Identifying the Root Causes of Poverty
I receive alot of criticism because of my stance on universal health care, with most critics claiming I do not care about the poor. For starters I would like to make it known that I do not believe those who cannot afford health care should be left for dead, on the flip side however, I do not believe more government is the solution. The solution to the health care crisis in this country aside from minor governmental reforms such as deregulating the industry thereby allowing residents from one State to purchase insurance in another, lies in the overwhelming number of people currently living in poverty.
There has been much talk about the ‘war on poverty’ in this country and how the government needs to do more to help those in need. More and more, Americans appear to be relying on our government to take care of them, refusing to take any blame whatsoever for their financial position.
Several years back the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) released a study titled How Not To Be Poor. The study outlined some of the common traits those living below the poverty line shared, and offers a roadmap to eradicating poverty in this country. The solution to the poverty crisis seems obvious to some, but it bears repeating over and over again, because many just do not grasp the concept.
Before looking at the solution to poverty in America, it is important to first examine the cause of it. According the NCPA study, the majority of Americans living in poverty shared some of the following characteristics:
No High School Diploma
According to the 2001 Census Bureau report, 22.2 percent of individuals without a high school diploma were living in poverty compared to only 9.6 percent of those with a high school diploma. Additionally 14.2 percent of high school dropouts were living in long term poverty, compared to only 3.8 percent of those with high school diplomas who lived in long term poverty.
Not Married
8.6 percent of unmarried adults with no children live in poverty, with a staggering 51.6 percent of unmarried adults with 2 or more children lived in poverty. Additionally the study found nearly 80 percent of children living in long term poverty live in some type of broken family or with a never married parent.
There are those who would argue that a low minimum wage is the underlying cause of poverty, or at least a catalyst. Only 2.6 percent of individuals over the age of 16 with full time jobs are poor, as opposed to 11.4 percent of individuals who only work part time. Over the long term full time workers have a 0.4 percent chance of being poor.
This study makes it apparent (at least to me) that the solution to poverty in America is not more government programs, with more wealth redistribution. The answer lies with the individual, more importantly with individual responsibility. In those who finish high school, get married, have children only within a marriage and go to work, the odds of long-term poverty are virtually nil.
The Michael Moore’s and Hillary Clinton’s of this country wish to “Move from me to we”, creating a country where we each take responsibility for the actions of others. This is precisely the oppossite of what needs to be done. Killing individualism, and rewarding those who do not work by confiscating the property of those that do has already proven in other countries to be bad government policy.
If Americans refuse to take responsibility for their actions on an individual level, they are dooming us all to a life of government intervention and loss of personal liberty.
Sphere: Related ContentIf you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
I believe you over simplify this complex issue and to say the least, it is not always the person who is in poverty that is at fault.
True layla, in some cases there are other factors involved such as physical or mental handicaps. Bu tin the vast majority of cases it is the fault of the individual, or the individuals parents for their poverty. To blame the government is absurd. The Constitution gaurantees Americans equal opportunity not equal results.
That’s right - We have the right for the “pursuit of happiness.” The key word being “pursuit.”
Very good but you left out another important reason for poverty. Where are the poverty statistics on addicts. How much poverty is caused by the people who, because of their habits, can’t even provide for themselves let alone provide for the babies they have. Look at the homeless and tell me what percentage of them are alconol and drug abusers.
YOUR WEBSITE IS VERY PRECIOUS TO ME
Very good but you left out another important reason for poverty. Where are the poverty statistics on addicts. How much poverty is caused by the people who, because of their habits, can’t even provide for themselves let alone provide for the babies they have. Look at the homeless and tell me what percentage of them are alconol and drug abusers.
That’s right - We have the right for the “pursuit of happiness.” The key word being “pursuit.”
believe you over simplify this complex issue and to say the least, it is not always the person who is in poverty that is at fault.
Charles Signorile Jul 13th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
True layla, in some cases there are other factors involved such as physical or mental handicaps. Bu tin the vast majority of cases it is the fault of the individual, or the individuals parents for their poverty. To blame the government is absurd. The Constitution gaurantees Americans equal opportunity not equal results.
Improved technology, automation of tasks, and increased mechanization of jobs were all meant to improve our collective standard of living. Right?
How come this hasn’t happened? Why do we have the “two-income trap?” It seems we’re working harder than ever.
Why can’t two highly educated, long-term full-time workers like us live a reasonably comfortable life? We’ve never taken any time off; we’ve got advanced degrees from top universities, worked in our fields for 20 to 25 years, saved and invested our money, and we “only” owe $200,000 (!) on our house (no other debt). We will eventually retire in relative comfort only because we’ve saved and invested almost half our income each year over the last 15 years. But our lives are extremely busy, with little personal time. Our house is usually a mess and we barely have time to sleep and exercise adequately. Our friends are actually worse off than we are, with a much lower net worth (they actually spent most of their earnings on hired help and other amenities which we’ve foregone). Our house, cars (2 small sedans), and lifestyle are extremely modest compared to most others we know. But we still have to worry about money. To tell you the truth, we feel a bit cheated. Can you tell me where we went wrong?
AP, it sounds to me as if you lead a very comfortable life, however hectic it may be. While your living standards may not meet up with your own expectations, they seem to far surpass many others.
Yes, it’s true, we live in a developed country and luckily have access to good medical care, a government which monitors our food and water, and a reasonable infrastructure, etc., We are also lucky to have engaging work, though our wages aren’t keeping up with inflation. We pay increasing amounts of our wages toward medical insurance, for instance.
However, I don’t expect all others to work as hard as we do. We are a bit ridiculous in this respect. I don’t consider our lifestyle to be opulent by any means. A reasonable sense of security and safety isn’t too much for a country to ask, is it? We had to install a burglar alarm system after a break-in three years ago. Despite the amount we still owe on our mortgage after living in the same house for 18 years, our neighborhood hasn’t grown safer or more prosperous. Our house is 964 square feet on 1/7 of an acre. We happen to love it since it’s got a fabulous climate, but we’re a bit unusual. Most of our friends look down on our location.
I question the oft-stated contention that “government is bad.” If by “government” one means the interstate highway, post office, weather-monitoring systems, FDA, the court system, federal trade commission, securities and exchange commission, etc., it appears there are no other mechanisms by which a democratic society can ensure a “level playing field” for its constituents, if only in terms of information between markets.
I question the premises that individuality trumps the collective, or that the collective trumps individuality. We can’t succumb to the polarization which forms so much of the political debate. Many of us equate the “collective,” or government agencies (which are, after all, just organizations comprised of mostly well-meaning individuals who aren’t evil, who just want what most people want) with “socialism,” and then link “socialism” with “communism” and the failed U.S.S.R. communist regime. We grew up in a cold war environment and still think if we adopt universal health care, we’ll turn into communist Russia. Neither the individual nor the collective trump each other. They can only negotiate within a level playing field. If we have a problem with this, then perhaps we haven’t really grown up after all. We’re stunted psychologically if we allow those who would seek to monopolize our point of view to polarize us one way or another. A truly level playing field doesn’t preclude individual choice.
AP, the problem is that a progressive income tax trumps the collective over the individual, and this is coming from someone on the lower end of that tax structure. When 50% of tax payers contribute 3% of the tax collected, yet have half the vote, their is obviously a problem. Democrats consistently speak of the right “paying their fair share”, in order to prop up the poor on a cruth. The problem is a crutch is meant to help you only when your hurting, it is not meant to replace your leg.
Single parent household have been growing exponentially in this country, not because couple cant maintain their relationships, but because it is financially viable for them to never marry. Teenage girls drop out of school because they have witnessed their mothers benefiting from a system that rewards dependency. If a girl has a child, she receives immediate and unquestioned money from the government.
I am not advocating doing away with those social programs, but I believe they should have at least the amount of government oversight that private industry does, if not more.
Sep 11th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
[…] also reiterated a point I made back in July when I wrote about the root causes of poverty: In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 […]
Jul 10th, 2008 at 1:11 am
[…] one year ago today I cited a study which stated that nearly 80 percent of children living in long term poverty live in some type of broken family or with a never married parent. Barack Obama’s speech on Father’s day reminded that […]