You see the same things in both places because people are poor in both places. Often due to structural issues that the government could absolutely influence. Fo

You see the same things in both places because people are poor in both places. Often due to structural issues that the government could absolutely influence. For example, they could not sign a deal like NAFTA and keep manufacturing jobs within their borders. The could also provide social housing, subsidize medical care and education, set a reasonable minimum wage, etc. The government has enormous potential to positively impact people’s lives, but it doesn’t. It used to, but not anymore, because we’ve all been infected with Reagan’s “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.” brain worm. This mythology is bone deep in our national consciousness, to the point that we can’t even imagine an alternative anymore, even though examples of other countries doing it are scattered around the world. Government intervention can absolutely address the nihilistic tendencies you’ll often find amongst the multi-generational poor! It can do so by actually giving them an opportunity (en masse, not as the one person who made it out) to be participants in a world where they have dignity and inherent value, which is not the world they live in today. They won’t be fixed overnight, but they didn’t get that way overnight either! It took decades of disinvestment and neglect, and it will probably take a generation to make a meaningful impact. But it can and should be done.