What I Learned in the Poverty War

[viningsgator]

Insight from someone who has been there from day one.

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_4_poverty.html

Nearly half a century ago, I dropped out of graduate school and enlisted as a foot soldier in America’s War on Poverty. Today, I’m still on the front lines, working to move people out of dependency and into employment. But with an important difference: I’ve become fed up with the useless policies that I once supported, and I’m trying to change the strategy of our bogged-down army.

We know for certain that income transfers, the preferred tactic of generations of liberals, have utterly failed to end poverty. My firsthand experience with welfare clients has shown me why: being on the dole encourages dependency. Working at a real job, by contrast, is the surest way for a person to climb out of poverty. Accordingly, the surest way for the government to fight poverty is to eliminate cash assistance almost entirely and offer jobs.

What opened my eyes was a job I took in the mid-1970s at the Vera Institute in New York, led by the brilliant policy innovator Herbert Sturtz. Sturtz created small demonstration programs; researched them scientifically, sometimes with control and experimental groups; and, if they proved successful, asked governments or foundations to take them on and expand them. One of the demonstration programs, the Wildcat Services Corporation, was running employment programs for the most hard-to-place welfare recipients in all five boroughs, and Vera asked me to head Wildcat’s Manhattan and Bronx offices.

The reasons should have been obvious all along. Work maximizes a person’s capacity to achieve economic self-reliance. Work socializes people and instills a sense of personal responsibility in them. Work connects behavior and consequences. And it permits people, especially men, to obtain the admiration and respect of their spouses and children.

[96Gatorcise]

Originally Posted by viningsgator

Insight from someone who has been there from day one.

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_4_poverty.html

Nearly half a century ago, I dropped out of graduate school and enlisted as a foot soldier in America’s War on Poverty. Today, I’m still on the front lines, working to move people out of dependency and into employment. But with an important difference: I’ve become fed up with the useless policies that I once supported, and I’m trying to change the strategy of our bogged-down army.

We know for certain that income transfers, the preferred tactic of generations of liberals, have utterly failed to end poverty. My firsthand experience with welfare clients has shown me why: being on the dole encourages dependency. Working at a real job, by contrast, is the surest way for a person to climb out of poverty. Accordingly, the surest way for the government to fight poverty is to eliminate cash assistance almost entirely and offer jobs.

What opened my eyes was a job I took in the mid-1970s at the Vera Institute in New York, led by the brilliant policy innovator Herbert Sturtz. Sturtz created small demonstration programs; researched them scientifically, sometimes with control and experimental groups; and, if they proved successful, asked governments or foundations to take them on and expand them. One of the demonstration programs, the Wildcat Services Corporation, was running employment programs for the most hard-to-place welfare recipients in all five boroughs, and Vera asked me to head Wildcat’s Manhattan and Bronx offices.

The reasons should have been obvious all along. Work maximizes a person’s capacity to achieve economic self-reliance. Work socializes people and instills a sense of personal responsibility in them. Work connects behavior and consequences. And it permits people, especially men, to obtain the admiration and respect of their spouses and children.

.

I have always thought this would be a much better allocation of resources. Subsidize the jobs not the person.

[Gatormb]

Great OP. This idea will never come to fruition until Pubs take control for obvious reasons. Dems derive power from the people government subsidizes.

Wouldn't let me rep but I'd give ya ten if I could.

[rivergator]

I'm certainly open to alternatives to the systems we have now.

[candymanfromgc]

Sorry to be the wet rag but I just don't believe the people in government as a whole gives a damn about anything but retaining power and maintaing their elite status.

Many of these problems could be solved at least to some degree but alas our elected reps continue to act in their self interest.

[viningsgator]

A new WPA as mentioned by the author would be a good start. Rebuild the inner cities with the citizens of the very same community.

[Gatormb]

My point exactly candy. The article relates that opposition from day one of this 25 year old company.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by candymanfromgc

Sorry to be the wet rag but I just don't believe the people in government as a whole gives a damn about anything but retaining power and maintaing their elite status.

Many of these problems could be solved at least to some degree but alas our elected reps continue to act in their self interest.

Unfortunately, it's far more insidious than that. The elected reps continue to act in the interests of the people who elect him. That's why government always grows and never gets rolled back. That is what you get with democracy.

[candymanfromgc]

It is sad, the idea of the OP has alot of merit and you know the old saying of the definition of insanity-yey we continue the same ole failed policies that are doomed to reach the same result.

[austingtr]

When we were students at UF, without a penny on our name, we were encouraged to apply for food stamps after we had a baby while in school (we took medicaid to pay for our daughter's delivery). The process was so humiliating, and sobering (standing in line with people waiting for a hand out, the way we were treated, and the feeling of losing our dignity) that after waiting 40 mins, we decided we rather make do with what we got from loans and Pell grants, and some aide that came from my father, who basically supported our daughter while we finished college and med school. Now people are encouraged to get aide, and lose their self worth and dignity in the process. There is advertisement for this. We are killing America. It is truly sad. Getting hand outs for people who are able destroys their self worth and dignity.
Instead of expecting the guvmint to take care of people, how come families don't take care of their own? Well, when there are no families, this is what you get.

[vangator1]

What do you do with those that refuse to work? Let them starve?

[viningsgator]

Originally Posted by vangator1

What do you do with those that refuse to work? Let them starve?

You really think that folks are just going to starve? There will always be access to food through churches and charities.

[Row6]

We've done this before. The War on Poverty resulted in significant changes in levels of poverty and other specific markers. Fine to disagree with methods but don't spread falsehoods about success and supporting data.

[rivergator]

Just FYI, LBJ's war on poverty was not simply welfare, not simply checks, as some people seem to think.

[G8trGr8t]

Originally Posted by vangator1

What do you do with those that refuse to work? Let them starve?

Yes

[viningsgator]

Originally Posted by Row6

We've done this before. The War on Poverty resulted in significant changes in levels of poverty and other specific markers. Fine to disagree with methods but don't spread falsehoods about success and supporting data.

The author of the article has been involved in the war on poverty for 50 yrs and is telling you weve been tackling the war on poverty the wrong way. He disagrees.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Unfortunately, it's far more insidious than that. The elected reps continue to act in the interests of the people who elect him. That's why government always grows and never gets rolled back. That is what you get with democracy.

Totally agree. It is the special interest groups that do the electing, the elected continue to represent them to the exclusion of everyone else, and that is exactly what you get with democracy.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by viningsgator

The author of the article has been involved in the war on poverty for 50 yrs and is telling you weve been tackling the war on poverty the wrong way. He disagrees.

The author needs to look at the data. BTW, he opted out of the "war on poverty" 30 years ago.

[gatorman_07732]

When you subsidize something you get more of it

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by viningsgator

Insight from someone who has been there from day one.

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_4_poverty.html

Nearly half a century ago, I dropped out of graduate school and enlisted as a foot soldier in America’s War on Poverty. Today, I’m still on the front lines, working to move people out of dependency and into employment. But with an important difference: I’ve become fed up with the useless policies that I once supported, and I’m trying to change the strategy of our bogged-down army.

We know for certain that income transfers, the preferred tactic of generations of liberals, have utterly failed to end poverty. My firsthand experience with welfare clients has shown me why: being on the dole encourages dependency. Working at a real job, by contrast, is the surest way for a person to climb out of poverty. Accordingly, the surest way for the government to fight poverty is to eliminate cash assistance almost entirely and offer jobs.

What opened my eyes was a job I took in the mid-1970s at the Vera Institute in New York, led by the brilliant policy innovator Herbert Sturtz. Sturtz created small demonstration programs; researched them scientifically, sometimes with control and experimental groups; and, if they proved successful, asked governments or foundations to take them on and expand them. One of the demonstration programs, the Wildcat Services Corporation, was running employment programs for the most hard-to-place welfare recipients in all five boroughs, and Vera asked me to head Wildcat’s Manhattan and Bronx offices.

The reasons should have been obvious all along. Work maximizes a person’s capacity to achieve economic self-reliance. Work socializes people and instills a sense of personal responsibility in them. Work connects behavior and consequences. And it permits people, especially men, to obtain the admiration and respect of their spouses and children.

This used to make sense.

My fear is that the traditional value that most Americans were instilled with in generations past - the work ethic - has been supplanted by a more complex ethic espousing a negative self-esteem emblematic with "getting away with it," "who gives a sh!t?," "putting one over on the man," and "dumb-ass mo-fo's work jobs."

In other words, for the dignity of proper self-esteem through work to grow, it must have a fertile place to be planted that is prepared, cultivated and tended for the seed to mature. This usually begins with proper upbringing in a stable home, with responsible parents taking the role-model and coaching lead.

Coupled with the more mainstream ideas of the need for endless entertainment, alternative reality, and mindless gadget infatuation (including attention-seeking interpersonal broadcasting of blather), it's no wonder why the idea of work having any other reward greater than itself - other than drudgery - doesn't seem to sell to a lot of folks.