Poverty in the United States is a problem. When folks are poor they are less healthy, receive less education and are more likely to raise children who are poor themselves. And there are a lot of noble efforts to curb poverty in the US. Much of that effort is, of course, centered on taking money from people who have it and giving it to other people who don’t.
There are schools of thought that say, “The wealthy are able to give their children unfair advantages. We need to remedy this unfairness by proxy; giving money to the children of the poor.”
Not surprisingly, I don’t agree with this.
I am not among the poor in the United States. I live a life of relative ease. While I work my arse off, I don’t have the debilitating worries of poverty that afflict so many in America.
Note: I USED to live these worries. I’ve had telephone, water, electricity and cable all turned off. I’ve lived on the couches of friends and lived with roommates only just now less than 50% of my years after moving out from my folk’s place.
Now, while it’s true that my parents DID give me advantage, that advantage was NOT money. It was a mindset.
When I turned 10, TEN, my dad got me a job. My birthday gift that year was a paper route. Since the day I turned 10, I’ve been pulling a pay check. When the route wasn’t enough, mom and dad canvassed the neighborhood and scheduled me to mow lawns. I pushed my lawnmower down the street to mow lawns and when it was too far to walk I pulled it behind my bike.
I worked to get to work.
I had to go to church, to Cub Scouts, to marching band, to theater and to participate in sports EVERY season. When I was old enough to drive, I was expected to get a job. I swept the floors of the pizza joint and then got promoted to cook the pizzas. When I wasn’t a good enough cook I got moved to delivery boy where part of my responsibilities was to clean the toilets every night.
THIS is what my parents gave me.
And THIS is a large reason why poor people remain poor:
A new survey from Visa Inc. shows that the average American family with teenagers plans to spend $1,078 — that’s for each child — on the prom, a 33.6 percent increase over the $807 spent last year.
Because we’re spending money on things like the prom. But that alone isn’t the whole picture; there’s more:
And those in the lower income brackets, less than $50,000, plan to spend even more — $1,307 per child, the survey found. And those in the very lowest bracket, under $20,000, plan to spend $1,200 — more than 6 percent of their annual income.
But the most staggering number came from those families earning between $20,000 and $30,000, who plan to spend an average of $2,635, which would represent almost 9 percent of annual income for those making $30,000. Those families are just above the federal poverty level, which is $23,050 for a family of four.
$2,635 spent on the prom. This with a household income of, at most, $30,000.
Parents in one of the lowest income brackets from the Visa survey reported planning to spend the most on prom. Those who make between $20,000 and $29,999 a year will spend more than $2,600, twice the national average, while families in high income brackets plan to spend between $700 and $1,000.
There are devastating examples of tragic bad luck or bad circumstance that leads to poverty. However, there must come a time when the noble left must acknowledge that a significant reason for poverty is the willingness to spend more money than one has.
I don’t agree with giving the poor money directly, I support more money being spent on improving quality public education in areas where there is a lot of poverty.
I don’t agree with giving the poor money directly,
How about indirectly?
Like SNAP, Section-8 and WIC?
I support more money being spent on improving quality public education in areas where there is a lot of poverty.
I support less money be spent but that it be spent on quality private education. It has become clear that public education isn’t cuttin’ it.
I’m thinking of education purposes (give the poor money to make up for lack of opportunity). In some cases yeah, you don’t want malnourished children or homeless single moms and kids (single moms and kids are the highest percentage of homeless people in the US). Best is to create opportunities and provide shelter and basic nutrition at a minimum. How it’s done should be focused on helping people get real opportunity, not just get caught up in a dependent relationship.
Scott,
I do not disagree that money should not be given directly to poor people. I also agree that improving education in areas of poverty is money well spent . However, giving money directly to public schools that are run by the unions is worse than showering poor people with free money. There are many teachers in cities that do not care whether their students learn. Perhaps they are burnt out by the conditions, but when they get a student who is self motivated they are obligated to shake off their apathy.
I cite two recent cases where Black students have publicly complained about the poor quality of education they received . The first was a 13 year old girl Jada Williams of Rochester NY. The second was a 19 year old male who wrote about his experiences in an article in the Washington Post . Darryl Robinson quoted one of his teachers saying that she got paid whether he and his fellow students learned or not . A real GSA attitude if there ever was one .
Those of us toiling in the private sector living in mortal fear of unemployment can only shake our heads at the arrogance of those in the public education field .
However, giving money directly to public schools that are run by the unions is worse than showering poor people with free money. There are many teachers in cities that do not care whether their students learn.
Here here.
I am sad to say that I have gone from a public school supporter to a public school basher. While I don’t mind taxing the population to educate the children, there is simply no good reason to pour our money down the drain that is public education.
The idea that teachers unions are bad is simply a right wing lie. Teachers are poorly paid in the US, yet schools are so under funded that they often have to provide some material themselves. Teachers I know in K-12 often work 60 to 80 hours a week during the school year, are dedicated, and often are making much less than they could in the private sector (indeed, many good teachers ultimately leave to go to the private sector since the pay for teachers is so poor). If we paid more to our teachers, we’d no doubt get even better ones. I’ve also known teachers who have been laid off. So to go after teachers unions is a very misplaced notion. That’s an excuse used by some on the right to cut funding or try to privatize education (and that almost always leads to profits made at the expense of good education).
You can always find people in any job who don’t take it as seriously as they should, and disgruntled 13 year olds saying things about their teachers isn’t exactly credible. But I’m sure there are some teachers who don’t do well. But overall attacks on teachers are based on ignorance of what they do for much less money than they are worth. (And having two kids in public schools now, and communicating constantly with the school and being very active in the PTA, I’m in awe of our talented and underpaid teachers).
The idea that teachers unions are bad is simply a right wing lie.
Teacher’s unions do not serve kids; they serve themselves and the power they can garner.
Teachers are poorly paid in the US,
The best ones yes. The poor ones no. And over all, based on hours worked and the inability to be fired, they are fairly compensated.
Teachers I know in K-12 often work 60 to 80 hours a week during the school year
I do not believe that any significant number of teachers work 60 much less 80 hours a week.
That’s an excuse used by some on the right to cut funding or try to privatize education (and that almost always leads to profits made at the expense of good education).
Which system produces better results?
But overall attacks on teachers are based on ignorance of what they do for much less money than they are worth.
No one is compensated too low for very long. If teachers willingly trade money for the benefit of being home when their kids are home, so be it. If they trade money for 3 months vacation plus what they get during the year, so be it. If they trade money for not being held accountable for results, so be it.
They are adequately, and more so due to the union, compensated.
Scott,
If you google the names I cited you will get an eyeful. The 13 year old was driven out of her school in Rochester . And tell me where these underpaid teachers are and what they make . I know a lot of unemployed teacher wannabes. There simply are not a lot of vacant slots . If they were really underpaid that would not be true . I also do not believe that the majority could find higher pay in the private sector, doing what ?
I do not condemn all teachers . I’ve known many great ones. I do condemn the big teachers unions in the big urban centers who are way cozy with the Democratic Party . I don’t doubt that in your small town you have good ones .