1. I think the poor are defined differently in the U.S. as opposed to globally. The poor in the United States I think are essentially the un- and undereducated and un- and underskilled who cannot get adequate employment to be self sufficient. Globally, especially in Third World countries, it seems as though the poor are people living in stark conditions that are exacerbated by natural and political constraints.
2. I think people are poor for a number of overlapping reasons: political, social, educational, prejudicial all are factors in the situational landscape of the poor. I think in the U.S. the poor are mostly comprised of the working poor; in other countries, adequate health care, housing, food, clean water - basic essentials to support life - are greater factors.
3. I am somewhat confused about what is being done to help alleviate poverty. Globally, poverty is exacerbated and even caused by political divides: division of food and other resources, access to clean water, etc., can be obstacles to establishing and maintaining adequate standards of living. In the U.S., living conditions vary dramatically from rural to urban environments. And, while local governments may attempt to ameliorate these conditions with problems, they don't really appear to solve problems. An analogy is how pharmaceuticals may allay illness symptoms, few actually solve the health issues, instead perpetuating dependence for whatever modicum of reduction in symptoms they provide. Government programs seem to have the same effect on poverty.
4. For this reason, I don't think that programs currently in place are truly effective. The relief they provide is cyclical in nature but thy do not provide resolution to issues. Lyndon Johnson's War in Poverty initiative of the 1960s did much to lift many from poverty, but two generations later many are so mired in dependence on failed government program, the war cannot be claimed to be a true victory.
5. There are two tiers of poverty, according to our text: serious hardships and critical hardships. Addressing critical hardships - those that threaten basic needs for survival, as defined in our textbook, are imperatives for all. Only when these are addressed, can serious hardships (those that impact quality of life) become priorities. We must find ways to unify across political, social and racial lines to make minimum standards of living an imperative for all. That is perhaps the intent of government entitlement programs. But this standard must be achieved in a manner that is uniformly applied and maintains the dignity of all involved.
The poor in the US definitely do have it better than the ones in third world countries for sure.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, poverty is truly relative. Surely those poor in other countries would welcome poverty conditions (mostly) as defined the U.S.
ReplyDeleteThis week's lesson spotlights the dramatic impact of environment in the nature versus nurture argument regarding the complex issue of poverty. Specifically, we learn about the overlapping dynamics of spatial and skills mismatches that perpetuate - and exacerbate - the cyclical poverty of urban and rural areas. Economic opportunities and the middle class that is connected to it have abandoned these areas for the suburbs as a result of 20th century de-industrialization. The resultant blight creates economic as well as social deterrents to any hope of breaking that cycle.
ReplyDeleteWhile there are differences between the races with regards to statistics, the reality is that race and other genetic factors do not factor into risk o poverty; moreover, education and skill (or lack thereof) appear to be the main perpetuators of limited economic opportunity.
I think that United States does a much better job in trying to reduce poverty. Each country measures poverty according to its level of development, societal norms, and values. Because of these differences, the poverty level changes from country to country. So In America poverty guideline is $22,000 for four people family and most of those families have a 3 bedroom house, a car, air conditioning. None of the poor people in other countries have all that. So I think that US is going into the right direction. Maybe slowly but US i going to the right direction.
ReplyDelete1. The poor are can be classified differently by urban and rural geographies. Poverty in rural areas seems to be more abject: simply not having adequate transportation can compromise the ability to find work, get to basic necessities, etc. Urban poor have greater potential for access to resources, but cost is more so the greater obstacle.
ReplyDelete2. When we think of poor - or when the media portrays them - we are most often thinking of the urban poor.But, according to our text, both urban and rural poor are likely to be affected by spatial mismatch: the absence of viable employment opportunities, thanks in part to the development of a suburban middle class and the inevitability that jobs will follow them. Both are also impacted by skills mismatch: the absence of adequate education and skill set to acquire what few jobs may be available. Urban concentrations particularly are filled with high level professional jobs, jobs that can support the high cost of overhead, etc., for high rent business districts. Without some corporate investment in rural areas, the underskilled, undereducated have few options, as well.
3. After reading our material for this week, I am not sure what is being done that is useful. Even social entitlement programs may be doing more harm than good as they are currently structured. Giving food stamps, for example, to the poor to feed their families, without proper education and training on what constitutes healthful nutrition assumes that the food stamps will be used prudently.
4. As a result, I think that, although there are a number of entitlements available for the poor, there lacks the adequate training to support the use of the entitlements, as well as intervention to break the cycle of poverty that is cross generational.
5. I think that assessments of true need would be helpful, as there are many that abuse programs intended for the poor, thus impacting both resources and social support for the programs. Additionally, as I stated above, I think that programs designed to educate should be mandated as the 'cost' of receiving entitlements. GEDs, job skill training, nutritional information, family planning information, etc., might help to stave off the hemorrhage of apathy associated with chronic poverty. Giving people hope in their circumstances would help them to feel as though they are partners in their fate, rather than just passive recipients.
1. The poor are can be classified differently by urban and rural geographies. Poverty in rural areas seems to be more abject: simply not having adequate transportation can compromise the ability to find work, get to basic necessities, etc. Urban poor have greater potential for access to resources, but cost is more so the greater obstacle.
ReplyDelete2. When we think of poor - or when the media portrays them - we are most often thinking of the urban poor.But, according to our text, both urban and rural poor are likely to be affected by spatial mismatch: the absence of viable employment opportunities, thanks in part to the development of a suburban middle class and the inevitability that jobs will follow them. Both are also impacted by skills mismatch: the absence of adequate education and skill set to acquire what few jobs may be available. Urban concentrations particularly are filled with high level professional jobs, jobs that can support the high cost of overhead, etc., for high rent business districts. Without some corporate investment in rural areas, the underskilled, undereducated have few options, as well.
I am listening to CNN while doing homework: just heard a report that says chronic unemployment is a direct factor in increased youth crime. Further affirmation that society as a whole benefits from ensuring a proper and adequate foundation of education and opportunity for poor youth. Otherwise they have the potential to end up being menaces to society both financially and physically.
ReplyDeleteThis week's readings presented stark and disconcerting information on the disparities of poverty.
ReplyDelete1. The poor are dramatically different in the U.S. and developing nations. Globally, the poor are struggling to stay alive. Food is the currency of poverty globally. In the U.S., the Industrial Revolution has lifted from that standard; now the poor are those who struggle to get and maintain a standard of living based upon material acquisition.
2. Because of this, people are poor in the U.S. for different reasons. Globally, people are challenged by factors such as adequate clean water, sufficient food, adequate shelter and protection from the elements. Here in the U.S., people struggle with huge disparities between the haves and the have nots. Perhaps if our capitalism did not drive acquisition, poverty could be defined differently in the United States, compared to how it is measured globally. The Gini Index showcases the discrepency of income in measuring and comparing poverty. Poverty in the U.S. is nothing like the abject conditions of developing regions, such as South Asia and Subsuharan Africa.
3. In the United States, less is being spent nationally to address poverty. Our text points out that the U.S. suffers from considerably more poverty than that of developing nations. This is an anomaly to me, since we live in perhaps the riches nation in the world. How could our own be poor? Many may also ask how can we spend money to help poor in developing nations when we have failed to eradicate the problem at home? Sachs's Big Five Interventions appear to be extremely beneficial in the quest to lift globally but his Nine imperatives could better be applied domestically as well as globally. Specifically, the rate of absolute poverty in America could use some real analysis at leveling the playing field.
4. The "capability failure" seems to perpetuate poverty, including a psychological poverty. The inability to have any real power to affect change in their own lives inhibits the very subjective attainment of satisfaction.
I do personally feel that there is a difference between poverty in the US compared to poverty globally. There are some places that lack not only job losses and good schools, but water, food and proper housing, the needs needed to everyday survival.
ReplyDeleteNow, when it comes to the US helping to resolve poverty, I have mixed feelings on that issue. I do feel there are several wonderful programs designed to assist the ones that are truly in need, but yet there are so many individuals that abuse the system. Once the abuse of the systems stop, we may be able to see great change in the poverty rate...for the good.
-La'Keisha Lucas
I am impressed by your initial statement. Most of the US poor are the working poor. Shreds the notion that people choose to be poor so they can live richly off of government programs.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the commentary. I think the problem in the United States is much more manageable; global poverty is so stark, so dramatic, so much about basic and fundamental human needs, such as food and shelter; there should be a different word for that level of poverty. In the U.S., there is more a need for education, employment and economic empowerment and freedom; essential needs are taken care of mostly.
ReplyDeleteSaturday, October 9, 2010
ReplyDeleteCause and Effect
Chapters 5 and 6 provided a significant amount of insight, including reinforcing the lesson learned with our Budget Exercise. Namely, an under skilled, under educated person in the U.S. is consigned to the cycle of poverty. Our reading also showed the racial disparity experienced by minorities, as well social and familial factors, such as the significance of female headed households.
Social, racial and ethic stratification are like ankle shackles attached before a long race: you may still finish, might even have a long shot at winning, but know that you start out handicapped.
This reading focused on issues pertaining to poverty in America, including class, gender and even geographic distinctions in job opportunities. Still, though, these factors reflect relative poverty and quality of life issues that are so dramatically different than the abject survival mode poverty on the global front.
I am personally troubled by the amount of money spent so cavalierly by government and agencies that are supposed to be beneficial to its constituents when the monies could clearly be more beneficial if paid directly to the people. There is a false notion that more is better when it comes to government spending. And, when they come up short because of careless management, they turn to the people they are supposed to help. Our current economic recession shows how reckless municipalities can be with the $ entrusted to them by taxpayers.
ReplyDeleteRather than taking from the people they are supposed to serve, it would be more prudent to provide genuine programs and services that drive independence, not dependency. It seems sometimes that government exists to feed itself, a parasite attached to the populace. Government is feeding off of the people, not serving them.f