Charts and graphs are a way to demonstrate information. If you in earnest want to reduce the number of people in poverty, you have to analyze the information to determine why so many more people are in poverty now as opposed to 20 years ago. You then determine what changed that led to the undesirable outcome and devise solutions to fix it.
you forgot lack of being lucky. I'm sure you would come up just fine if you were born to ditch diggers in africa. There are plenty of responsible people that are poor. It is such closed minded and annoying perspective to think many people 'choose' it. You are lucky you are not poor.
We're talking about the US. Some people may be lucky and others may be unlucky. How do you reduce the overall number of people that are in poverty?
http://www.nber.org/digest/aug01/w8198.html can't help but note the number of religious libertarian white males
If this were the case, you wouldn't have 78 percent of NFL players and 60 percent of NBA players file for bankruptcy within five years of retirement. Also 70 percent of all lottery winners squandered away their winnings in a few years of their winning the lottery.
I'm wondering... What is your solution? Is it sustainable? Will this reduce the number of people that are in poverty?
The solution is a great educational system and laws that provide a safety net for society. In our country universal health care, for example, prevents poverty. The number one cause of bankruptcy in America is health care. Some say that universal health care would slow innovative treatments for some diseases but frankly I'm more concerned with the people who go bankrupt and die because they don't have health care than the few wealthy ass people that can afford those innovative treatments. And by education I don't simply mean college, I mean high quality primary schools, middle schools, and high schools. I do feel 2 years of college should be free for all. College isn't just a place to train you for a job, it's to provide an education for life. A well educated society is a good thing. If we can spend more on our military than the next 14 countries in the world combined then maybe we should spend some of that money on our people rather than our weapons. I also mean education for potential parents. It's amazing to me that you need to pass a written test and a driving test to get a driver's license but any dumbass can be a parent. I'm not advocating preventing people from having children but there should be a widely available system to provide parenting skills and education. Perhaps provide a some type of incentive (tax cut?) for showing up, completing the course, and passing an exam. Empower parents to be educated on raising a child, what we know works and what we know doesn't work. Education and treatment for drug abuse as well. We spent a boatload of money keeping people in prison for drug use, I'd prefer to legalize mar1juana and spend that money instead on education and treatment of addiction. As a country, the way we spend money is often counterproductive to the benefit of our people. The profit motive is just rotting our country from the inside out. Nothing seems to matter anymore except making money and I'm not advocating Communism certainly but we need a better balance in this country.
Sound decision making, sense of responsibility, and ambition aren't genetic traits. They are learned or not. Certainly the herding of the poor into separate communities is systemic and a big reason more people don't get out of the cycle of poverty (as opposed to the exceptions). How to fix it is an entirely different question. It would be great if the middle and upper class suddenly volunteered and filled the gaps in education and training, but that's pretty unrealistic. As a practical measure, I'd favor a tiered educational system that has a "technical" track and a college track. Anyone who shows college level promise goes in that track, and everyone else goes in the technical track where they start early learning a trade (plumbing, electrician, medical equipment operation, computer repair, mechanic, etc). Trades at least would allow the non college educated to break the cycle of poverty with good wage jobs that should always be in demand.
So what exactly does this race and gender statistic say about the overall poverty rate of 1970 vs 2010? Are we better or worse off overall as a country now vs then?
A common belief among the left is that life is a zero sum game, that someone can only get richer by making someone else poorer. It's why we see the obsession with class and wealth disparity.
Poverty is a threat to everyone. With poverty comes social destabilization. Sometimes that's riots, other times that's revolution. And Poverty also brings crime and illness. It's a drain on our gov't if not resolved. Solving poverty would unburden our federal deficit by reigning in support costs. But most people are in poverty because they were born into it. When your parents don't know how to read, chances are you won't learn either. And the lack of education, access to mobility to get to a job, and job opportunities tends to continue the cycle. There needs to be an investment into poor areas like inner cities, the deep south, and Appalachia. I am a firm believer in human capital. And that most people in poverty are motivated to get out but face daunting challenges that welfare and food stamps can't help them overcome. They need jobs - ones that offer a pathway to a decent life. There's only so many menial jobs, and only so many vocational jobs. But where you have untapped human capital, even highly inefficient capital, there's opportunity for companies to put these folks back to work. We are outsourcing manufacturing jobs to China. I think there is an opportunity to build factories near inner cities and outsource jobs there. Not saying that's the solution, but there should be more thought around these types of things.
