Interesting report on the poor

[bicker]

Why must there be a reason or explanation for unfairness, for inequity? Cannot it simply be that inequity is inevitable? or a natural part of an imperfect world?

 

[nightowlky]

One man's judgmental rhetoric is another man's (this one's, for instance) fact.

Well, then you should no problem producing empirical evidence supporting your opinion.

 

[Fly me with Balloons]

Why must there be a reason or explanation for unfairness, for inequity? Cannot it simply be that inequity is inevitable? or a natural part of an imperfect world?

WE AGREE!!!!

Where I come from, we call them "the breaks".

 

[bicker]

Yup. The Buddha called it दुक्ख.

 

[arminnie]

For example, the poor tend to pay higher auto insurance rates because they live in areas with higher crime rates. They tend to pay more for groceries because the big chains don't open in the poorer neighborhoods so the residents are stuck shopping at small convenience stores.

This is why I am so opposed to economic segregation. Mixed income communities just tend to work better. The small city where I lived in CA did not have any housing projects, but each apartment complex dedicated a few apartments to low income residents. You really didn't know who was low-income and who wasn't.

 

[bicker]

While I probably agree with you, I think you need to define what you mean by, "Mixed income communities just tend to work better." It's a pretty broad statement, and is probably untrue more often than it is true -- but when it is true, it's surely true.

 

[carrie_106]

If anyone is interested, there is a book called A Framework for Poverty by Ruby Payne. It explains alot about poverty and how difficult it is to overcome it. It also asks middle class how they would do in the world of the wealthy and puts perspective on how hard it is to break the cycle. I bought the book for all the teachers in my school to help them understand what so many of our studens live through.

 

[va32h]

I would also recommend "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich, a fascinating account of one woman's attempt to live off of minimum wage in three different cities.

Ehrenreich worked as a waitress, housekeeper, and Wal-Mart employee in three geographically diverse areas, and was never able to achieve a successful balance of income and expenses.

Because she did not have the funds to leave a substantial deposit, she could not get a regular apartment, instead living in residential motels that consumed most of her paycheck. Because she lived in a motel, she seldom had a "real" kitchen and needed to eat precooked food. Living in cheaper areas only resulted in more money spent on gas.

Her expenses were minimal - rent, laundry, food. She did not purchase any of the things we accuse the working poor of "wasting" money on - no cell phones, no new clothes, no manicures, no movies, etc. She even cheated on the study, because she paid for a rental car with her personal funds. And of course she had no children to support or childcare to pay for.

And with all this - she could not make ends meet. It's a fascinating and illuminating book. It's so easy to say "oh they should just work harder and stop wasting money." Like nearly all advice, easier said than done.

 

[disneysteve]

This is why I am so opposed to economic segregation. Mixed income communities just tend to work better. The small city where I lived in CA did not have any housing projects, but each apartment complex dedicated a few apartments to low income residents. You really didn't know who was low-income and who wasn't.

How does that work? I think you generally find more low income earners in apartments and more higher income earners in single family homes. In my neighborhood, which is not an upscale area by any means, there isn't an apartment building anywhere around. It is all single homes, so you couldn't "mix" this community. You can't mandate that certain houses have to remain affordable to lower wage earners.

In poorer neighborhoods, like near my office, folks only live there until they can afford to get out to somewhere better. I don't see how you could "mix" the neighborhood because higher wage earners don't want to live there.

 

[Lizzy2]

This topic just tears me up really- There is so much sadness in the world-
The last job I held b4 I was able to stay home with my DD involved managing a staff that was made up of 98% underpriviliged folks just trying to get by-
Within a week of being on the job I had a 40yr.old African-American man crying in my office because he was getting kicked out of his apt.-His name was not on the lease; he was living with a friend and sharing rent- He also had a 12 yr. old daughter-His two biggest fears? How was he going to take care of his daughter and how was he going to get back and forth to work? He was living in the same neighborhood as another worker and shared a ride-He found a place with some friends to put his DD and we arranged for him to stay at a local men's shelter that was in walking distance of work-He didn't want to have to quit because then where would he get the money to put the deposit on a new apt.? He was lucky because the shelter would allow him to stay there even though he had a job. Did you know that alot of shelters will only take you in if you don't work?
Folks, this was a good man. He simply had never been exposed to any world outside his world of barely getting by poverty.
One could have little sympathy saying that he recieved the same public education that others have but you must realize that most poverty is generational. Children simply don't think that other options apply to them and the association between hard work and bettering yourself is never made. There is no ambition to reach for something better because no one around them has ever done better.
I truly believe that children need more than just academics when they come from these backgrounds. They need "Life coaches" for lack of a better term. They need mentors who can expose them to other life views and set the bar higher for them than just holding down a blue collar job and keeping the lights and water turned on. This man came from GENERATIONS of people who defined their days as successful when the most remedial tasks of life were accomplished.
I could go on and on but the reality is no one knows what the magic bullet is and probably there is no one answer for each case. All I know is when you're in a position to help please do it. Money donated isn't always the answer. Sometimes folks just need someone to be a friend, to be a cheering squad, to expect more from them.

 

[disneysteve]

Her expenses were minimal - rent, laundry, food. She did not purchase any of the things we accuse the working poor of "wasting" money on - no cell phones, no new clothes, no manicures, no movies, etc. She even cheated on the study, because she paid for a rental car with her personal funds. And of course she had no children to support or childcare to pay for.

And with all this - she could not make ends meet. It's a fascinating and illuminating book. It's so easy to say "oh they should just work harder and stop wasting money." Like nearly all advice, easier said than done.

Certainly, the wasting money isn't true of all, but it is true of many. I work in a poor area. Many of my patients don't have phones at home although a substantial number do have cell phones. A fair number don't have air conditioning. Quite a lot don't have a car. However, I'd say 80% or more of them smoke and a high percentage drink alcohol on a daily basis, many to excess. And there is never a shortage of customers at the lottery agent on the corner. I read some time ago that about 70% of lottery tickets are bought by people earning 25K or less per year. The incidence of smoking is much higher amoung the poor than it is in the overall population. So while not all poor people fit the generalization, a great many do.

 

[MyGoofy26]

If the residents in those areas drove more carefully their insurance rates would be lower.

If the residents in those areas didn't shoplift so much then stores with equally low prices would be found there.

And I dare say that if a gang of teens sought out and roughed up a shoplifter instead of a smaller kid to get the latter's bike or necklace or lunch money, those teens would not receive greater punishment.

Because only poor people crash their cars? And because only poor people shoplift? And only poor kids bully?

I remember in high school a kid a year ahead of me was on his 3rd car his senior year because he kept crashing them (BMW's and the like) His daddy was a very successful lawyer. And I knew a number of kids whose parents made enough to comfortable support them who would shoplift just for the thrill of it, not a rare occurance. And I knew a number of kids through school that would bully and steal from the weaker kids as a sign of power, not a means to "gain" actual property or money.

This is one of the biggest problems facing poor people and why it's so difficult to get ahead - because of these preconcieved notions that if they're poor they must have done something to deserve to be poor, they're all negligent criminals.

 

[ducklite]

How does that work? I think you generally find more low income earners in apartments and more higher income earners in single family homes. In my neighborhood, which is not an upscale area by any means, there isn't an apartment building anywhere around. It is all single homes, so you couldn't "mix" this community. You can't mandate that certain houses have to remain affordable to lower wage earners.

In poorer neighborhoods, like near my office, folks only live there until they can afford to get out to somewhere better. I don't see how you could "mix" the neighborhood because higher wage earners don't want to live there.

Steve,

It's probably similar to Mount Laurel housing in NJ. A small percentage (I think it's 2-3%) of each new condo complex must be set aside as "low or moderate income" housing. The units are sold with a deed restriction that they can not increase in value more than (I think) 3% a year, thus keeping them affordable while still allowing the homeowner to build equity keeping up with inflation.

They are usually the smaller or less desirable (due to layout or location) units in the complex, but are still mixed in with the non-restricted units, and in all honesty you can't tell the difference. The monthly association dues are the same for all units, regardless of the deed restrictions. Taxes are generally the same as well, although that can vary by county.

That said, these are not rentals, they are OWNER OCCUPIED, and that makes all the difference in the world. It's like a street with a couple of Habitat homes versus rentals in an area occupied by lower income rental units. The Habitat Homes stand out due to immense pride of ownership.

I think that mixing owner occupied homes owned by individuals of many economic groups can work under the right circumstances--and owner occupied is the key phrase. The playing field is level in terms of carrying costs of public amenities and taxes. It's only the initial purchase price that's different, and it's the builder who pays for that (albeit other units are prices to cover losses) but the initial sale varience is usually not all that different--generally 10-15% lower. It's the ongoing resale value that keeps them affordable.

ETA: These condo's are not in "poor areas." You're not seeing for profit builders (Toll Brothers, K Hov, Ryan Homes, etc.) building in Camden. For the most part they are new construction in suburban areas where middle income people want to live. They are also not required to have Mount Laurel units in garden apartment conversions (unless something ahs changed in the past eight or nine years since I took classes on the Mount Laurel program.)

The ONLY way to attract upper middle and upper income families to urban areas where most residents are lower income is through an urban homesteading program. Even then most of the homesteaders are young DINKS who live there the required three to seven years after getting the building for $1 and rehabbing it, then moving back out to the suburbs to start and raise a family while renting out the urban home, or selling for a steep profit.

I also think there's a huge difference between living on a street of a "lower moderate income owner occupied homes" where they are all working and striving for a better life for their families, versus living on a street where the buildings range from burn out to crack house to public housing full of welfare recipients who sleep all day and hang out on street corners creating a nuisance all night. I wouldn't have a problem living on the first street I described. I wouldn't even drive down the second one.

Anne

 

[Nurse_Mommy4]

If the residents in those areas drove more carefully their insurance rates would be lower.

If the residents in those areas didn't shoplift so much then stores with equally low prices would be found there.

And I dare say that if a gang of teens sought out and roughed up a shoplifter instead of a smaller kid to get the latter's bike or necklace or lunch money, those teens would not receive greater punishment.

Disney hints:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/disney.htm

What a sad, sad world we live in when we generalize with such lack of compassion.

I for one grew up in a poor neighborhood, and have never stole a day in my life (neither did my associates for that matter) We were never in gangs and I have a pretty darn good driving record.

That being said....I am not naive and I understand that poor neighborhoods tend to have a higher crime rate, but I was fortunate enough to go to college and move to a nicer neighborhood and crime, may it be lower, is not nonexistant.

There are bad drivers, shoplifters, and gangs everywhere. To suggest different is just plain silly.

Have a magical Day!

 

[MrsPete]

The Brookings Institute has a report out talking about how the poor in this country pay more for a lot of goods and services.

There's a lot of truth in this. It's easier for a middle-class person to be frugal and "stay ahead" of the game: Because I have a car, I can drive to the salvage store and buy food very cheaply. Because I have a freezer, I can stock up on bargain-priced chicken. Because I have good credit, I can buy a car for the lowest possible price. Because I can afford preventative medical care, I am less likely to end up in the emergency room for a minor problem like strep throat. The list could go on.

A person who's born into poverty CAN fight his way up out of a bad situation, but it's going to take more effort for him to become middle class than it'll take for his born-middle-class cohorts to stay at that level.

I think the biggest problem, however, isn't the increased cost of many of these individual things; it's the lack of awareness among the poor that it's both their choices and their circumstances that are keeping them in a bad situation. I don't think the situation is so bad that it's impossible to escape it.

 

[MrsPete]

I would also recommend "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich, a fascinating account of one woman's attempt to live off of minimum wage in three different cities.

Ehrenreich worked as a waitress, housekeeper, and Wal-Mart employee in three geographically diverse areas, and was never able to achieve a successful balance of income and expenses.

I found this book interesting but unrealistic. Her experiement was set up in such a way that her circumstances didn't really emulate the lives of the poor. Consider:

She had difficulty paying for a place to live, yet she never looked for a roommate. Privacy is a middle-class luxury; when I was genuinely poor, I lived in a two-bedroom apartment with five people.
She had reliable transportation at all times. The poor can't count on this -- it's possibly a larger problem than a place to live.
She claims that she took the best jobs available to her in each city, yet that doens't seem to be true. In one place, for example, she says that she wanted to look into clerical positions, but she hadn't brought any clothing except jeans and khakis. Um, most poor folks can pull together a couple nice outfits. It seems that she set herself up for failure in this case. Also, she took a waitress job in a place that seems to be a real dive; she mentions in the book that she knew that wait staff in nicer places were making much, much more than she was -- why didn't she head over to a higher-tip restaurant?
She didn't stay in any of the three cities long enough to establish herself. Anyone -- even a middle/upper class person who has enough resources -- is going to be a bit strained for the first month or so in a new job/new home. If she'd established herself in any of these places, found a roommate, etc., she would've found herself more comfortable.

Several other things bothered me about the book. I have lived in genuine don't-know-how-I'm-going-to-pay-the-rent-or-eat-this-weekend poverty, and the book just didn't ring true to me.

 

[Nurse_Mommy4]

There's a lot of truth in this. It's easier for a middle-class person to be frugal and "stay ahead" of the game: Because I have a car, I can drive to the salvage store and buy food very cheaply. Because I have a freezer, I can stock up on bargain-priced chicken. Because I have good credit, I can buy a car for the lowest possible price. Because I can afford preventative medical care, I am less likely to end up in the emergency room for a minor problem like strep throat. The list could go on.

A person who's born into poverty CAN fight his way up out of a bad situation, but it's going to take more effort for him to become middle class than it'll take for his born-middle-class cohorts to stay at that level.

I think the biggest problem, however, isn't the increased cost of many of these individual things; it's the lack of awareness among the poor that it's both their choices and their circumstances that are keeping them in a bad situation. I don't think the situation is so bad that it's impossible to escape it.

Well said MrsPete.
I can certainly testify about the many people I grew up with (some with more potential than I) who chose a different path and are still living in poverty. It is definitely difficult, but certainly not impossible to overcome poverty.

 

[Hedy]

Well, I'm not exactly comforted to know how many people on the budget board have severe classism and middle-class entitlement issues.

 

[MrsPete]

Because only poor people crash their cars? And because only poor people shoplift? And only poor kids bully?

I don't know about bullying, but it's a fact that the poor take part in many keep-ya-down behaviors at a higher rate than their middle-class counterparts. This is partially because it's what they've learned growing up, partially because being poor is often a lack of ability to look forward, partially because being poor involves a lack of faith in one's own abilities, and partially a matter of fulfilling society's expectations.

The truth is that poverty is a complex situation, and anyone who says, "Oh, it can be cured simply by providing ____" is wrong. Few people are poor because of one bad choice; few people will escape poverty because of one good choice.

In my own case, I lived in poverty for multiple reasons (and I didn't come from the multi-generational poor, so my situation isn't as dire as others):
My father was an alcoholic and didn't always work.
My father had no problem with being in debt.
My father didn't pay child support, and my mother couldn't take him to court -- difficult situation, very detailed.
My mother had been a SAHM for more than a decade, and she had no education or job skills, nor did she have money to go back to school -- but she did have early elementary kids who couldn't be left alone.
My parents'd chosen to have a whole houseful of kids, and the budget would've been strained even if my father had stayed the course and remained working constantly. They also had me (first child) before they'd established themselves financially, so they never had the opportunity to really "get ahead".

In my case only, my parents could've overcome ANY ONE of these problems, but when faced with the whole kit-and-caboodle, it was too much and the equation led to poverty.

 

[bicker]

Well, I'm not exactly comforted to know how many people on the budget board have severe classism and middle-class entitlement issues.

That's an interesting statement. I think I understand what you're saying: You feel that the problems you mention are more pronounced among the middle class than among the upper class?