5 ms·

"It's Econ 101 that's to blame," Karelis says. "It's created this tired, phony debate about what causes poverty." This question is based on faulty assumptions.

"It's Econ 101 that's to blame," Karelis says. "It's created this tired, phony debate about what causes poverty." This question is based on faulty assumptions. There is no cause of poverty: it is the natural state. Tens of thousands of years ago, all of our ancestors were running around barefoot and naked. Just a few generations ago, none of our ancestors even had refrigeration nor access to antibiotics. So every one of us comes from a line of people who didn't enjoy nearly as much luxury as we've got today. The reason we're no longer in that situation is because we (that is, ourselves and our progenitors) have worked our way out of it.

crystalis 16y ago
The thing is, there's a difference between the poverty of a hunter-gatherer and the poverty of an urban family. Some of it is being barefoot in a paved world covered with broken glass, but a lot more is connected to the enduring effects of poverty. A child raised in poverty then has fewer barriers to overcome- in fat times, even the worst hunter could be eating as well as the best. To say they're both in poverty because they lack shoes and clothing they don't need is missing the point. Today, you have a huge number of knock on effects from e.g., lack of good schooling and "poverty decreasing" social networks that practically turn poverty into a personal attribute rather than a temporary state.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  None of that bears on the point. By referring to "the cause of poverty", the OP makes it seem that each of us is destined to riches and luxury, unless something goes wrong and condemns us to poverty. What I'm trying to illustrate is that this is actually the opposite of the truth: each of us has a lifetime of poverty in front of us, unless we do something to ensure that we do not. Granted, it's easier for some of us than others: the "silver spoon" thing. But the fact remains that riches are not the default state, at least for the vast majority of us. We are destined to be poor unless we take steps to avoid it.
  - ahoyhere 16y ago
    There's a difference between not having riches, and being in poverty. There's even a huge difference between being poor, and being in poverty. Nobody needs riches, but everybody needs food, trees, clothes, shelter, medicine, and books. Poor people can often have these things - but people in poverty struggle even for those basics. I don't agree with the author of the posted essay but nevertheless.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      I take issue with your use of the term "struggle". "Struggle" implies the poor are actively trying to improve their situation. In reality, 80% of the poor are sitting around on the couch hoping for someone else to solve their problems. I wouldn't describe that as "struggling" so much as "loafing". http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf
      - ahoyhere 16y ago
        There is this scientific concept of "learned helplessness" - it applies to fleas, and it definitely applies to humans. If you've ever watched an upper-middle class housewife crumble in the wake of a divorce, you know it's true. If we are the average of our 5 closest friends/family members, that we spend the most time with, then kids born in poverty are born DOOMED. Unless something intercedes. "Something" must be more than just giving them money, by the way. Two married friends of mine met in Teach for America. Unlike just about everyone else, they kept doing it. She taught in a public school in DC, he taught in a charter. (Charter schools are drastically better than the public ones, but still horrendous by any lower-middle-class bar.) Her classroom didn't just not have books... it didn't have power. That's right: no lights. There was enough electricity between two adjourning classrooms to power ONE box fan in the summer. That means only one classroom could have a 60-watt lightbulb or a fan. If that is the situation you grew up in, if that is the situation you saw at school, do you really think you would believe the crazy skinny white lady up front telling you that if you stayed in school, you could succeed? No. You wouldn't. You'd have to be stupid to believe one woman against everything your experience, and your eyes, tells you: that you are doomed. That the only people you know who make any money, who have any chance, are drug dealers. The teacher telling you this can't be trusted - she's poor, too, and stupid maybe, if she's stuck trying to teach a bunch of wasted, doomed kids like you. You can quote studies all you like that show that people in poverty aren't trying hard enough. But they mean nothing without the context of the rest of their lives.
timwiseman 16y ago
I think you have a point. Most of the people in poverty in America right now are materially better off than almost everyone 500 years ago, and most of the poor in America remain better off than most of the people in say Afghanistan. With that said, the close tie in to material wealth is your place in society. A good hunter-gatherer might have none of the luxuries we take for granted now, but he probably has the respect of those around him and looks around and sees he is well off compared to his comrades. He is likely to be happy, and to feel that his work is paying off. A poor person in a ghetto may look around and see many others that are much better off than he is. He may see that many people outside the ghetto give him no respect, and that even many of the well meaning ones look at him with pity. He may react to this with determination to improve and leave the ghetto. But he may react with anger or resignation, and he may feel (whether accurate or not) that no amount of work will help him change his lot in life. He is vastly better off in a material sense than the hunter gatherer, but worse off in terms of his place in society and his (perceived) ability to improve that place. It is this emotional response to the social issue, much more than their material situation, that is cogent to the situation.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Most of the people in poverty in America right now are materially better off than almost everyone 500 years ago, and most of the poor in America remain better off than most of the people in say Afghanistan. Or even better off than most of the people in America, 1960.
  - starkfist 16y ago
    Is this true? My grandparents were poor in 1960 yet had a big house and a decent car, a coffee maker, a big yard, etc. Why are poor people better off now? Because they have the internet?
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      The poor of today also have the house and the car. They also have air conditioning, a washer dryer, a microwave, cable TV and other such things. No one had that in the 1960's. In fact, a big chunk of the 1960's poor didn't even have a flush toilet. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understandi... I got curious why you mentioned that your grandparents had the coffee maker. It's because they were actually pricey in the 60's: $29.95 or $215 in 2009 dollars! A coffee maker was actually pricier than a wii. http://www.dadsvintageads.com/viewitem.php/dadsvintageads/pd959405/Vintage_Ad_1960_Toastmaster_Toaster_Coffee_Maker_Fry_Pan http://www.dadsvintageads.com/viewitem.php/dadsvintageads/pd...

crystalis 16y ago

The thing is, there's a difference between the poverty of a hunter-gatherer and the poverty of an urban family. Some of it is being barefoot in a paved world covered with broken glass, but a lot more is connected to the enduring effects of poverty. A child raised in poverty then has fewer barriers to overcome- in fat times, even the worst hunter could be eating as well as the best. To say they're both in poverty because they lack shoes and clothing they don't need is missing the point. Today, you have a huge number of knock on effects from e.g., lack of good schooling and "poverty decreasing" social networks that practically turn poverty into a personal attribute rather than a temporary state.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
None of that bears on the point. By referring to "the cause of poverty", the OP makes it seem that each of us is destined to riches and luxury, unless something goes wrong and condemns us to poverty. What I'm trying to illustrate is that this is actually the opposite of the truth: each of us has a lifetime of poverty in front of us, unless we do something to ensure that we do not. Granted, it's easier for some of us than others: the "silver spoon" thing. But the fact remains that riches are not the default state, at least for the vast majority of us. We are destined to be poor unless we take steps to avoid it.
- ahoyhere 16y ago
  There's a difference between not having riches, and being in poverty. There's even a huge difference between being poor, and being in poverty. Nobody needs riches, but everybody needs food, trees, clothes, shelter, medicine, and books. Poor people can often have these things - but people in poverty struggle even for those basics. I don't agree with the author of the posted essay but nevertheless.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    I take issue with your use of the term "struggle". "Struggle" implies the poor are actively trying to improve their situation. In reality, 80% of the poor are sitting around on the couch hoping for someone else to solve their problems. I wouldn't describe that as "struggling" so much as "loafing". http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf
    - ahoyhere 16y ago
      There is this scientific concept of "learned helplessness" - it applies to fleas, and it definitely applies to humans. If you've ever watched an upper-middle class housewife crumble in the wake of a divorce, you know it's true. If we are the average of our 5 closest friends/family members, that we spend the most time with, then kids born in poverty are born DOOMED. Unless something intercedes. "Something" must be more than just giving them money, by the way. Two married friends of mine met in Teach for America. Unlike just about everyone else, they kept doing it. She taught in a public school in DC, he taught in a charter. (Charter schools are drastically better than the public ones, but still horrendous by any lower-middle-class bar.) Her classroom didn't just not have books... it didn't have power. That's right: no lights. There was enough electricity between two adjourning classrooms to power ONE box fan in the summer. That means only one classroom could have a 60-watt lightbulb or a fan. If that is the situation you grew up in, if that is the situation you saw at school, do you really think you would believe the crazy skinny white lady up front telling you that if you stayed in school, you could succeed? No. You wouldn't. You'd have to be stupid to believe one woman against everything your experience, and your eyes, tells you: that you are doomed. That the only people you know who make any money, who have any chance, are drug dealers. The teacher telling you this can't be trusted - she's poor, too, and stupid maybe, if she's stuck trying to teach a bunch of wasted, doomed kids like you. You can quote studies all you like that show that people in poverty aren't trying hard enough. But they mean nothing without the context of the rest of their lives.

timwiseman 16y ago

I think you have a point. Most of the people in poverty in America right now are materially better off than almost everyone 500 years ago, and most of the poor in America remain better off than most of the people in say Afghanistan. With that said, the close tie in to material wealth is your place in society. A good hunter-gatherer might have none of the luxuries we take for granted now, but he probably has the respect of those around him and looks around and sees he is well off compared to his comrades. He is likely to be happy, and to feel that his work is paying off. A poor person in a ghetto may look around and see many others that are much better off than he is. He may see that many people outside the ghetto give him no respect, and that even many of the well meaning ones look at him with pity. He may react to this with determination to improve and leave the ghetto. But he may react with anger or resignation, and he may feel (whether accurate or not) that no amount of work will help him change his lot in life. He is vastly better off in a material sense than the hunter gatherer, but worse off in terms of his place in society and his (perceived) ability to improve that place. It is this emotional response to the social issue, much more than their material situation, that is cogent to the situation.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Most of the people in poverty in America right now are materially better off than almost everyone 500 years ago, and most of the poor in America remain better off than most of the people in say Afghanistan. Or even better off than most of the people in America, 1960.
- starkfist 16y ago
  Is this true? My grandparents were poor in 1960 yet had a big house and a decent car, a coffee maker, a big yard, etc. Why are poor people better off now? Because they have the internet?
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    The poor of today also have the house and the car. They also have air conditioning, a washer dryer, a microwave, cable TV and other such things. No one had that in the 1960's. In fact, a big chunk of the 1960's poor didn't even have a flush toilet. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understandi... I got curious why you mentioned that your grandparents had the coffee maker. It's because they were actually pricey in the 60's: $29.95 or $215 in 2009 dollars! A coffee maker was actually pricier than a wii. http://www.dadsvintageads.com/viewitem.php/dadsvintageads/pd959405/Vintage_Ad_1960_Toastmaster_Toaster_Coffee_Maker_Fry_Pan http://www.dadsvintageads.com/viewitem.php/dadsvintageads/pd...