P O V E R T Y

"Rich nations exploit poorer, underdeveloped nations."

I have strong disagreement with this statement.

You're not alone. Such a notion is wrong on so many levels that it's hard to know where to begin.

For one thing, it accepts the old notion that life is a "zero-sum game," where, in order for me to win, someone else has to lose.

Baloney.

If that were true, then the Malthusians and Club of Rome and the Paul Ehrlichs and the Lester Browns and the Al Gores would have been proven right long ago; humanity would have fouled its nest to the point of extinction. But that hasn't happened. And it's safe to assume that it isn't going to happen. And that is because the premise on which such doom-mongering is based is false. Human existence is not a zero-sum game.

A big part of why is technology. Technological innovation is the combination of mind and action; it is creative work, a way of adding to the world's supply of capital that in no way diminishes the lot of any other person. With technology, we continually find ways to do more with less. We become more productive while using fewer resources. There must be an upper limit to this process... but we are unimaginably far from that limit.

Meanwhile, the better we get at doing more with less, the better off everyone--including the "poor"--becomes. In the U.S., the very definition of "poverty" has had to be changed to a dynamic definition that rises with every passing day, because many of the "poor" here live like kings relative to those considered poor through most of human history. According to U.S. government statistics from 1987 for families fitting the government definition of "poor," 98.4 percent had running water, 98.2 percent had flush toilets, and 99.9 percent had electricity.

In 1910, the average number of persons per room in all of U.S. households was 1.13. In 1970, there were 0.62 persons per room. By 1987, there were only 0.48 persons per room for the average household, and 0.56 for "poor" households... which is more spaciousness than the average family had as recently as 1970!

The 1987 Housing Survey conducted by the Census Bureau found that 38 percent of those designated as "poor" owned their own homes, with a median value of $39,305 (in 1987 dollars). Even more interesting: some 22,000 households called "poor" by government standards had a heated swimming pool or a Jacuzzi. (U.S. Dept. of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Housing Characteristics 1987, p.87).

Want more? In 1987 (a popular year for statistics *grin*), the Census Bureau and Energy Dept. found the following percentages of ownership of various durables and appliances in "poor" households:

    One or more autos: 62.2
    Air conditioning:  49.0
    Microwave oven:    30.7
    Washing machine:   56.0
    Telephone:         81.3
    Refrigerator:      99.1

There's plenty more, but anyone open to reality will have already long since gotten the point: "poverty" is a relative term. And before naysayers point out that these are only United States poor, they should realize that the status of the poor here is not a miracle, nor is it because the U.S. "took" anything away from anyone else. What happened here can happen in any place where the people are free and are motivated to work.

Which brings me to my second objection to Wallis's "Call to Conversion": It's nothing more than warmed-over Marxism. Marx too was convinced that a high "standard of living is rooted in injustice."

Like Marx, Wallis was wrong. High standards of living, relative to the times, have occured throughout human history every time people become free to innovate and can be reasonably sure that they will reap the profits of their creativity. "Exploitation" is a false charge; it is made only by persons who want to feel good about themselves for how much they care about combating "injustice."

If Mr. Wallis really wanted to help the poor, he would start a business.

Relief aid even today is beyond the ability of private charity to satisfy fully. Even with all the charitable organizations acting together (as they more or less do through the United Fund) or in concert with strong private charities outside the United Fund (Catholic Charities is the biggest, and probably Lutheran Charities the next) is only able to cover about a third of the total cost of welfare.

Volunteering is important, and I have nothing but praise for those who volunteer and those who are prepared to sacrifice their own wealth and time to the support of vital social programs. But realistically there is no evidence that such activity is able to meet the need of the dispossessed in our society without massive governmental support, in funds and in programs, as well.

This argument seems to me to suffer from the usual flaw in economic arguments from the Left: It is static. It evaluates alternatives by assuming that changing the approach to solving a problem won't change the problem.

But that's not so.

Change the approach to a human problem, and the scope of the problem changes because human behavior changes. Human behavior is dynamic; human beings respond to their environment. Choose a faulty approach--such as a Big Government Welfare system--to dealing with a human problem, and human beings will respond by abusing the system and making the problem worse. Choose a smarter approach--such as helping those who truly can't help themselves and expecting everyone else to pull their own weight, thus minimizing the potential for system abuse--to a problem, and the problem is diminished as human beings react in better ways.

Part of the reason why so much is spent on the current welfare behemoth is that we have made it relatively easy to get at. In fact, our various government officials actually brag about their "outreach" efforts to find citizens who aren't claiming the many payments to which they are said to be "entitled."

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that returning the emphasis to the expectation that people first try to support themselves would encourage some--not all, but some--individuals to find other means of supporting themselves... like jobs. And as that happens, as individuals support themselves instead of being supported by others, not only do they reduce the total welfare requirement, they increase the numbers of those with the financial ability to help others.

As the approach changes, the problem changes. Whether private charity could satisfy current welfare funding levels is totally irrelevant; that's a false measure of success. What matters is whether some approach other than the current Big System can satisfy true assistance needs, whatever those levels might become as behavior changes.

Will we ever reach the point of being able to do away entirely with federal public assistance? Probably not; in fact, I would argue that a decent society must try to help those who truly cannot help themselves. That is an appropriate function for the governments of a highly mobile, modern society. But I would also argue that any further assistance is not appropriate, because it presumes to do for citizens what they can and should first try to do for themselves. Doing away with that obligation--as we did in throwing more and more and more money at our elephantine welfare system, and in criticizing as "cold" and "heartless" and somehow less than human anyone who dares to point out that system's obvious failure--has no other effect than to create a nation of dependents, unwilling to do for themselves because they are told not only that they don't have to, but that they can't.

That is wrong. Not just for those who are forced to subsidize others who can work but don't, but for those latter as well, who never learn the justifiable pride that comes from developing the ability to give instead of taking.

As I see it, the "great theory that tends to break down in practice" is the dual notion that individuals and families are incompetent to help themselves, and that simply going to work for a government makes public servants benevolent and wise enough to treat competent adult human beings like children. We put that theory into practice, we gave it every chance to succeed, and it failed. We took the reasonable idea of temporarily helping people who arew temporarily unable to work for themselves, and turned it into a self-serving institution whose existence depends on keeping on the dole as many persons as possible for as long as possible.

Changing that "solution" by putting more emphasis on local and personal responsibility is not some untested "theory"; it is a return to what we have learned actually works. And what we now know works (and works better than the idealistic belief that "the system" can take care of the real needs of actual human beings) is that people are far better off when they meet their needs through their own efforts and those of their families, friends, and communities.

When people can't help themselves, we should help them. When they can help themselves, we should expect them to do so.

As we continue to return to this common-sense philosophy, we will continue to slowly undo the damage caused by decades of ignoring it.

[Republican-sponsored welfare reform] was a declaration of open warfare on the poor and the immigrants. Combined with a tax break for those who least need it, the wealthy. ... It has closed down many of the support facilities they must have, if they are to become employable, and at the same time placed a life time time limit on the benefits they can receive. We are already seeing too much hunger in this country, and it is escalating.

Well, those are certainly some provocative claims. Let's see how they stack up against reality.

Here is some information from an AP story filed by Laura Meckler on August 19, 1998:

  A Los Angeles program that pushes even the welfare recipients with
  the toughest problems to immediately look for work appears to have
  achieved success.

  Two years after a sweeping overhaul of the welfare system,
  researchers say the L.A. program offers hope for other cities
  struggling to get the poorest and most disadvantaged people off
  welfare.  It's the first hard evidence suggesting that work-oriented
  programs adopted across the nation can succeed in the largest cities
  as they have in smaller places, said the report being released
  Thursday.

  Across the country, welfare rolls have been declining since the peak
  in 1994, and even more rapidly in the two years since a federal
  overhaul became law.  Marking that anniversary, the government
  released an updated list showing that 8.4 million people were
  collecting welfare in June, down from nearly 14.3 million in 1994
  and 12.2 million when the new law went into effect.  Caseloads have
  declined in every state except Hawaii over the last two years, and
  some states have seen dramatic drops: for example, by 74 percent in
  Wyoming and 71 percent in Wisconsin.

  But even as the rolls fall, questions remain: Will people who find
  jobs be able to keep them? Will some families slip through the
  cracks, falling deeper into poverty? And how can welfare agencies
  help those who remain, often with the toughest problems?

  Los Angeles, with its high concentration of urban problems and
  long-term welfare dependency, offers insight.  It has huge numbers
  of poor people concentrated in the inner city: In fact, the county
  serves more welfare clients than every state except California and
  New York.

  In 1996, 21,000 people were enrolled either in the work-first
  program or in a control group for comparison purposes.  Those in the
  work-first program went to a one-week job readiness class that
  focused on self esteem, interview skills and motivation.  Then they
  moved to a two-week job club, where they contacted dozens of
  employers every day.  Those who still had not found work at that
  point were evaluated to see if they needed education, training or
  subsidized work.

  After six months, 70 percent of the work-first group was working,
  compared with 32 percent of the control group.  While most people
  did not make enough to leave welfare altogether, researchers cited
  the earliness of the results.

  "If these results hold up over time, Los Angeles will have achieved
  something few if any previous programs have accomplished--clear
  gains among large urban populations," said Stephen Freedman of
  Manpower Demonstration Research Corp., which studied the Los Angeles
  program in 1996 and 1997.

  Significantly, the program included those with the most difficult
  challenges. Almost 80 percent had been on welfare for at least two
  years, compared with about half the welfare population nationally.
  One in five did not have full English proficiency.  More than 25
  percent had been on aid for at least two years, lacked a high school
  degree and had not worked for at least a year.  More than 75 percent
  were black or Hispanic, compared with about 60 percent nationally.

  Researchers attributed the success to several things: clear
  expectations for work, a well-run job search program, services such
  as child care, and smaller welfare checks for people who didn't
  participate.

Hmm. After just a few months in one of the toughest areas, things seem to be better, not worse, for many U.S. citizens--average taxpayer and welfare recipient alike.

I guess now it's a matter of choosing: rhetoric, or reality.

my profoundest didagreement lies with any approach that considers economic policy or tax policy first and as being more important than people. People are first, must always be first, and can never be made adjuncts to economic or other abstract goals. People goals must always take priority -- absolute priority -- over economic goals.

What I find interesting about this statement is how glibly it assumes that anyone who advocates any other approach doesn't care about people. The old approach had us taxing the productive to transfer that money to the unproductive, aggressively giving people reasons not to work. Why do some find it so easy to believe and claim that those who prefer a less counter-productive approach must have some priority other than helping people?

The economic benefits of minimizing individual dependency on the state are important, but they are also secondary. The human benefits of being an independent adult are far more important, not just to individuals but to the entire society of which they are a part. This is the real reason conservatives argue for more individual responsibility and less reliance on government handouts--not out of evil and greedy intent (as your comments on this subject consistently assert), but because societies whose members exercise the virtues of hard work and self-restraint are more successful and more free than those based on dependency and self-gratification.

To put it more simply, economic success flows from human virtue, not the other way around.

I believe that all of us who discuss this question of the proper approach to welfare policy would like to be recognized for our good intentions. A helpful first step would be to assume by default that others share our good intentions.

Home

Heart	Body	Spirit	Mind
Art	Writing	Religion	Personality
Music	Travel	Politics	Computers
Genealogy	Work	History	Reasoning
Fiction	Games	Economics	Science