Sam Hall wrote: In the United States, most poverty is not caused by lack of money or of opportunity. The last twenty years has proven this beyond a doubt. Poverty is caused by people making the wrong decisions for themselves and their childern. Certain lifestyle choices work, others do not. Enrique Diaz-Alvarez wrote: Sam, This is plainly false. The past twenty years have proved no such thing. Poverty is caused by poor people having too little money. The poverty rate dropped steadily from 1960 (~25%) till around 1980 (~13%), It then stopped dropping significantly, coinciding with major cuts in programs for the poor during the Reagan years.. Hi, While this may LOOK like a silly argument, it actually centers on a profound and much disputed point: is poverty CAUSED by lack of money, or is lack of money one result of poverty? Conservative economist Milton Friedman proposed decades ago that lack of money is the reason that people are poor. If that were to be accepted, the "solution" to poverty would be relatively cheap and straightforward. The "Negative Income Tax". But this concept was not adopted as the basis of the "war on poverty" and has been tried only in a limited way, when it was revived by Reagan and later Clinton. The reason (I think) that the LBJ initiated "war on poverty" rejected the relatively simple EITC approach and instead founded a massive welfare bureaucracy, is that they accepted the counter theory proposed by liberal anthropologist Oscar Lewis. He thinks in terms of a "culture of poverty". Poverty is a value system, and if the poor were to have money they would just waste it: they need food stamps, and housing projects, and medical care, and all those things and services that the wealthy and middle class people BUY with money. Hichael Harrington popularized this view in his "The Other America". See my web page files EITC and Welfare. But was Friedman right? Maybe. But there was one interesting study that suggests that Lewis is closer to the truth. People who won BIG money in the early state lottery (when it was a lump sum payout) were likely to be broke and poor again in a few years. Having lots of money did not transform their value system (culture), and the lottery is played disproportionally by "poor people". And when "rich" people lose all their money in unexpected stock market changes, they are not "poor". Just rich, but without any money. And as for when the "poverty" rate went up or down, that depends on how "poverty" is defined, which in turn depends on the correction for inflation. See the files on CPI and the Boskin Commission on my web page. If the more accurate CPI is used, "poverty" has been falling since the Great Depression! This from "Randy Park" Here's another interesting tidbit on U.S. poverty rates. No amount of free food, free housing, free medical care, free utilities, etc. will lift someone out of poverty. The government looks only at cash income when it determines if someone is above or below the poverty rate. This is one of the reasons the poverty rate has remained unchanged since the late 1960s (all right it changes every year, but the trend is level since then). A careful examination of the Statistical Abstract of the U.S. reveals that the true poverty rate is much lower when non-cash benefits are considered. The poverty rate is cut almost in half. Just remember, if all the social welfare programs worked, a lot of government employees would be out of work. That would be political suicide. Other Interesting Comments: This from "Steve Conover, Sr." Nothing "causes" poverty. "Poverty has no causes. Only prosperity has causes... Poverty can be overcome only if the relevant economic processes are in action." --Jane Jacobs Warren Regulator wrote: poverty is a state of mind. ZB wrote: Perhaps you aren't aware, but here in this very country we have a couple of million American citizens living on the streets, inexcusable in a country possessing the wealth of this nation.. Hi, If "living on the streets" means "homeless", your number is much larger than the last census found. Estimates of homeless in the US are from a few hundred thousand to a few million. And many/most are "deinstitutionalized" mental patients, and alcoholics. In a recent 60 Minutes program was interesting. Monsanto was accused of paying thousands of dollars to homeless people to take part in studies of drugs (which must be tested on humans before being approved by the FDA). The claim is that giving money to the homeless makes their problems worse, since they just use it to buy liquor and/or drugs. What do you think?? > Mike Lepore wrote: > I'd prefer a tangible explanation. Try this: Let group A be > 1000 randomly selected workers who are trying to support a > family of 4 on a wage of $5 per hour. Let group B be 1000 > randomly selected workers who are trying to support a family of 4 > on a wage of $20 per hour. I would be willing to bet anything > that group A will have more poverty-signs than group B > regardless of which indicator you choose. e.g., poor > nutrition, more school dropout, more alcoholism, more > teenage pregnancy, etc. > > Lack of money! Of course, it's the lack of money! > > Mike Lepore > To email me, please use this link: . Hi, The question is (as applied to your example): Is group B earning $20 per hour BECAUSE they stayed in school, graduated, didn't have kids until they could afford them, ate nutritious food and stay sober? And is group A earnimg $5 BECAUSE they dropped out of school, got drunk, ate twinkies, and had kids when they were single teenagers? I didn't answer the question, just want you to understand what the question is. -- ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___( O O )___ooo_______________ (_) jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) For a good time call http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834