(no subject)

[vicarz]

The outpouring of relief for hurricane victims is weird. Many of these same people have been needy for years. As poor black folk, they were blamed for their predicament, but as hurricane victims they deserve our immediate action and sacrifice? I mean it's cool that we are supporting some people up here in DC, but you know there have been needy people living in DC for some time now w/o everyone freaking out, inviting them in their homes, and killing themselves to offer help. Perhaps having the hurricane circumvented the 'blame the poor for their plight' mentality?

What might be interesting is what happens to the refugees (I think the term applies) in the long run. What if this disaster leads to a significant number of people changing classes - breaking out of the cycle of poverty? If someone were to measure this movement, imagine the implications for public policy! On the other hand, if the poor remain poor despite the relocation and outpouring of support, imagine again the policy implications. I would hope that beneficially uprooted poor would do better and change socioeconomic classes, encouraging financial investment to fight poverty. If you see a return to poverty, then those that argue that money to the poor is wasted.

I'm not sure whether in the long run it helps or hurts socioeconomic status for the poor to be uprooted. I don't mean to quote Ms. Bush, but if poor NOLA victims wind up with assistance that locates them out of poor urban blight you might see significant class movement, on the other hand if you simply transfer the poor into different poor areas, they may well be worse off simply for having lost their belongings and lived through events that add PDSD to their list of problems. The people in shelters are those who already lacked a safety net - I'm guessing those with family are pretty much getting help from their family or other support networks.

Perhaps it shows that in the american mindset there is a bottom, a standard of living that we want people to live in regardless of whether they work or not. People always have stories about some homeless scam artist they know / saw on tv, about how the poor aren't really poor, about how the poor will throw away anything given to them. The stories seem to allow people to maintain their wealth guilt-free, removing the discomfort of passing people on the street (side note, I rarely give to people on the street - I believe money is better spent on support networks than directly to the source).

Is the conservative mindset correct? Is being poor is supposed to suck, and suck horribly and fatally in some cases? Perhaps hand-feeding the needy hurts them in the long run, teaching them dependence. Perhaps the answer is the conservative one - allow being poor to suck, horribly, and provide the means for hard-working poor to get out of poverty (the typical conservative seems to miss the 'means' part of the equation). Is being poor supposed to suck so bad that anyone that is wired right or close to right will work hard enough to get out of poverty, and those in poverty will inspire the rest of us to work hard enough and be financially responsible enough to stay out? Is the solution just to provide the means to escape poverty through public education (which sucks if you're poor), equal opportunity (which won't exist w/o decent public education), and equal treatment of citizens regardless of social class (has this ever actually happened)? Or is poor simply a tough question of where you happen to be born? Are there twin studies in which one is raised poor and the other privileged? Oh wait, we have the countries of USA and Australia to disprove any genetic nonsense.
-----
In other news, yesterday sucked. Work sucked, school sucked, it sucked. I was driving home kind of looking at myself. I don't need all this stuff. I used to think I was comfortable on $12/hr. Why am I working so hard to move up to jobs I don't think I'll like? Why am I so quick to sacrifice how I act to join management and be sterile and distant for hours a day? Why is 80k different than 40k or 160k? Why is a house better than a condo when I only use 3-4 rooms? Isn't everything I do just another form of whoring myself? Indecent proposal would rock - imagine how much less of a whore I would be for committing one brief act for a large amount of money than to commit a series of degrading behaviors for decades of my life for a trickle of support. The only thing I can think of that isn't some sort of service for others is to move to the country and grow food - then just whine about being a servant to the land. I'm caught up in the rat race, as so many 70s songs would say. I care about the numbers in my account, what people's eyes do at my resume, what choices I have available. One big wave or an asteroid and I'm just another body looking for food.

Comments

[joanarkham.livejournal.com]

Weird. citizen_ken and I were just having that conversation this morning. I think being poor has an awful lot to do with the accident of your birth...yeah, this is America and you can (theoretically) work your way up from nothing, but you can't expect people to finish a marathon when they start a mile behind the starting line.

I am also struggling with the idea of pursuing a job with elements I don't like (project management...yuck) for more money. Of course, right now the whole thing is on hold so I'm starting to lean toward just getting out.

[anarcha.livejournal.com]

"The outpouring of relief for hurricane victims is weird. Many of these same people have been needy for years. As poor black folk, they were blamed for their predicament, but as hurricane victims they deserve our immediate action and sacrifice? I mean it's cool that we are supporting some people up here in DC, but you know there have been needy people living in DC for some time now w/o everyone freaking out, inviting them in their homes, and killing themselves to offer help. Perhaps having the hurricane circumvented the 'blame the poor for their plight' mentality? "

I actually see (cynically) a different rationale -- it's a big story, and everybody wants to feel involved somehow. I think this explains why people keep insisting on going to efforts that are counterproductive -- for example, consider those that insist on purchasing canned goods and bottled water for those displaced, despite the facts that a) it's much less effort for the donor to give money, and b) the aid agencies have made it clear that they MUCH prefer money. People insist on running out and buying stuff because it makes them feel a part of the story.

I usually humor this sort of self-deception, but in situations where it's actually counter-productive, as it is here, it drives me nuts.

[anarcha.livejournal.com]

I think that "success" depends on some combination of 1) luck and 2) hard work, and no one's quite sure what the actual balance of the two is.

Those who have "succeeded" tend to see the balance as heavily weighted towards hard work (the better as to take credit for their success).

Those who remain in the lower rungs tend to see the balance as heavily dependant on luck -- that way, they don't have to accept responsibility for their own lack of success.

[vicar.livejournal.com]

I love that last point, so both the rich and the poor are blameless. That is equality to USians.

Your cynicism is appealing

[vicar.livejournal.com]

That's a lovely point. "But I want to use my hands to help, not just give money." Is it that they want the thrill of seeing results? How is someone living in a giant room on a cot supposed to open that can of beans and eat it? Isn't using your hands and brain in the office to earn money using your most marketable skills to give the most bucks to bang?

I wonder if there is a way to tap into that desire to be part of the story and use it for good. I also wonder if you can take the way this tragedy circumvented people's ambivalence and translate it into long-term social action.

[joanarkham.livejournal.com]

USA! USA!

Re: Your cynicism is appealing

[joanarkham.livejournal.com]

I'm wondering if the public will look at this and say "small-government policies weakened the safety net and must be reformed" or "FEMA can't do anything right...we need to get rid of it".

[shadow27.livejournal.com]

mean it's cool that we are supporting some people up here in DC, but you know there have been needy people living in DC for some time now Jonetta rose Barris asked the same question to DC officials on last weeks DC Politics Hour, they provided yuor usual no-answer as a reply.

what happens to the refugees (I think the term applies)
The reporters and editors debated this a bit yesterday and found that it only barely applies and evacuees and displaced persons are more accurate. That is because refugee, by definition, usually implies some sort of persecution.

That said we found most people who didn't like being called refugees had pretty shallow and heartless views of refugees.

I don't think your argument that if the displaced poor stay poor despite aid holds up. There are too many factors working against them. The job sector is already week, and housing far too expensive.

As you suggest much of howthe poor survive is based on suport networks. Not just federal social programs but also extended families and social networks (churches etc). When the poor are displaced these networks are broken, probably compounding the problems.

Perhaps the conservative solution, might, work. Except that US conservatives don't provide mcuh to level the playing field to allow the "hard working poor" to climb out of poverty. Hell they won't even provide busses to keep them from dying from hunger and thirst.

[reverend-heresy.livejournal.com]

is it hard to crawl up the social ladder and achieve a higher status, especially if you're poor and a minority? yes. is it possible? yes.

i remember hearing stories from my dad about my great great grandfather, who was born a slave. he had nothing after the Civil War, i heard he was homeless before he began work sharecropping. then with the money he was able to save sharecropping he opened a little general store in Southern Virginia. he and his family were able to make a decent living. after about 20 years he sold the store and made enough money in the long run to send my dad's dad, his grandson, to college. i always think of that story when i concider how some folks can crawl out of the worst of everything on top.

i can only hope the people who lost EVERYTHING are able to get their lives back on track, now what folks choose to do with those lives is up to them.

[cweaselle.livejournal.com]

I donated money that I would have used on luxuary items this month. I usually just try to give time rather than money, but my area isn't taking volunteers and I can't afford to pay for them to train me in Miami.

I think of work as something I do to support my life. Work is something that has to happen, but I don't have to live it. You like to suceed at things, I like to enjoy them.

Re: Your cynicism is appealing

[http://users.livejournal.com/_blackjack_/]

There are already people (including Ben "Bueller...Bueller..." Stein) using this as an example of why the government can't be trusted with health care.

Re: Your cynicism is appealing

[vicar.livejournal.com]

Lord knows it hasn't worked in those socialist countries up north and overseas...oh wait...

[vicar.livejournal.com]

I don't think your argument that if the displaced poor stay poor despite aid holds up
I'm not supporting the argument, more saying it will be made. You're absolutely right that it's more complex - I'm also saying as you add in mroe factors, it seems more likely that these people will "fail."

And yeah, the weak part of the conservative stance about helping the poor to help themselves is removing obstacles to moving up the socioeconomic ladder - otherwise public schools in poor areas wouldn't suck.

[vicar.livejournal.com]

The real danger comes from the politics of hard-working privileged people. They tend to think that anyone that worked as hard as they did will make it - never having been threatened physically, forced into a gang, receiving DWBs, shaken down, and always having the best schools etc. Same effort, differing results - but their self-esteem makes them blind to social inequities.

Some say its worse that we have the one in a million person who makes it than if we just had a class system. This way, the poor blame themselves and the lucky blame them too. Everyone agrees to blame the victim, ick.

[vicar.livejournal.com]

I think many donations now will actually matter, unlike a dollar to a "bum" (usually a Veteran displaced from a hospital during the Reagan years). Most people on welfare are on it for short periods of time, and this strikes me as exactly that kind of issue. Many of hte pressing needs are flat-out survival. In the long term throwing money at them isn't good, but short-term it's appropriate.

Plus, the charities are throwing out a lot on this effort. THey will need funds replenished over the months and years that follow.

No one cares about those areas you mention - that's just poor white trash ;P Actually I think what really hurt those areas was the fact manufacturing disappeared from Baltimore.

[vicar.livejournal.com]

I don't agree. Giving one person a lot of money is a bad idea - if you're going to do anything, it should be investing in infrastructure that could give people the ability to rise up on their own. You can never spend too much money on the public schools or transportation systems, in my opinion.

[anarcha.livejournal.com]

Absolutely, the poorest of the poor have it better than those with slightly higher incomes. Heck, I get frustrated about all the people who don't qualify for pro bono legal assistance.

If you're on welfare, you can get someone like me to represent you in your landlord-tenant case. If you're making barely enough to get by, then you don't qualify for pro bono, but nor can you afford an attorney. Heck, if you're living off of $40-50k, you still can't afford an attorney.

I'm really in favor of some sort of "sliding scale" for pro bono assistance, for this very reason.

[vicar.livejournal.com]

Sliding scales would be wonderful things. Think about welfare as well - they tend to make programs that ultimately penalize working, where your benefits are cut more than the gain in income. Many have proposed systems to allow people to work, and cut back some of their benefits while allowing them to make more overall. Everyone wins, but for some reason it's always too much bother to actually set up such a system.

Re: Your cynicism is appealing

[anarcha.livejournal.com]

Well, of course, one can make the arguments that:

a) those health care systems aren't really all they're cracked up to be -- I've heard stories of people waiting over a year for anything that's "non-essential." [of course, this argument is anecdotal -- I don't have hard statistics one way or the other on this]

b) Those countries are "free riders" benefitting off of the technological advances promoted by the economic structure of the U.S. health care system. For example, I doubt pharmaceutical companies would invest quite so much on research if they didn't stand to make a heavy profit off of sales in the U.S. (profits much larger than those reaped in Canada or the UK). And it's my understanding that those technological advances made in other countries are still motivated by the potential profit available from marketing the technology to US hospitals.

Don't get me wrong -- I think our health care system is screwed up -- I just think that the more the federal government gets involved in it, the worse it gets (especially for the doctors trapped in it). I'd much rather see our government rely on a system of tuition subsidies for doctors who agree to practice in low income areas or to take a certain percentage of low income patients, as opposed to some great socialized universal health care system that will create more distortions in the long run.

[rexdeviate.livejournal.com]

i agree with what the first person said in response to the whole poor/not poor issue. i think it really comes down to where you happen to be at the right time and if you grab a certain opportunity with determination when it comes along. i read one story after another about the richest people in this country that started out with nothing and now have the world. they are, in retrospect, merely gamblers. sometimes you lose and sometimes you win. and if you do win, you win big. some of the lowest wage jobs i ever had happened to be job i enjoyed the most. move up to those "management" positions and you may make more money, but you also have to tend to more responsibility and thus lose more of your humanity as far as i am concerned. that's not the kind of person i'd want to be. i wouldn't sell my soul for money. of course, these days, making more money seems almost necessary if you want to retire comfortably at an early enough age to enjoy your later years. what i don't understand is the mentality of many of those people who do make those 6 digit figures by their wasteful spending habits and living in the here and now and buying this 800k homes on loans.
as far as the whole poor issue: hmmmmm.. round and round we go. yes, i do agree - people shouldn't wait till a national distaster occurs to give to those who are not as fortunate, but no amount of "if we did this or if we did that" is going to change anything. i don't know how they could have expected that those "poor black folk" could have saved themselves from disaster. how could they leave? you have to consider: where would they have gone? i don't seem to recall hearing of these stadiums and convention centers being opened to them until after the storm. those who did make it out had money for a plane ticket to stay with family, or they had money to stay in a hotel. i mean, common, get real! And i firmly believe that the poor are more determined to stay where they are and with what they own unlike those who are in the upper classes who have that insurance, or who can afford to lose what they own. when you have little, it means more to you because it is all that you have. and no 30 foot wave or an asteroid, as you put it, is going to make you change your mind.

[vicar.livejournal.com]

You're really missing the boat. Don't confuse the cute unverified stories you hear with statistics. The vast majority of wealthy people in this country (and moreso overseas) are born wealthy. Yes it is possible, but the odds are very against it. Same effort, different results.

I think you need to move away from stories and on to data.

Re: Your cynicism is appealing

[vicar.livejournal.com]

I thought I replied this this...ate my response

There is something to the idea that other countries are free riding off the US. On the other hand, there are anecdotes like the polio vaccine.

I'd counter with giving the government money to perform medical research, but you might respond with bureaucratic inefficiency. I'd say something about the fact that much medical research is sponsored by the government anyway, and the fact private companies get monopoly power over the joint ventures is ... but then I'm kind if hitting the ceiling of my knowledge on the subject.

Perhaps there is also an argument in there about what kind of gains we are getting for current medical research, and how much greater gains might be received if we spent these same resources getting existing health care to individuals that need it. Over diner.

[rexdeviate.livejournal.com]

I don't think I'm missing the boat. I don't think I said that a vast amount of the people in this country started with nothing. Of course I realise that a vast majority of people are born wealthy. What I was saying is that there are those that do show that it is possible to start up from nothing as long as you are in the right place at the right time to take advantage of a new technology or a new supply and demand.

[vicar.livejournal.com]

Fair enough (though a majority is born poor, I think you meant a majority of the rich were born rich). I think I misunderstood you as saying that anyone that works hard enough will be rich. I mean your scenario now takes in lotto winnahs :p

Re: Your cynicism is appealing

[anarcha.livejournal.com]

I actually don't mind the government sponsoring medical research.

What I don't like is socialized medicine.