At any rate, in addition to the concerns mentioned in the blog comments, in some of the circles in which I have traveled this post came up for some criticism. But, Jack is not the only one thinking along these lines. I am currently (and slowly) reading Mudwoman, by Joyce Carol Oates. Professor Oates, of Princeton, is not a flash in the pan author, so perhaps her opinion can be given some respect.
One of those regions in America, M.R. had said, trying to describe her background to her astronomer-lover who traveled more frequently to Europe than to the rural interior of the United States, where poverty has become a natural resources: social workers, welfare workers, community-medical workers, public defenders, prison and psychiatric hospital staffers, family court officials—all thrived in such barren soil. (p 31)And perhaps that respect can spread to Blogger Jack.
All that said, I do hope that no one in Lowell is thinking of Poverty as an acceptable business model.
And, as Victoria notes, education is the route out—but I would add education as more than just what you get from the local school district, as important as that is. Mentoring as education. Teenage employment as education. Scouts and other youth activities as education. The Pollard Memorial Library as education. Mom and Dad (and Aunt and Uncle) setting examples as education.
Regards — Cliff
3 comments:
Let me create a simplified model:
1) "Benefits Source" (State, Not for Profits)
2) "Benefits Conduit" (Poor People)
3) "Benefits Recipient" (Vendors & Service Providers)
1] 2 [3
Wealth passes from 1 through 2 on its way to 3. 1 and 3 bookend 2.
So often, disgruntled middle class taxpayers focus on the "stuff" the poor buy. This causes the middle class to resent the poor. There is then a tendency to "punch down." Meaning, to politically attack the poor.
I see the trinkets the poor gather. I often think it is unfortunate that they value such frivolous things as booze, cigarettes, pricey clothes and cars. I think it is unfortunate that they focus on gathering "status symbols" rather than gather actual "status."
What concerns me more, is when those with "status" exploit the poor by selling them worthless crap.
Caveat Emptor, right?
I work and do just about everything correct in accordance to the "middle class, American model" we have been given. Wealth passes through me.
This exact model happens with the poor. We have a transfer of wealth from "Benefits Source" to "Benefits Recipient."
Poverty is big business. Worst of all, it leaves poverty intact.
Can we make the analogy of for profit schools using public money, as their business models. If it is important enough for the government to address the concern with direct action, whether it be the poor, education, or human trafficking then the government should do the work and not use third parties/grants to non-government organizations.
Lately I'm questioning almost everything that is contracted out. Not sure where I want to draw the line of what is appropriate.
For example as Catholics, we agree with several social justice issues and enjoy the benefit of federal grants. We now have become dependent on federal money for our charitable work, rather then be an independent body in our efforts. We can create partnerships with the government, but lately I feel the need to ween ourselves off them where ever possible.
I agree with Jack's model. I would add a few caveats. The State and Not for Profits are funded by the middle and upper classes. That is the true source of the benefits.
Poverty as business is but one egregious component of income redistribution....except that it really isn't "redistributed" to the poor as the Robin Hoods of the current Administration would want folks to believe.
That the poor are handed chits, cash, EBC's only ties them to their poverty. The true CURE for poverty is to provide them with the means and the ability to get out of poverty. I know. I know. Just too hard to do so we don't do it...and besides.....there really ARE a percentage of the poor who are and prefer it. If you have enough beneficiaries in some jurisdictions, being poor is tantamount to being fairly well to do but without all the work stuff. There was an article in the New Orleans newspaper some years ago about a twentysomething drug pusher who got offed by his competition. At the time of his passing, he had assumed custodial responsibility for some 8 or 10 folks....and as such....picked up welfare payments for their support. As I recall, his weekly income from the state's largesse was somewhere on the order of $6000.
If you don't want creatures of the forest and birds of the air hanging around your home and making a sewer of its environs, stop feeding them. They KNOW how to forage and get their food...but hey.....if someone just puts it out on a nice clean spot.....well....why not.
And "yes"...there is an entire industry that supports poverty...without which...they would have no market.
Post a Comment