The Link Between Poverty and Illness

[Cyberdyne 101]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Fascinating piece:
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2016/01/4...w&utm_medium=tw&utm_campaign=2015_poor_health

In addition to discussing the link between poverty and illness, the article highlights several programs that have been implemented to curb health disparities.

Here are a couple of excerpts:
There is emerging evidence that the stresses of poverty could create a lasting effect through what are called epigenetic changes in how our genes are expressed, and that these effects may even happen in utero.

As dramatic, perhaps, is the association being born into a poor family has with brain development. Programs like Head Start, which intervene with 4- and 5-year-old children to provide increased cognitive stimulation, have shown in randomized trials to significantly improve the IQ of participating children. “Yet when the intervention stops, those gains go away,” says Boyce, the Lisa and John Pritzker Distinguished Professor of Developmental and Behavioral Health. The research is proof positive of the critical need for, and effectiveness of, early and lasting enrichment, which he believes would be ideal by age 3.

Any thoughts?

 

[FreckleFart99]

The epigenetic argument is a stretch. We know epigenetics exists but to get specifically into how it affects IQ? I think that's slipping into Lamarckianism until we can actually show it turning off/on particular genes associated with intelligence. Also although early intervention improved IQ, I don't see any evidence that it brought it up to the level of their non-poor peers. Meaning that although the Head Start program may indeed work, it doesn't really comment on how much of the child's IQ is genetically determined. They should do the Head Start program on wealthier children to actually test the nature v. nurture aspect they seem to be talking about.

Also adoption studies have shown children to have IQs more similar to their biological parents. Again this could be epigenetics, but until we have actual proof its epigenetics, we shouldn't jump to that conclusion just because it makes us more comfortable.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

The epigenetic argument is a stretch. We know epigenetics exists but to get specifically into how it affects IQ? I think that's slipping into Lamarckianism until we can actually show it turning off/on particular genes associated with intelligence. Also although early intervention improved IQ, I don't see any evidence that it brought it up to the level of their non-poor peers. Meaning that although the Head Start program may indeed work, it doesn't really comment on how much of the child's IQ is genetically determined. They should do the Head Start program on wealthier children to actually test the nature v. nurture aspect they seem to be talking about.

Also adoption studies have shown children to have IQs more similar to their biological parents. Again this could be epigenetics, but until we have actual proof its epigenetics, we shouldn't jump to that conclusion just because it makes us more comfortable.

Unless I'm missing something, the bit about epigenetics wasn't necessarily about IQ. In fact, the paragraph that preceded that statement focused on the effects of heightened cortisol levels:

People who have a continually heightened response to stress can acquire an allostatic load – wear and tear on the body caused by stress – that permanently throws off their endocrine system and causes it to overproduce cortisol. Their cortisol level goes up and doesn’t come down, putting them at lifelong risk of cardiovascular disease. Others exposed to constant stress have a “hypo-response,” a flattening effect, and they don’t produce cortisol even when it is needed, creating a heightened risk for autoimmune diseases like arthritis, explains Adler.

And why would they need to do a head start program on wealthier children? It's implied that they already have the appropriate resources for brain development.

 

[allantois]

The real issues here are addressing minimum wage, parental leave, and growing income and wealth inequality so that parents have the necessary time and money resources to invest into their children.

 

[ZedsDed]

Programs like Head Start, which intervene with 4- and 5-year-old children to provide increased cognitive stimulation, have shown in randomized trials to significantly improve the IQ of participating children. “Yet when the intervention stops, those gains go away,”

I don't have the sources at my fingertips, but the gains of social engineering (at least with regard to IQ) tend to largely go away even when such programs continue to exist all the way through high school. The assumption seems to be (and yes, it is an assumption) that we simply haven't done enough and the disparities will disappear if we just pour a little more money into head start. The truth is that pre/elementary social engineering programs seem to be pretty ineffectual in general. This may be due to underdeveloped cognitive function resulting from socioeconomic status, or it may be something else entirely. It's pretty damn depressing all around. Regardless, we would be much better off improving things at the middle/high school level IMO.

 

[ZedsDed]

I don't have the sources at my fingertips, but the gains of social engineering (at least with regard to IQ) tend to largely go away even when the programs continue to exist. I'm not entirely sure why, but pre/elementary social engineering programs seem to be pretty ineffectual in general. This may be due to underdeveloped cognitive function resulting from socioeconomic status, or it may be something else entirely. Regardless, we would be much better off improving things at the middle/high school level IMO.

Oh, and in b4 this gets moved to the SPF 😛

 

[Lucca]

I don't have the sources at my fingertips, but the gains of social engineering (at least with regard to IQ) tend to largely go away even when such programs continue to exist all the way through high school. The assumption seems to be (and yes, it is an assumption) that we simply haven't done enough and the disparities will disappear if we just pour a little more money into head start. The truth is that pre/elementary social engineering programs seem to be pretty ineffectual in general. This may be due to underdeveloped cognitive function resulting from socioeconomic status, or it may be something else entirely. It's pretty damn depressing all around. Regardless, we would be much better off improving things at the middle/high school level IMO.

It is pretty undisputed that good pre-school and elementary school education are critical to childhood cognitive development. I don't think that is an assumption and I don't been think it is up for debate. The question is: why do the gains that we know exist go away? This article argues that long term effects resulting from poverty can provide a partial answer. Of course we need to improve things at the middle school and high school level but that would not be sufficient. You need to improve things from the start of life to adulthood for all children, especially the children of the poor.

Best way to address this? Provide a living wage, egalitarian and broadly implemented parental leave, smaller classrooms with more flexible curriculums, more personal attention especially in the developmental years, increasing food security in the poorest areas, increasing access to affordable primary and preventative care, reduce income inequality.

The strategies to tackle poverty from a public health standpoint should be three pronged: Close the gap between poor and rich children, restructure the system so the poor can afford to think in the long term and not only in the short term (allowing them to make healthier life choices), and be able to provide earlier, more effective medical interventions.

 

[DubVille]

It is pretty undisputed that good pre-school and elementary school education are critical to childhood cognitive development. I don't think that is an assumption and I don't been think it is up for debate. The question is: why do the gains that we know exist go away? This article argues that long term effects resulting from poverty can provide a partial answer. Of course we need to improve things at the middle school and high school level but that would not be sufficient. You need to improve things from the start of life to adulthood for all children, especially the children of the poor.

Best way to address this? Provide a living wage, egalitarian and broadly implemented parental leave, smaller classrooms with more flexible curriculums, more personal attention especially in the developmental years, increasing food security in the poorest areas, increasing access to affordable primary and preventative care, reduce income inequality.

The strategies to tackle poverty from a public health standpoint should be three pronged: Close the gap between poor and rich children, restructure the system so the poor can afford to think in the long term and not only in the short term (allowing them to make healthier life choices), and be able to provide earlier, more effective medical interventions.

2 of those 3 require intrinsic change from those in poverty. I agree that education is the great equalizer and should be stressed more extensively. However, the culture for many of those who are in poverty devalues education and values short term thought. I'm not going to argue that 100% of those in poverty are there due exxlusively to poor life choices, but for many it's a big factor. I think the only hope to change income equality is through education and cultural change. Unless you are an outlier, you need more than good schooling. You need role models, stable living situation, and parent(s) who care.

 

[lolnotacop]

It is pretty undisputed that good pre-school and elementary school education are critical to childhood cognitive development. I don't think that is an assumption and I don't been think it is up for debate. The question is: why do the gains that we know exist go away? This article argues that long term effects resulting from poverty can provide a partial answer. Of course we need to improve things at the middle school and high school level but that would not be sufficient. You need to improve things from the start of life to adulthood for all children, especially the children of the poor.

Best way to address this? Provide a living wage, egalitarian and broadly implemented parental leave, smaller classrooms with more flexible curriculums, more personal attention especially in the developmental years, increasing food security in the poorest areas, increasing access to affordable primary and preventative care, reduce income inequality.

The strategies to tackle poverty from a public health standpoint should be three pronged: Close the gap between poor and rich children, restructure the system so the poor can afford to think in the long term and not only in the short term (allowing them to make healthier life choices), and be able to provide earlier, more effective medical interventions.

I do not necessarily agree with the idea of increasing the wages for individuals in poverty. How is giving people more money an effective solution if those receiving it do not have the proper knowledge and understanding of what this money should and should not go to? It is about changing the culture and ideals within a community, something that transcends money. While yes, I do think money could help the situation later down the line, changes in how individuals are raised and the support systems available growing up and through adulthood are more important. Equipping people with the knowledge and foresight to make informed and beneficial decisions not only for their health but the health of the community in general takes more than providing money; you need to provide education that is culturally accepted as a means to rise above poverty. And this cannot only come from schooling, it needs to be established in the home setting as well.

I agree with @DubVille that we need to figure out a more effective way of educating those within poverty stricken communities on how even the smallest actions of today can have larger consequences later on in life.

 

[Med Ed]

Any thoughts?

Yes: get ready for an intellectual debate that is the rough equivalent of diarrhea being expelled onto a plate glass window.

That said, here is some more fuel for the cramping abdominal pain: Your Brain on Poverty: Why Poor People Seem to Make Bad Decisions.

 

[Reckoner]

It's almost like the brain is an organ that changes in response to environmental stimuli. Go figure

 

[ZedsDed]

It is pretty undisputed that good pre-school and elementary school education are critical to childhood cognitive development. I don't think that is an assumption and I don't been think it is up for debate. The question is: why do the gains that we know exist go away? This article argues that long term effects resulting from poverty can provide a partial answer. Of course we need to improve things at the middle school and high school level but that would not be sufficient. You need to improve things from the start of life to adulthood for all children, especially the children of the poor.

Best way to address this? Provide a living wage, egalitarian and broadly implemented parental leave, smaller classrooms with more flexible curriculums, more personal attention especially in the developmental years, increasing food security in the poorest areas, increasing access to affordable primary and preventative care, reduce income inequality.

The strategies to tackle poverty from a public health standpoint should be three pronged: Close the gap between poor and rich children, restructure the system so the poor can afford to think in the long term and not only in the short term (allowing them to make healthier life choices), and be able to provide earlier, more effective medical interventions.

I'll give a proper response a little later

 

[mcloaf]

I'm not going to argue that 100% of those in poverty are there due exxlusively to poor life choices...

How progressive of you.

 

[DubVille]

Honestly dont know how to quantify it. As a developed nation, I think we should have safety nets in place. That said, people make poor decisions and no amount of throwing money towards them will change that. Getting more "conservative" especially fiscally as I age. I'm not sure how to change the culture of many in poverty, but feel its integral to making a true impact.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

FWIW, the article is not solely focused on head start programs. Among other things, it emphasizes the importance of patient-doctor communication.

The second paragraph:
“Going forward, the conversations that ER doctor had with his patients changed. They became, ‘Well, you need these drugs. Which can you afford? How can I help?’” relates King. “Often it’s not that the patients aren’t adhering to advice. It’s that they can’t pay for the drugs, didn’t understand why they should take them, or simply that they did not feel the doctor even listened to them.”

 

[DubVille]

Article is interesting. I'd be curious to see data on lotto winners, athletes that come from poverty and have money. Many blow it, leading me to think its cultural/education and just "being out of poverty" will change anything.

 

[WingedOx]

Article is interesting. I'd be curious to see data on lotto winners, athletes that come from poverty and have money. Many blow it, leading me to think its cultural/education and just "being out of poverty" will change anything.

It's almost as if "poverty" is more than the presence or absence of money at a particular point in one's life...

 

[DubVille]

It's almost as if "poverty" is more than the presence or absence of money at a particular point in one's life...

Exactly, it's cultural. The question is how can that be changed?

 

[NickNaylor]

As others have mentioned, the real question is whether poverty is itself the cause of these things or if factors which promote poverty cause these things and poverty is simply another "symptom" of these factors. I happen to believe the latter. If a parent doesn't know how to emphasize the importance of education for their child, provide a cognitively stimulating and emotionally supportive home environment, and serve as a positive role model for their children among other important functions, then money will not teach them. I suspect that the person who is unable to do those things is also the same person who is likely to find themselves in poverty for whatever reason.

 

[Med Ed]

Hate to intrude on any specious reasoning, but here are some resources that people might find enjoyable, useful, and/or challenging.

Poor Us: An Animated History of Poverty (PBS program): http://www.pbs.org/video/2296684944/

The Best Welfare Reform: Give Poor People Cash

Excerpt:

"Perhaps most important, cash transfers often lead to productive investments. Consider the charity GiveDirectly, which transfers cash from rich people in the West directly to poor people in Africa using mobile-phone payments. A randomized evaluation in 2011, co-designed by a GiveDirectly co-founder, evaluated the organization’s activities in Kenya and focused on one-off, unconditional payments to families that ranged from $404 to $1,520. Four hundred dollars was more than twice the average local monthly household expenditure. In relative terms, it would be the equivalent of handing $12,000 to a household in the United States. As long as 14 months after the transfer, survey evidence suggested that households were still spending more on food, health, and education than non-recipients. One reason why is that they had invested in physical goods, particularly in metal roofs to replace thatched shelter and in livestock to provide milk and meat. That translated into rising incomes from farming and enterprises in the short term, and—thanks to higher spending on nutrition, health care, and education—the hope for greater earnings potential in the long term as well. As in the Mexican cash-transfer program, spending on alcohol and tobacco did not rise after the transfer. Perhaps that’s because recipients felt less need for a pick-me-up: They reported feeling happier after the transfer, and tests of cortisol in saliva revealed lower biomarkers for stress."

 

[lolnotacop]

Hate to intrude on any specious reasoning, but here are some resources that people might find enjoyable, useful, and/or challenging.

Poor Us: An Animated History of Poverty (PBS program): http://www.pbs.org/video/2296684944/

The Best Welfare Reform: Give Poor People Cash

Excerpt:

"Perhaps most important, cash transfers often lead to productive investments. Consider the charity GiveDirectly, which transfers cash from rich people in the West directly to poor people in Africa using mobile-phone payments. A randomized evaluation in 2011, co-designed by a GiveDirectly co-founder, evaluated the organization’s activities in Kenya and focused on one-off, unconditional payments to families that ranged from $404 to $1,520. Four hundred dollars was more than twice the average local monthly household expenditure. In relative terms, it would be the equivalent of handing $12,000 to a household in the United States. As long as 14 months after the transfer, survey evidence suggested that households were still spending more on food, health, and education than non-recipients. One reason why is that they had invested in physical goods, particularly in metal roofs to replace thatched shelter and in livestock to provide milk and meat. That translated into rising incomes from farming and enterprises in the short term, and—thanks to higher spending on nutrition, health care, and education—the hope for greater earnings potential in the long term as well. As in the Mexican cash-transfer program, spending on alcohol and tobacco did not rise after the transfer. Perhaps that’s because recipients felt less need for a pick-me-up: They reported feeling happier after the transfer, and tests of cortisol in saliva revealed lower biomarkers for stress."

Fair enough.

 

[URHere]

As someone who grew up in a solidly lower class environment and then moved into the medical field where many of my peers couldn't even fathom that families like mine existed, I have a couple of thoughts:

1) It's not all about "bad choices" or parents not emphasizing education. It's thinking about the basics like food and shelter (and nothing else) because that is the thing most likely to kill your family at any given moment. If one parents is home raising kids, and the other has a job that pays <$20K/year for a family of 6...it's going to be really hard to do everything a family with more money could do. Daycare? Can't afford it so one parent has to stay home, at least until the oldest kid can take over. Food? All frozen junk, all the time (unless the refrigerator is out, then it's crackers and condensed soup). Homework? Good luck completing that if your parents can't read. When kids get old enough, they tend to find part time jobs to help, even if it means dropping out of school. There are people doing everything in their power to take care of their families and they just can't because the money isn't there. For families like this, a little extra money would help indescribably.

2) I think many of the differences in health have to do with the kind of crap diet you eat when you're really poor. Sometimes, burger king is cheaper than dinner (especially if you can't cook at home because you can't pay the power bill). The sad thing is that you grow up used to food like that. I currently live in one of the most-health conscious cities in the US and I still have some kind of mental block against organic and preservative-free food because who has the money for that?

3) Drugs do play a role sometimes. It's easy to blame someone for being in a bad situation if they spend money on drugs, but a huge part of what happens in the inner city is cultural. When a city is unsafe, kids join gangs for protection. When a kid joins a gang, they often end up peddling drugs and it's a fixture of many lives from that point on. It's not a reason to avoid helping someone who's poor. It's a reason to change the system from the inside so that gang life and drugs aren't a means of survival anymore.

 

[Lucca]

2 of those 3 require intrinsic change from those in poverty. I agree that education is the great equalizer and should be stressed more extensively. However, the culture for many of those who are in poverty devalues education and values short term thought. I'm not going to argue that 100% of those in poverty are there due exxlusively to poor life choices, but for many it's a big factor. I think the only hope to change income equality is through education and cultural change. Unless you are an outlier, you need more than good schooling. You need role models, stable living situation, and parent(s) who care.

I strongly disagree. From my knowledge and experience, individuals in poverty do not devalue education or value short-term benefits over long-term benefits; rather, they do not have the option to value education or long-term benefits. The distinction is subtle but very, very important.

 

[Lucca]

I do not necessarily agree with the idea of increasing the wages for individuals in poverty. How is giving people more money an effective solution if those receiving it do not have the proper knowledge and understanding of what this money should and should not go to? It is about changing the culture and ideals within a community, something that transcends money. While yes, I do think money could help the situation later down the line, changes in how individuals are raised and the support systems available growing up and through adulthood are more important. Equipping people with the knowledge and foresight to make informed and beneficial decisions not only for their health but the health of the community in general takes more than providing money; you need to provide education that is culturally accepted as a means to rise above poverty. And this cannot only come from schooling, it needs to be established in the home setting as well.

I agree with @DubVille that we need to figure out a more effective way of educating those within poverty stricken communities on how even the smallest actions of today can have larger consequences later on in life.

People need money to afford their basic needs. To be in poverty means to not have the money necessary to meet all of those needs. "Culture" doesn't play into it. The poor are not a monolith and you will find as many cultural variants in the lower class as in the upper class; the difference is that structural elements exist which perpetuate both the acquisition of wealth for the wealthy and the stagnation of the lower class. Expanding the minimum wage to a living wage and ensuring that affordable, quality options are available for all the basic human needs (healthcare, education, housing, food (and good, healthy food at that), and transportation) are the responsibilities of a government for its citizens and of society for its members.

 

[DubVille]

I strongly disagree. From my knowledge and experience, individuals in poverty do not devalue education or value short-term benefits over long-term benefits; rather, they do not have the option to value education or long-term benefits. The distinction is subtle but very, very important.

I agree that is a factor, and in some cases a huge factor. I suppose my anecdotal rebuttal would be the success of certain immigrants with different cultural values. A larger proportion of these populations seem to climb the socioeconomic ladder with successive generations. To me it seems their cultural values are responsible for this despite often living in poverty when they initially start up here. Obviously being impoverished is a huge roadblock to success, but can be overcome through education.

 

[DubVille]

As someone who grew up in a solidly lower class environment and then moved into the medical field where many of my peers couldn't even fathom that families like mine existed, I have a couple of thoughts:

1) It's not all about "bad choices" or parents not emphasizing education. It's thinking about the basics like food and shelter (and nothing else) because that is the thing most likely to kill your family at any given moment. If one parents is home raising kids, and the other has a job that pays <$20K/year for a family of 6...it's going to be really hard to do everything a family with more money could do. Daycare? Can't afford it so one parent has to stay home, at least until the oldest kid can take over. Food? All frozen junk, all the time (unless the refrigerator is out, then it's crackers and condensed soup). Homework? Good luck completing that if your parents can't read. When kids get old enough, they tend to find part time jobs to help, even if it means dropping out of school. There are people doing everything in their power to take care of their families and they just can't because the money isn't there. For families like this, a little extra money would help indescribably.

2) I think many of the differences in health have to do with the kind of crap diet you eat when you're really poor. Sometimes, burger king is cheaper than dinner (especially if you can't cook at home because you can't pay the power bill). The sad thing is that you grow up used to food like that. I currently live in one of the most-health conscious cities in the US and I still have some kind of mental block against organic and preservative-free food because who has the money for that?

3) Drugs do play a role sometimes. It's easy to blame someone for being in a bad situation if they spend money on drugs, but a huge part of what happens in the inner city is cultural. When a city is unsafe, kids join gangs for protection. When a kid joins a gang, they often end up peddling drugs and it's a fixture of many lives from that point on. It's not a reason to avoid helping someone who's poor. It's a reason to change the system from the inside so that gang life and drugs aren't a means of survival anymore.

1) Overall I agree, but having 6 kids with less than 20k income is a poor choice, repeated over and over and over, etc. Perhaps this is a failure of sex ed (whole separate topic) and a failure of our education system.

Totally agree with 2 and 3. Real grocery stores don't even exist in many urban areas, making healthy lifestyles nearly impossible.

 

[ChillDawg]

Totally agree with 2 and 3. Real grocery stores don't even exist in many urban areas, making healthy lifestyles nearly impossible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/h...allenged-in-studies.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper


As uncomfortable as it sounds, there is probably a genetic disparity that contributes as well.

 

[URHere]

1) Overall I agree, but having 6 kids with less than 20k income is a poor choice, repeated over and over and over, etc. Perhaps this is a failure of sex ed (whole separate topic) and a failure of our education system.

Point taken. The whole combination of terrible sex ed, road blocks to contraceptives, and (in some cases) strong religious views on family planning are a whole other can of worms.

 

[lolnotacop]

People need money to afford their basic needs. To be in poverty means to not have the money necessary to meet all of those needs. "Culture" doesn't play into it. The poor are not a monolith and you will find as many cultural variants in the lower class as in the upper class; the difference is that structural elements exist which perpetuate both the acquisition of wealth for the wealthy and the stagnation of the lower class. Expanding the minimum wage to a living wage and ensuring that affordable, quality options are available for all the basic human needs (healthcare, education, housing, food (and good, healthy food at that), and transportation) are the responsibilities of a government for its citizens and of society for its members.

I would argue that the government has no such responsibility, however. It may be an overly simplified view, but the fed (should) reflect the views of its citizens (whether it truly does this is a whole different issue). Many people feel strongly that all the basic human needs you just listed should remain privatized. While I agree at this day and age that these are certainly necessities within our society, it is up to the people to decide if they are a right or a privilege at this point. There is a reason that many people still vote conservatively in this country and it is ignorant to think that one side of the argument is completely wrong while the other is right.

There are multiple views on this issue, but I think we can all agree upon the idea of proper education being an absolute necessity in order for individuals to make informed decisions that not only benefit their present but future as well.

You would also like to think that, because we are all pursuing a career in medicine, we all feel a call to service the needs of others.

Individuals have a choice concerning altruism, but it is not the government's place, in my opinion, to enforce this value.

 

[Lucca]

I would argue that the government has no such responsibility, however. It may be an overly simplified view, but the fed (should) reflect the views of its citizens (whether it truly does this is a whole different issue). Many people feel strongly that all the basic human needs you just listed should remain privatized. While I agree at this day and age that these are certainly necessities within our society, it is up to the people to decide if they are a right or a privilege at this point. There is a reason that many people still vote conservatively in this country and it is ignorant to think that one side of the argument is completely wrong while the other is right.

There are multiple views on this issue, but I think we can all agree upon the idea of proper education being an absolute necessity in order for individuals to make informed decisions that not only benefit their present but future as well.

You would also like to think that, because we are all pursuing a career in medicine, we all feel a call to service the needs of others.

Individuals have a choice concerning altruism, but it is not the government's place, in my opinion, to enforce this value.

I actually think it's pretty trivial to argue that one side is right and the other is completely wrong in terms of what constitutes human rights versus privileges and that those things I listed are indeed rights and not privileges. If you would like I could go into it and I'd be happy to debate but it will have to wait until my MCAT is over next week. I live in Texas so I'm fully aware people vote conservatively. I might be a lot more conservative than you think, just not by American standards. "Conservative" in the sense that you are using the word is a relative term; it refers to a point on a political spectrum that you assume to be fixed. What if I told you that the American spectrum mid-point is so far to the right already that the right-wing here has little grounding in actual political thought and is actually an amalgam of neoliberalism and reactionism? I would also be willing to make that argument.

In global terms of "liberal" and "conservative" I'm far closer to the right than you may think. I believe people have a right to private ownership and that it is a necessary aspect of a well-functioning society. I believe in the freedom of thought and even the wisdom of (well-regulated and authentically competitive) markets. I'm fine with private options existing, but when it comes to human rights there should always be an option provided by society itself to prevent any one member from falling through the cracks. The consequences of allowing poverty to exist are intolerably high, and not just for the poor. You can read the IMF report on global poverty in my sig if you are interested since it reflects a lot of my personal views on the matter

 

[DokterMom]

Honestly dont know how to quantify it. As a developed nation, I think we should have safety nets in place. That said, people make poor decisions and no amount of throwing money towards them will change that. Getting more "conservative" especially fiscally as I age. I'm not sure how to change the culture of many in poverty, but feel its integral to making a true impact.

I've never seen our government "throw enough money" at a poor person to make a difference... Our poor constantly live just one tiny misfortune away from disaster. How can you realistically plan ahead when your safety net could be gone at any moment? Part-time jobs with no benefits, unaffordable day care and unrealiable public transportation all contribute.

 

[lolnotacop]

I actually think it's pretty trivial to argue that one side is right and the other is completely wrong in terms of what constitutes human rights versus privileges and that those things I listed are indeed rights and not privileges. If you would like I could go into it and I'd be happy to debate but it will have to wait until my MCAT is over next week. I live in Texas so I'm fully aware people vote conservatively. I might be a lot more conservative than you think, just not by American standards. "Conservative" in the sense that you are using the word is a relative term; it refers to a point on a political spectrum that you assume to be fixed. What if I told you that the American spectrum mid-point is so far to the right already that the right-wing here has little grounding in actual political thought and is actually an amalgam of neoliberalism and reactionism? I would also be willing to make that argument.

In global terms of "liberal" and "conservative" I'm far closer to the right than you may think. I believe people have a right to private ownership and that it is a necessary aspect of a well-functioning society. I believe in the freedom of thought and even the wisdom of (well-regulated and authentically competitive) markets. I'm fine with private options existing, but when it comes to human rights there should always be an option provided by society itself to prevent any one member from falling through the cracks. The consequences of allowing poverty to exist are intolerably high, and not just for the poor. You can read the IMF report on global poverty in my sig if you are interested since it reflects a lot of my personal views on the matter

Indeed, it is trivial, as most people are hard rooted in their beliefs that statements do little to move them. Experience is our best teacher and the fact of the matter remains that myself and many others may never understand what it is like to live below the poverty line.

I apologize if it seemed as if I was painting you a liberal and I a conservative, that was not my intention. I do not view myself as such, much in the same way you view yourself the former. I do plan on reading the IMF report, as I do not by any means consider myself well versed in this issue.

As I first stated, culture needs to change. You have shown me that possibly not just culture within the impoverished communities, but those with wealth as well must change. I stand by the idea that government's purpose is to reflect the wants of its citizens. If we shift the culture of the United States to one that is more altruistic in nature, regulations will reflect that. However, as it stands, assistance to those in need is not a top priority for many, not just in this country, but the world moreover. To some, this is a tragedy, while others could care less.

The fact of the matter remains that the services you have described as rights take time and money away from others. If you feel differently, please do not hesitate to PM me, I would be interested to hear your take.

Culture in the sense I'm describing has no bearing on an individuals race, sex, etc. but I think it is clear that there are certain attitudes and behaviors that exist within distinct socioeconomic statuses. Culture in this sense does have a role, as there are certain attitudes present in impoverished communities that can contribute to poverty, just as there are attitudes and behaviors in wealthy communities that contribute to poverty. I was wrong to assume, however, that these attitudes and behaviors are limited to a specific community, when collectively, it does not take one group, but the totality of a nation to decide whether or not poverty is an issue worth eradicating.

 

[URHere]

The fact of the matter remains that the services you have described as rights take time and money away from others.

This is the matter at the heart of most political issues. People with money don't want to give it up because they worked for it. People without money don't understand how someone else's right to a car can trump (no pun intended) a poor person's right to survive.

Other countries make high tax rates work by providing SO MANY basic services for everyone for free. The difference is that this would be a huge change for the US because people already have established standards of living, and older Americans (who have no need for free college or childcare, and are already covered by medicare/social security) wouldn't benefit quite so much. To make changes, we have to convince people to sacrifice for the collective good so that everyone can benefit 50 years from now...and that is nearly impossible.

 

[Lucca]

This is the matter at the heart of most political issues. People with money feel don't want to give it up because they worked for it. People without money don't understand how someone else's right to a car can trump (no pun intended) a poor person's right to survive.

Other countries make high tax rates work by providing SO MANY basic services for everyone for free. The difference is that this would be a huge change for the US because people already have established standards of living, and older Americans (who have no need for free college or childcare, and are already covered by medicare/social security) wouldn't benefit quite so much. To make changes, we have to convince people to sacrifice for the collective good so that everyone can benefit 50 years from now...and that is nearly impossible.

Both you and @lerit50 have some interesting ideas, we can talk more about this over Pm once I'm done with the MCAT so that we don't hijack this thread

 

[Med Ed]

The fact of the matter remains that the services you have described as rights take time and money away from others. If you feel differently, please do not hesitate to PM me, I would be interested to hear your take.

One could argue that safety net programs would be less needed if wages had kept better pace with productivity gains over the last four decades.

 

[lolnotacop]

One could argue that safety net programs would be less needed if wages had kept better pace with productivity gains over the last four decades.

Could you source the article/data for that graph. Interested on how they measured productivity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Med Ed]

Could you source the article/data for that graph. Interested on how they measured productivity.

To understand that would require a trip into the dark heart of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The equation is not complicated (output of goods and services/hours worked), but I have no idea how they actually go about measuring those factors.

If you search the internet for "wages productivity graph" you will find essentially the same data recast dozens of times over. A fun little discussion of the phenomenon can be found here.