle class liberals are not the enemy, no American is the enemy. We're all in this together, and I ascribe positive intent to everyone. But by some combination of misguided ideology and real material interests, it happens that middle class liberals tend to support a set of policies that make life much more difficult for those at the low end of the wage scale, and short drive around the inner-city of any of places where they hold sway is all that you need to do to confirm this.
Having grown up working class--i.e., blue collar poor--and starting my writing care in same, this upper-middle-class liberal wants nobody to be stuck in that cycle forever. It's bad for everyone having a desperate underclass of poverty. Getting everyone who wants to be out of it, out of it, is just so good for all of us I have no idea why any liberal would not want that. Paying janitors a living way doesn't affect my choices or lifestyle at all, other than making for a more peaceful and sane society.
If you grew up blue collar, you probably have a perspective somewhat at odds with what I'm talking about, although it's by no means exclusive. If liberals don't want a "desperate underclass of poverty" why do they support policies that allow for an endless flow of undocumented immigrants, which gaurantees that there will always be a desperate underclass of poverty?
I don't want that at all. I want a legal immigration system that quickly sorts good candidates from poor and populates our country with the kind of people we need: hard-working sorts who believe America isn't just a place to get a job, but a way of life. That it takes more than ten years for a legal applicant to work through the system is insane.
That said, much of our poverty is not among illegal immigrants, it's among rural-white and inner-city-black Americans.
I think most people on the left and the right would like such an immigration system, but the woke left, a.k.a. upper middle class liberals (by and large), does not. They're interested in dissolving national borders and dismantling what they see as the racially-exclusive nature of citizenship in advanced Western societies. My issue is not that illegal immigrants compose X or Y percent of our national challenge of poverty, but that the goal of eliminating poverty can never be achieved so long as we're going to allow an unending stream of new poor people into the country.
She's not bashing liberals. She's bashing trust-fund liberals who don't actually have any skin in the game but who often appoint themselves the Saviors of the Downtrodden, who understand their challenges better than they do. And they are legion, unfortunately.
Then she should change it to "Woke" instead of Liberals. I am mightily tired of my Liberal behind being lumped in with the brain-dead of the hyper-left.
I am a liberal, closer to centrist than progressive. I like some progressive ideas and some conservative ideas. I have no use for the screechiness of Woke and right-wing.
They won? That's a surprise to me. I don't consider Biden a progressive. He's more of a moderate, having conservative and progressive views simultaneously.
Woke is the second-farthest end of the liberal scale, and beyond that, pure Communism. But I consider them equal to hard-right wingers, and worth ignoring.
I wish You were right, but naw. Lemme see if I can find it.
I'll be DARNED. Apparently didn't save the link. It was in The Atlantic recently and it was TITLED something along lines of "The Progressives Have Won" and was about how Biden was SO adoring of Squad.
And if You saw Biden's Executive Order of 01/20/21 You'll also find out he's woke. Wish it weren't so, but 't is.
Same -- part of the reason I cannot stomach the hyper-woke is that they are antagonistic to real solutions to the problems that all liberals acknowledge. Are there real challenges facing people in historically disadvantaged groups? Damned right there are. Are the solutions proposed by the limousine progressives going to help? Not a bit -- in fact, they'll make them worse.
Thanks for this. I separate conservatives from the hard-right wing, just as I separate liberals from the hard-left wing--i..e., "Woke." I have more in common with thoughtful conservatives than I do with hard leftists.
Racists, sexists, and other -ists plague all of us, and are surely not limited to the right wing or conservatives. Plenty on my side, too.
Honestly, though: we all are fighting one thing: the power of the corporate class and their cheerleaders in the media over all of us. Both the GOP and Democratic Party are beholden to Big Corporate for re-election money and personal wealth, and take their marching orders from them, not voters. It's why you see the lunacy of Democrat Joe Manchin always siding with Big Oil and Mining--he's owned by them, and is in fact one of them by profession, a mining baron.
The Great Compromise only works when House, Senate, and Executive legislate independently of their funders. That is not the case these days, hasn't been since the Reagan era, and the nation is poorer for it.
The governance you describe is accurate in a textbook way, but modern SCOTUS decisions that (a) "corporations are people too, my friends, and (b) political Dark Money does not have to publicly identify its funders, have made our government a wholly subsidiary of Big Corporate.
Which means neither House nor the Senate represent people. They represent their paymasters, not their constituents.
I agree that all societies, including ours, will have some measure of wealth and income inequality. No way to avoid that, and I wouldn't want to. The problem is our enormous current imbalance is destructive to societal interests, one of which is funding government services.
Tax cuts have moved trillions of dollars to Big Corporate and the 1 percent. Reagan started that insanity with his "trickle down" voodoo economics, and forty years later, it succeeded in that it made a small group of Americans richer than Caesars. But it failed miserably in letting everyday Americans share in the economic gains, because instead of sending those gains to We the People, the powerful moved all that money into offshore accounts and buying of politicians.
And they scream bloody murder when asked to kick up their contributions to the U.S. Treasury. But since they have most of the money, who else BUT they can pay?
As for influence: I am all for everyday Americans investing in our market and economy. But your daughter putting a few dollars into her Roth every payday is not going to change anything at the PAC and CEO levels. They paid good money for their pet politicians, and they expect them to do their bidding. What your daughter does now will greatly improve her financial future, and she's wise to do it. But it will only help her, not move the needle on national policy.
I surely exaggerated when I said janitors were just as important. They aren't, but they're important enough to not be at the bottom of the totem pole economically. Without them, we'd all be wading through a ton of garbage :-)
To your point on "living wage," maybe a better way to provide it is providing two things and then get out of the way: (1) universal health insurance so people are freed of that enormous economic burden along with high risk of bankruptcy if they can't afford a policy; (2) a modest universal income that allows individuals to spend their own money on what they need instead of what governments assumes they need. The check would be small enough--think, Social Security-small--that anything beyond subsistence would require working for a living. That's it, give everybody some base money and protection against illness, then let the market determine the rest. A base income system would also allow us to eliminate unemployment insurance, which would be good for the unemployed and for businesses who no longer would have to pay for the policies.
Yes. I have run the numbers, at least back of the napkin,. It's doable. I would give the same subsistence wage universally, and people can decide where they want to live. Social Security works that way, so would my universal anti-poverty income scheme. You want to live in the Apple, pay for it. I live near Chicago and it's expensive, so I understand the problem.
And when AI and robotics began to seriously eliminate jobs in this country--as they will--it will become an imperative.
Oh, I freely admit that back of the napkin may or may not be accurate. But at some point we're going to have to do it anyway ... and a universal income and health insurance would let us end Social Security, Medicare, much of Medicaid, all federal health insurance programs like the VA, unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other anti-poverty programs. Give people their own money and let them decide what's more important to them. Then we can turn our guns on corporate welfare and our insane tax code.
I like Your ambitiousness! But me? I'd work on delivering affordable housing first. Seems that's a big enough problem. Oh! After feeding everybody and giving them a rough over their heads to begin with. Loooong Way to go on those.
Hey, it's all theory at this point, but unless we start talking seriously about these issues, we'll never sort out good from bad. Your ideas are as valid as mine.
Oh, for sure. I like the concept of Tiny Houses to reduce the homeless problem. Let private contractors build them so people can move in, and it's the best of both worlds--people have the dignity of their own house with their own locked door, and it eliminates the gang infestations that doomed high-rise projects for the poor.
Hi, Karen. I have some masters-level hours in economics, but dropped out of the program when I discovered that it would be Math and Only Math from then on. (As a writer, math and I do not get along well.) Mostly I was a business news editor at a major newspaper for many years, and learned what's-what from the trenches rather than a classroom. Thanks for asking.
I think you need a little "why," though. It just can't be the endpoint. You need to focus on enough "why" to get three bullet point goals, concrete things to target. And once you have that, forget the why and focus your energy on those goals and choose strategies to attack them and metrics to gauge how effective you are.
These feel-good confessional means of dealing with these problems have no concrete strategies associated with them, and no means of measuring whether they work. They are as bad as any corporate feel-good bullshit programs.
You need three bullet points -- to me, unfair bail, school choice, and getting rid of three strikes. Then, pick strategies on dealing with exactly and only those problems. Design metrics to see how successful you are and TRACK THEM.
Then, set a timetable for the next visitation of the problems and see what needs to be tackled next.
But this isn't confessional enough. It's too "scientific," which is nowdays another word for racist because white supremacy mathematics objectivity blah blah blah.
The strategic approach has in its favor only the fact that it's all that has a snail's chance of succeeding.
Anyhow back to my point -- you need a little "why." But no more than will get you to THREE bullet point goals. After that, you're wasting your time.
I like Your thoughts, DarkWhite. Can't complain at all. But besides why and how, there's always the rub: Who?
There are so MANY organizations out there attempting to help. Choose one to support? And I suspect NONE do enough quantitative analysis, but I don't know many, so there is that.
I grew up in one of the poorest parts of Appalachia, but neither I nor any of my contemporaries ever felt poor. We had what we needed; we didn't have to wear patches on our clothes (That was sort of the dividing line), we had plenty to eat, and we were all just about the same. Later on I mused about it all and realized that poverty - real poverty - is a poverty of spirit, not of things. We were proud, worked for our livings, had intact families that for the most part were churchgoers. It was an honor culture, and an insult - especially to one's family - was taken very seriously.
We had good schools and I was a good student - test scores said my rural school was as good as any in the country. I was probably one of the poorest in my med school class; most were from larger towns in West Virginia or Pittsburgh, but I was never ashamed of my upbringing and came to pity most of my classmates, who had had little in real-world experience. Babes, really. So my point is that the real poverty in the black culture is not monetary. It is a poverty of spirit.
Interesting post. I live in the ghetto currently (my choice/long story). It is difficult keeping a healthy positive attitude amidst the trash, squalor, and debasement.
Yes, by choice. I am a trauma surgeon and like being close to the hospital. Happens to be a beautiful apartment (above a funeral homeЁЯШ│). It has been very interesting. We have developed some good relationships with some of our neighbors. Most are relatively good people. Some have made bad choices and are suffering the consequences. Some are still making bad choices. Many of the children are delightful and adore our little mini-pin.
Trauma surgeon in the ghetto. I like the sound of that. Good for you. And yes, living near work is ideal. My first job in a 40-year writing career was at a newspaper in the Midwest. I was stone broke and so lived in the barrio, because I could get a small efficiency for 90 bucks a month. No car, no phone, no AC until the paychecks began to flow. It was fun. I had no problems fitting in with my neighbors of color--I'm white--because we all had the same circumstance: No Dough. I learned a lot of the Latino culture while there. But I dug out of it and move on up the line. I hope most of them did, too. Those apartments were roach motels!
I live here by choice. My neighbors do not. The local population eschews trash cans. There is little to no sense of тАЬcommunityтАЭ. You seem somewhat тАЬhostileтАЭ, I am simply recounting my experience.
I actually missed that little party; family obligations. A friend went, largely to keep his son out of trouble. He and I texted real-time as events unfolded, and I knew something was up at the time.
He said that most of the people were old geezers like us, carrying flags and conversing in an easy, friendly manner. Except for some. Young guys, always wearing a lot of black, usually with long hair, along with their MAGA hats. He observed something quite interesting: they were all wearing exactly the same shoes. When he - a very chatty guy - would approach one of them, the guy would stare back as if he wanted to cut Morgan's throat, and then without a word turn on his heel and rapidly weave his way through the crowd to another location. I told my buddy, "Something is up; you and Robert better get the hell out of there." Which they did. So far neither has been arrested.
I'm guessing that the undercover guys would not be as hostile as the men James described. They do their best to blend in, not call attention to themselves by hostility. Most of that crowd was friendly, but there were some seriously dangerous people among them. Glad your friends were smart enough to get out of Dodge.
Yeah itтАЩs like checking the engine when you have a blown tire. ItтАЩs not that nothing can go wrong with the engine, itтАЩs just that your tire is blown.
Obviously, Democrats have no interest in getting the car back on the road because that is how they win elections, so they will continue to point at the engine.
Well, it is possible. I grew up in perhaps the most equal society of our times, the New Zealand of the 1950's and '60's. Housing and food were cheap, and there was almost no joblessness. A big difference was that there were far fewer services such as restaurants and posh hotels, and imports were hard to come by. But, medical services were almost free, and all sorts of needs were covered by the State, including the provision of long-term care for the elderly and mortgages to buy houses and farms. Those on lower incomes could rent State houses at nominal rates (in those days they often were multi-bedroom bungalows on quarter-acre lots). Families were large, and only 25% or fewer women worked outside the home. Stores were closed on Sundays AND Saturdays.
On a world scale, the lifestyle was modest, and by the mid-eighties Thatcherism was adopted holus-bolus, by a supposedly socialist government... New Zealand is now a highly unequal society, though the solidarity of the people still shows through.
So yes, a more equal society is possible, but it requires an adjustment of consumption patterns.
All of these comments are interesting. Is anyone interested in contributing to the Delly Pulpit Substack, a nonpartisan platform to share ideas and stories like these? I'm just getting it organized. https://dellypulpit.substack.com/p/take-your-turn
Take Your Turn on the Delly Pulpit
I'll think on it, mebbe... TY for offer.
Looking forward to your stories.
Amen.
Her name is Isabel Wilkerson, and тАЬThe Warmth of Other SunsтАЭ is one of the best nonfiction books I have ever read. She is such a brilliant writer that I am tempted to read Caste despite what I have heard about it because I have a hard time believing that anything she writes wouldnтАЩt at least be good.
Overall agreed, but a couple of points.
People get paid a wage based on the supply and demand for what they do. Jobs like janitor are never going to be paid a lot (note, my mom was a janitor for probably 30 years). It's not a skilled job. There's plenty of people willing to do it. You're never going to support a family especially on one income with a job like that.
As for gangs I agree they are a problem. But the only way you stop the gangs is with drug legalization.
It's been 40 years of the War on Drugs, we've spent over a trillion dollars, locked up millions of people, and anyone can get any drug they want at any time. We can't even keep drugs out of prisons.
Not to mention of course that it's none of the government's business what I put in my body.
Most street gangs have little to do with drug trafficking.
Is that so? The ones that do certainly play a disproportionate role in the underworld commodity distribution system. Really. If street gangs aren't involved in drug trafficking these days, then what are they doing?
The supply routes and wholesale trade in meth, cocaine, and opioids are run almost entirely by organized trafficking networks affiliated with American street gangs at the retail end.
The gang members in prisons control the drug trade behind the walls. There are at least 200,000 gang members in the total US inmate population of 1.5 million. There are few non-gang affiliated drug dealers in prison. And many prisons are drug infested.
Most police drug corruption related to correctional facilities is gang-related, and that's a sizeable fraction of the total. Most TAC squad and beat cop bribery corruption in big cities is gang related. https://stopthedrugwar.org/topics/drug_war_issues/criminal_justice/policing/police_corrupti
I'm old enough to remember when street gangs were found in only a few of the country's largest cities. They were local and mostly carried on their activities within their one neighborhood, their home turf. They had no regional or nationwide networks. Now they do; not only that, they have international networks. I remember when the marijuana trade was fed by thousands of independent smugglers, and the money was very small-time. I remember when the potency and the price skyrocketed, too, and the sources shifted to stateside cultivators. Most of them were independents, too. But by the mid-1990s, the Mexican syndicates- "the cartels"- began getting involved in large-scale growing operations in California, of unprecedented size. Every time the career criminals moved in, they forced the independents out of the business
"Middle and upper class liberals have no real interest in changing the status quo, because it works for them."
Oh, bullshit. I am a middle-class liberal and I desperately want every American to enjoy the benefits and responsibilities of living in the richest and most powerful nation on Earth. Poverty doesn't "work for me," it works against me, by making my society more dangerous and more desperate. When everybody is doing well, when everyone earns a living wage for the important work they do--janitors are just as important as anyone else in keeping the nation functioning--I do better and the nation is less hostile.
Quit bashing liberals. We are not the enemy.
The problem with trying to end тАЬpovertyтАЭ is the term itself is subjective. So is the phrase,тАЭ a living wage.тАЭ
You're right, the terms *are* subjective. But when any segment of American society is so dirt-poor that they have to choose between food and heat, you know we have a problem.
Do you have statistics reflecting how many people fall into the category of choosing between food or heat in the U.S.?
Statistics, no. Personal situation, yes. I grew up in a working class family in a tiny rural village south of Chicago. 1950s-60s. Dad had a steady job as a village policeman and a part-time gig on days off. Mom was at home with us kids, but did part-time work. Both tended a large vegetable garden in summers. Even with that, the paychecks did not stretch quite far enough. They would have to borrow food for a few days every couple months to make sure us kids were fed. (We had no idea, always thought food just showed up every day.) Most people borrowed food from each other every now and again to make ends meet.
So, we always had heat, but not always food. Without the help of family and neighbors--and our help to them--it would have been a choice between food and heat, or food and something else. Pick a tradeoff.
I'm not crying poor mouth, because we were not and did not feel poor. But we did not live in genuine poverty-stricken neighborhoods, either. How many in this country do? Maybe they buy both food and heat. But they don't see a doctor when they're sick. Can't fix their car. Etc.
See also my question to Smith, above, concerning Kentucky.
What you describe sounds like the way society should work and how the Holy Scriptures tell us to live and treat people. If you have abundance, you share with those who do not. You work or you do not eat. I do not see a problem with the life you describe.
I grew up much the same way in the '80s. My story is a bit different though because my parents chose to spend money on booze and drugs, but still got help from family when they fell short on paying bills. My parents chose a path that was less industrious than they could have. Should someone else have paid for the shortfall that caused them? We were "poor" by today's standards, but I didn't know it. We heated our house with wood, we had a big garden, we also canned food for winter. Society would do well to go back to that way of life. Families and communities taking care of their own, of their own volition, not at the end of a government gun. Now covetousness is the rule of the day. If someone has more than you, they must not be paying their fair share. Elected officials, who are mostly millionaires, by the way, should be empowered to take from "rich", a term as subjective as the word "poor" is, and give to those they deem "poor". We have spent some 30 + trillion dollars on the war on poverty since 1965. What do we have to show for it? I contend we have a weaker society both socially and morally.
I say if you are worried about those around you who are living in poverty, start helping them out. It builds community, trust, and appreciation in the gift you are giving, as opposed to the distrust, entitlement, and division the current government redistribution of wealth creates.
Since you've been around the nation on mission trips, tell me this: do you think there is real poverty in this country? Not compared to Mexico or other nations, but within the United States. If so, how real *is* their plight, or is mostly made for TV news?
I ask because the one time I was in western Kentucky to visit a friend's family, one place we stopped the family did have to choose between heat and food, in that they couldn't afford both. So they got a third-hand potbelly for the shack and scrounged wood for fuel. They did pay for food, but I don't know if it was on their job(s) or from public assistance.
I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely curious because you've been there 25 times and I haven't. Also, where in the U.S. are these pockets--one region, or across the board? Thanks for any enlightenment you can share, Smith.
Thanks for your eyewitness account, Smith, very much appreciated.
Given what you said at the end--"l never saw anybody starving unless it was their choice (to not move, or not take the handouts, or misuse the handouts)"--then I would have to agree with you. My position on food vs. heat was based on the assumption of no access to government assistance, which was more common in the early to mid postwar era than now. If you have access to and accept the help, then yes, you will have enough heat and food to get by.
The refusal of able-bodied people to work astonishes me. I grew up in a work culture and am always shocked when people think it's better to avoid it--i.e., sitting around drinking beer while YOU fix their houses. I'd be embarrassed.
I also cannot figure out how one has plenty of money for meth and cigarettes but not necessities. Go figure.
Liberals are very much the enemy, whether by design or by serendipity, for it is their wrong-headed policy decisions that lead directly to poverty and misery for the most people. As Churchill noted, the inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Sometimes liberals are well-meaning dupes, sometimes malicious soreheads who have never accomplished anything and can't stand it that there are people who have, but in either case the effect is the same.
"Liberals are very much the enemy. Sometimes liberals are well-meaning dupes, sometimes malicious soreheads who have never accomplished anything and can't stand it that there are people who have, but in either case the effect is the same."
This is the single-most-stupid statement on this thread. You just can't stand it that we are right about some things.
"You just can't stand it that we are right about some things."
Not a problem, since it never comes up.
You're wrong, but hey, I appreciate a great comeback when I see one!
I'll hafta ask You then, M. Shayne, who IS Your enemy. Is it poverty, or Trump supporters?
Poverty. I have no problem with Trump supporters, and count a few among my friends. I don't like Trump at all, but I don't take that out on those who voted for him for honest reasons.
Good ON Ya, then! :) I asked You another question elsewhere. Dunno I can find it tho.
Depends on how you define "liberal". I know for a fact that yes all liberals want everyone to earn a living wage, but I also know for a fact that the vast majority of middle class liberals benefit from the depression of wages for gardeners and landscapers, agricultural workers, restaurant staff, nannies, construction workers, etc., etc., and also happen to have zero interest in supporting politicians who would act to enforce the immigration laws the violation of which depresses those wages for those workers. It's also hardly coincidental that the places where they hold the most power like San Francisco and New York are also the places where the cost of housing and transportation for low-wage workers is the highest, whereas it's the opposite in Florida and Texas, where they don't hold much power.
But yes, middle class liberals are not the enemy, no American is the enemy. We're all in this together, and I ascribe positive intent to everyone. But by some combination of misguided ideology and real material interests, it happens that middle class liberals tend to support a set of policies that make life much more difficult for those at the low end of the wage scale, and short drive around the inner-city of any of places where they hold sway is all that you need to do to confirm this.
Having grown up working class--i.e., blue collar poor--and starting my writing care in same, this upper-middle-class liberal wants nobody to be stuck in that cycle forever. It's bad for everyone having a desperate underclass of poverty. Getting everyone who wants to be out of it, out of it, is just so good for all of us I have no idea why any liberal would not want that. Paying janitors a living way doesn't affect my choices or lifestyle at all, other than making for a more peaceful and sane society.
If you grew up blue collar, you probably have a perspective somewhat at odds with what I'm talking about, although it's by no means exclusive. If liberals don't want a "desperate underclass of poverty" why do they support policies that allow for an endless flow of undocumented immigrants, which gaurantees that there will always be a desperate underclass of poverty?
I don't want that at all. I want a legal immigration system that quickly sorts good candidates from poor and populates our country with the kind of people we need: hard-working sorts who believe America isn't just a place to get a job, but a way of life. That it takes more than ten years for a legal applicant to work through the system is insane.
That said, much of our poverty is not among illegal immigrants, it's among rural-white and inner-city-black Americans.
I think most people on the left and the right would like such an immigration system, but the woke left, a.k.a. upper middle class liberals (by and large), does not. They're interested in dissolving national borders and dismantling what they see as the racially-exclusive nature of citizenship in advanced Western societies. My issue is not that illegal immigrants compose X or Y percent of our national challenge of poverty, but that the goal of eliminating poverty can never be achieved so long as we're going to allow an unending stream of new poor people into the country.
She's not bashing liberals. She's bashing trust-fund liberals who don't actually have any skin in the game but who often appoint themselves the Saviors of the Downtrodden, who understand their challenges better than they do. And they are legion, unfortunately.
Then she should change it to "Woke" instead of Liberals. I am mightily tired of my Liberal behind being lumped in with the brain-dead of the hyper-left.
I dunno if YOu make a distinction between woke, progressives, liberals, and centrists. Do You?
I am a liberal, closer to centrist than progressive. I like some progressive ideas and some conservative ideas. I have no use for the screechiness of Woke and right-wing.
I do. For the same reason I distinguish between centrist, conservatives, right-wingers, and cultists: there are differences.
The problem I have with Progressives is two-fold:
Just saw article that they've won. Biden is one-a them.
Woke is just the logical step after Progressive, right?
I like some progressive ideas, and some conservative ideas. That makes me a centrist-leaning liberal.
They won? That's a surprise to me. I don't consider Biden a progressive. He's more of a moderate, having conservative and progressive views simultaneously.
Woke is the second-farthest end of the liberal scale, and beyond that, pure Communism. But I consider them equal to hard-right wingers, and worth ignoring.
I wish You were right, but naw. Lemme see if I can find it.
I'll be DARNED. Apparently didn't save the link. It was in The Atlantic recently and it was TITLED something along lines of "The Progressives Have Won" and was about how Biden was SO adoring of Squad.
And if You saw Biden's Executive Order of 01/20/21 You'll also find out he's woke. Wish it weren't so, but 't is.
I read that piece because I subscribe to The Atlantic. Not buying any of it.
Each his own. Still, the Executive Order?
Same -- part of the reason I cannot stomach the hyper-woke is that they are antagonistic to real solutions to the problems that all liberals acknowledge. Are there real challenges facing people in historically disadvantaged groups? Damned right there are. Are the solutions proposed by the limousine progressives going to help? Not a bit -- in fact, they'll make them worse.
Perfectly stated, DW, thanks.
Exactamundo. I am a liberal who despise both the Woke and the hard right. Extremes are bad for society except in ice cream and Scotch.
Woke and hard-righties, yes, both are a plague on a genteel society.
Thanks for this. I separate conservatives from the hard-right wing, just as I separate liberals from the hard-left wing--i..e., "Woke." I have more in common with thoughtful conservatives than I do with hard leftists.
Racists, sexists, and other -ists plague all of us, and are surely not limited to the right wing or conservatives. Plenty on my side, too.
Honestly, though: we all are fighting one thing: the power of the corporate class and their cheerleaders in the media over all of us. Both the GOP and Democratic Party are beholden to Big Corporate for re-election money and personal wealth, and take their marching orders from them, not voters. It's why you see the lunacy of Democrat Joe Manchin always siding with Big Oil and Mining--he's owned by them, and is in fact one of them by profession, a mining baron.
The Great Compromise only works when House, Senate, and Executive legislate independently of their funders. That is not the case these days, hasn't been since the Reagan era, and the nation is poorer for it.
The governance you describe is accurate in a textbook way, but modern SCOTUS decisions that (a) "corporations are people too, my friends, and (b) political Dark Money does not have to publicly identify its funders, have made our government a wholly subsidiary of Big Corporate.
Which means neither House nor the Senate represent people. They represent their paymasters, not their constituents.
I agree that all societies, including ours, will have some measure of wealth and income inequality. No way to avoid that, and I wouldn't want to. The problem is our enormous current imbalance is destructive to societal interests, one of which is funding government services.
Tax cuts have moved trillions of dollars to Big Corporate and the 1 percent. Reagan started that insanity with his "trickle down" voodoo economics, and forty years later, it succeeded in that it made a small group of Americans richer than Caesars. But it failed miserably in letting everyday Americans share in the economic gains, because instead of sending those gains to We the People, the powerful moved all that money into offshore accounts and buying of politicians.
And they scream bloody murder when asked to kick up their contributions to the U.S. Treasury. But since they have most of the money, who else BUT they can pay?
As for influence: I am all for everyday Americans investing in our market and economy. But your daughter putting a few dollars into her Roth every payday is not going to change anything at the PAC and CEO levels. They paid good money for their pet politicians, and they expect them to do their bidding. What your daughter does now will greatly improve her financial future, and she's wise to do it. But it will only help her, not move the needle on national policy.
I surely exaggerated when I said janitors were just as important. They aren't, but they're important enough to not be at the bottom of the totem pole economically. Without them, we'd all be wading through a ton of garbage :-)
To your point on "living wage," maybe a better way to provide it is providing two things and then get out of the way: (1) universal health insurance so people are freed of that enormous economic burden along with high risk of bankruptcy if they can't afford a policy; (2) a modest universal income that allows individuals to spend their own money on what they need instead of what governments assumes they need. The check would be small enough--think, Social Security-small--that anything beyond subsistence would require working for a living. That's it, give everybody some base money and protection against illness, then let the market determine the rest. A base income system would also allow us to eliminate unemployment insurance, which would be good for the unemployed and for businesses who no longer would have to pay for the policies.
We got enough problems as it is. Have You run the numbers on subsistence wages in NYC and SF? Anyplace?
That won't be needed for another decade or two when AI and robotics takes a larger hold, right?
Yes. I have run the numbers, at least back of the napkin,. It's doable. I would give the same subsistence wage universally, and people can decide where they want to live. Social Security works that way, so would my universal anti-poverty income scheme. You want to live in the Apple, pay for it. I live near Chicago and it's expensive, so I understand the problem.
And when AI and robotics began to seriously eliminate jobs in this country--as they will--it will become an imperative.
I HAVEN'T run the numbers. But Your numbers don't pass the "smell test" because Social Security is going bankrupt.
But ICBW, so there is that.
Oh, I freely admit that back of the napkin may or may not be accurate. But at some point we're going to have to do it anyway ... and a universal income and health insurance would let us end Social Security, Medicare, much of Medicaid, all federal health insurance programs like the VA, unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other anti-poverty programs. Give people their own money and let them decide what's more important to them. Then we can turn our guns on corporate welfare and our insane tax code.
I am nothing if not ambitious :-)
I like Your ambitiousness! But me? I'd work on delivering affordable housing first. Seems that's a big enough problem. Oh! After feeding everybody and giving them a rough over their heads to begin with. Loooong Way to go on those.
Hey, it's all theory at this point, but unless we start talking seriously about these issues, we'll never sort out good from bad. Your ideas are as valid as mine.
Oh, for sure. I like the concept of Tiny Houses to reduce the homeless problem. Let private contractors build them so people can move in, and it's the best of both worlds--people have the dignity of their own house with their own locked door, and it eliminates the gang infestations that doomed high-rise projects for the poor.
Yeah, I like the concept. Got it from Homeless Coalition trying to get funds for a "village." Dunno how they're doin' on that tho.
I'm curious (seriously) about your background in economics. Do you have training in that area?
Hi, Karen. I have some masters-level hours in economics, but dropped out of the program when I discovered that it would be Math and Only Math from then on. (As a writer, math and I do not get along well.) Mostly I was a business news editor at a major newspaper for many years, and learned what's-what from the trenches rather than a classroom. Thanks for asking.
I think you need a little "why," though. It just can't be the endpoint. You need to focus on enough "why" to get three bullet point goals, concrete things to target. And once you have that, forget the why and focus your energy on those goals and choose strategies to attack them and metrics to gauge how effective you are.
These feel-good confessional means of dealing with these problems have no concrete strategies associated with them, and no means of measuring whether they work. They are as bad as any corporate feel-good bullshit programs.
You need three bullet points -- to me, unfair bail, school choice, and getting rid of three strikes. Then, pick strategies on dealing with exactly and only those problems. Design metrics to see how successful you are and TRACK THEM.
Then, set a timetable for the next visitation of the problems and see what needs to be tackled next.
But this isn't confessional enough. It's too "scientific," which is nowdays another word for racist because white supremacy mathematics objectivity blah blah blah.
The strategic approach has in its favor only the fact that it's all that has a snail's chance of succeeding.
Anyhow back to my point -- you need a little "why." But no more than will get you to THREE bullet point goals. After that, you're wasting your time.
I like Your thoughts, DarkWhite. Can't complain at all. But besides why and how, there's always the rub: Who?
There are so MANY organizations out there attempting to help. Choose one to support? And I suspect NONE do enough quantitative analysis, but I don't know many, so there is that.
TYTY.
Agreed. Socioeconomics is much more pertinent.
Have to send a тАЬshout outтАЭ for Isabelle Wilkersons first book тАЬThe warmth of other sunsтАЭ. It was excellent.
I grew up in one of the poorest parts of Appalachia, but neither I nor any of my contemporaries ever felt poor. We had what we needed; we didn't have to wear patches on our clothes (That was sort of the dividing line), we had plenty to eat, and we were all just about the same. Later on I mused about it all and realized that poverty - real poverty - is a poverty of spirit, not of things. We were proud, worked for our livings, had intact families that for the most part were churchgoers. It was an honor culture, and an insult - especially to one's family - was taken very seriously.
We had good schools and I was a good student - test scores said my rural school was as good as any in the country. I was probably one of the poorest in my med school class; most were from larger towns in West Virginia or Pittsburgh, but I was never ashamed of my upbringing and came to pity most of my classmates, who had had little in real-world experience. Babes, really. So my point is that the real poverty in the black culture is not monetary. It is a poverty of spirit.
Yah. Prof. Loury believes same, I expect.
Interesting post. I live in the ghetto currently (my choice/long story). It is difficult keeping a healthy positive attitude amidst the trash, squalor, and debasement.
By choice? That's worth a post by you in and of itself! It would be a fascinating snapshot of that kind of life.
Yes, by choice. I am a trauma surgeon and like being close to the hospital. Happens to be a beautiful apartment (above a funeral homeЁЯШ│). It has been very interesting. We have developed some good relationships with some of our neighbors. Most are relatively good people. Some have made bad choices and are suffering the consequences. Some are still making bad choices. Many of the children are delightful and adore our little mini-pin.
Trauma surgeon in the ghetto. I like the sound of that. Good for you. And yes, living near work is ideal. My first job in a 40-year writing career was at a newspaper in the Midwest. I was stone broke and so lived in the barrio, because I could get a small efficiency for 90 bucks a month. No car, no phone, no AC until the paychecks began to flow. It was fun. I had no problems fitting in with my neighbors of color--I'm white--because we all had the same circumstance: No Dough. I learned a lot of the Latino culture while there. But I dug out of it and move on up the line. I hope most of them did, too. Those apartments were roach motels!
And, I could walk the six blocks to and from work. Huge advantage.
BLESS Your pointed li'l HEAD, Sir! TYTY.
Sadly, my head is big and blocky, as if a pumpkin ...
when you say "I live in the ghetto", what do you mean? Are you restricted to move in and out? I do not think so and then it is not a ghetto.
Who brings trash and causes squalor to the structures?
I live here by choice. My neighbors do not. The local population eschews trash cans. There is little to no sense of тАЬcommunityтАЭ. You seem somewhat тАЬhostileтАЭ, I am simply recounting my experience.
I actually missed that little party; family obligations. A friend went, largely to keep his son out of trouble. He and I texted real-time as events unfolded, and I knew something was up at the time.
He said that most of the people were old geezers like us, carrying flags and conversing in an easy, friendly manner. Except for some. Young guys, always wearing a lot of black, usually with long hair, along with their MAGA hats. He observed something quite interesting: they were all wearing exactly the same shoes. When he - a very chatty guy - would approach one of them, the guy would stare back as if he wanted to cut Morgan's throat, and then without a word turn on his heel and rapidly weave his way through the crowd to another location. I told my buddy, "Something is up; you and Robert better get the hell out of there." Which they did. So far neither has been arrested.
If they wore MAGA hats, they would not be wearing a lot of black. please get your insults straight.
Why wouldn't people with MAGA hats wear black? I saw it too, on the videos. Being MAGA doesn't require you wear red pants and shirts.
He was there and reporting in real time. You were not. Guess again.
Yup those were the AntiFa infiltrators
Oh, baloney. The angry men dressed and acting like Navy SEALs? Those are your guys.
I'm guessing that the undercover guys would not be as hostile as the men James described. They do their best to blend in, not call attention to themselves by hostility. Most of that crowd was friendly, but there were some seriously dangerous people among them. Glad your friends were smart enough to get out of Dodge.
Yeah itтАЩs like checking the engine when you have a blown tire. ItтАЩs not that nothing can go wrong with the engine, itтАЩs just that your tire is blown.
Obviously, Democrats have no interest in getting the car back on the road because that is how they win elections, so they will continue to point at the engine.
TY (thank You), M. Adrian. WOW. TYTY.
Well, it is possible. I grew up in perhaps the most equal society of our times, the New Zealand of the 1950's and '60's. Housing and food were cheap, and there was almost no joblessness. A big difference was that there were far fewer services such as restaurants and posh hotels, and imports were hard to come by. But, medical services were almost free, and all sorts of needs were covered by the State, including the provision of long-term care for the elderly and mortgages to buy houses and farms. Those on lower incomes could rent State houses at nominal rates (in those days they often were multi-bedroom bungalows on quarter-acre lots). Families were large, and only 25% or fewer women worked outside the home. Stores were closed on Sundays AND Saturdays.
On a world scale, the lifestyle was modest, and by the mid-eighties Thatcherism was adopted holus-bolus, by a supposedly socialist government... New Zealand is now a highly unequal society, though the solidarity of the people still shows through.
So yes, a more equal society is possible, but it requires an adjustment of consumption patterns.
Trump was effectively working on it. One of the myriad reasons тАЬthe eliteтАЭ desperately wanted him out