On Poverty, Maybe We're All Wrong

[mckitterick]

This article, On Poverty, Maybe We're All Wrong, suggests some things about poverty that seem obvious but which have been left out of both sides of the debate on how to solve it, both conservative and liberal:

"If you and everyone around you are desperately poor, maybe it's perfectly rational to think that an extra dollar or two won't make much of a difference in reducing your misery. Or that you won't be able to 'study' your way out of the ghetto. Or that if you find a $100 bill on the street, maybe it's logical to blow it on one great night on the town rather than portion it out a dollar a day for 100 days."

Steven Pearlstein concludes by writing, "Maybe it's time for liberals to regain the upper hand in the debate by arguing that the vicious cycle that needs to be broken isn't one of dependence but one of declining expectations."

Okay, so what's the answer, then, folks?

Best,
Chris

Comments

[chernobylred.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's time for liberals to regain the upper hand in the debate by arguing that the vicious cycle that needs to be broken isn't one of dependence but one of declining expectations

I don't understand this sentence. What does "declining expectations" mean?

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

When someone has lived in poverty, their hope declines, leading to despair and a "fuck it" attitude. I think this is what he means.

[chernobylred.livejournal.com]

Ah. I was trying to figure out if it meant "don't expect too much 'cos you won't get it." =D

[sdemory.livejournal.com]

On the one hand, I can see your point. Despair's a powerful thing, and fighting inertia's a difficult thing to do when one sees nothing but grinding poverty in one's future. Creating a culture of hope in which one thinks that one can make a difference in one's life through work and prudent action could make a big difference in no uncertain terms.

However, we've seen in no uncertain terms that microloans can turn lives around. Can't argue with the message of empowerment-on-a-budget of Grameen or Opportunity International.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

Microloans would be an awesome tool for this, I suspect, if they were less "micro" and more suitable for helping people build real futures in a US economy. Especially now with credit getting harder to find. Government-backed but not just handed out to quiet the Right-wingers, but slow-repay and low-interest to make them attractive to those who need 'em.

The loanee would need to submit a decent proposal or business plan that would show the possibility of repaying. The whole "hand-up" rather than "hand-out" thang.

Why aren't we doing this already? See, this is also my solution to the Middle-East problem of the Palestinians: Give them something to lose - a real job and a home - and they lose the desire to destroy those whom they perceive as having taken away from them. More to the point, having a home and a future helps eliminate despair, which can lead to optimism, without which it's nearly impossible to climb out of the pit of poverty because, hell, everything is dark and looks like dirt from down here.

[j-cheney.livejournal.com]

Remember also, that the definintion of poverty is far different in most of the US than it is in countries where microloans make the difference.

I worked for a few years in a 90% poverty level school where most of the households had cable. A microloan of $500 isn't going to raise them to the level of spending they see on TV, which sets the bar far too high...(and especially not if they're going to spend the $500 a year on cable)

I think he's right about that $100 bill.

[sdemory.livejournal.com]

This is true, but that says more about how "micro" the microloans have to be than about the value of the concept.

My grandparents took advantage of a microloan-type system through their church, decades and decades ago. They were loaned enough money to buy the patch of land they were sharecropping in rural Virginia and entered into a co-op with other church members who were new landowners. They didn't reach what we would think of now as "affluence," but they were black property owners in 1920s Disputanta, they were self-sufficient and able to send all of their daughters and those sons who didn't enlist to college.

The co-op members stayed in contact with each other and were quietly radicalized by the process; I met a couple of them at my grandfather's funeral, years ago were absolute believers in their loans and in the need for black folks to provide each other with a hand up.

I'd like to think that the opportunity to get affirmation and support from like-minded persons helped them as much as that loan did. Ideally, microloans are part of a greater community-building process. I naively think that money can be taken away but community is well nigh eternal.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

That's a cool story, and I'm sure that the community-building aspect is at least as important as the money itself.

[j-cheney.livejournal.com]

I do agree that it's all about the attitude.

[sdemory.livejournal.com]

The trick about the current microloan model is that, rather than just giving out money, it gives money and an affinity group with whom one can relate. The women who get money from Grameen are put in a group that meets with other woman businessowners who're trying to turn things around and, thus, can create the sorts of networks they need to be able to succeed. The numbers don't lie... even with a large number of loans being a year past due, you see 95 percent of the Grameen loans paid off.

I acknowledge the fact that the amounts aren't sufficient for a U.S. economy... giving someone east of Prospect enough money to buy a breeding pair of chickens isn't going to turn his or her life around. Giving that person enough money for a service-oriented small business and a vehicle isn't necessarily going to turn that person's life around either. Giving that person a peer group who are all working toward the same goal, though, can do nothing but good.

[j-cheney.livejournal.com]

Habitat for Humanity. That's about the right amount, I think. :)

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

Perfect!

[roya-spirit.livejournal.com]

Aye, but not ideal. It assumes that the receiver is able to pay for the utilities, taxes and upkeep inherent with home ownership, and that in itself can send one into poverty!