Comments about ‘In our opinion: 'Inherited' poverty’

Make poverty miserable, that will break the cycle.

Instead of giving them checks to buy groceries with, give them a box of food.

Rather than subsidizing housing, put them in cramped government owned apartments.

Rather than running an insurance program, set up clinics that service the poor only.

Back East they found that a single mother of 2 would have to earn more than $69,000/yr before they can live a better lifestyle than they do on welfare.

This is an encouraging sign. Beyond just helping the impoverished, working to narrow economic inequality helps us all. Studies have established that the more unequal distribution of income/wealth is, the worse off a nation is, on a range of healthcare measures.

Interestingly, having a high average household income doesn't really help the population's health status that much, but in nations where the range of economic success of individuals is more narrow a whole host of health problems declines.

For example, where poverty flourishes, "trust" erodes. Alienation goes up. This is measurable and has been correlated with various levels of economic inequality.

If we help reduce poverty, measurable trust and optimism increase, and a variety of bad health indicators, such as diabetes, heart disease, substance abuse, decline.

Working to diminish poverty will pay dividends for everyone, except maybe home alarm companies and ammunition manufacturers.

To "10CC" isn't it interesting that the unequal distribution of income/wealth gets worse the more government regulation and control of the economy there is?

The most ironic thing is that once you get to a communist state you have eliminated the middleclass and have the elites and poor only. At the same time, the more capitalist the economy is, where government only acts to enforce property rights and does little if anything with the economy the more evenly distributed income/wealth is.

The move towards a reduction in this problem is the same it has always been.

Give someone a fish and they're fed in the short-term only. Teach them to fish and they're remaining life is improved.

As Jesus correctly observed (Matthew 26:11, John 12:8, Mark 14:7), poverty will never be eradicated entirely. So speaking of solutions for poverty is pointless.

However, like all other evils against which we must **always and forever** fight, there are time-tested strategies that are **always** effective. Helping people be more capable, in virtually any area of their lives, will be rewarded.

Nobody wants to live in poverty.

The key to break any cycle of poverty is education.

We need to continue to fund things like Head Start, grants to children of impoverished homes to go to school beyond high school, grants to single parents so they can survive and attend school and get a leg up.

Either way society will pay the cost. We can pay the cost and hopefully turn lives around and reap the benefit of productive members of society, or we can continue to pay for the cost in the form of Welfare, Prisons and Corrections and actions caused by ignorance. Either way the dollars will be paid, its just a matter of where.

Just tell them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. That should be sufficient to fix it. Also, let's get rid of the minimum wage while we're at it so we can keep the profits at the top.

10CC, only stated part of the findings..the greater the income inequality in a country the less upward mobility there is. The same study found that the greater the socieites income inequality the more likely children are to inherit their parents economic status than they are their approximate physical characteristics (height and wieght etc.).

Red Shirt, I'll give you communism had little upward mobility but to lump communisims economic problems into "government regulations" is massively uninformed and simplistic. The only relevant issue is America ranks very high in the civilized world in income inequality and very low in upward mobility.

Fact is the top 1% of Americans got 123% of all the income gains over the past four years, and while over 50% of Americans own some stocks, 80% of stock market wealth is held by 10% of the poulation, and industry productivity gains outstrip pay increases by as much as 4 to 1. That's our problem. We have losts of wealth it's just held in a few hands.

To "pragmatistferlife" you realize that you verified my previous statement.

You point out that where there is little mobility there is higher inequality.

Tell us when the US had more economic mobility and a better distribution of wealth. Did we have more or less regulation? Does communism have more or fewer regulations than capitalism?

Red Shirt, I'll give you communism had little upward mobility but to lump communisims economic problems into "government regulations" is massively uninformed and simplistic. And has nothing to do with inequality in America.

The point is just how does government regulations..and I presume you are talking about restrictions on businesses.. put all of the money in the hands of a few which is the definition of income inequality?

To "pragmatistferlife" not just business regulations. All regulations and taxation. The more regulations and taxes there are, the less mobility and greater the income inequality.

Again, tell us when the US had more economic mobility and a better distribution of wealth. Did we have more or less regulation? Does communism have more or fewer regulations than capitalism?

Red Shirt your question is irrelevant because you confuse correlation with causation..and any comparison with the Russia or the old Soviet Union is again irrelevant..correlation vs. causation. Regulations were irrelvent to why the old USSR had massive inequality. They had inequality because they tried to go from fuedilism to industrial captalism and never developed private wealth. All their wealth was military based. Even Marx said you can't do this.

Let me answer your question in a relevant way. Regulations may or may not inhibit wealth growth. Let's just say they do..So in this scenario there is less wealth, there is still no logical jump from less wealth to how that wealth is distributed..aka..income equality, and where the wealth produced is distributed primarily to a small portion of the poupulation there is less for those not in that que, therefore less mobility because the deprived don't have access to the resources of upward mobility. Even if you had less wealth growth if that wealth was distributed more in the fashion of 1950's and 1960's you would have less inequaltiy and more mobility.

If the state and the church want to help the poor they need to accept federal money to expand medicaid and raise the minimum wage. All this other rhetoric is nothing more than making the people feel self righteous. The poor do the jobs that the middle class and upper middle class don't want to do. Jobs that are essential for a society to operate. Pay them a living wage and the excessive consumption of the middle class will be limited. This will do your soul some good.