Poverty in Oklahoma City

[PennyQuilts]

Let me just point out that plenty of people simply aren't suited to do any higher level work, be it by IQ, some disability or temperament. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with factory workers as implied by the way you contrasted them with "educated, financially responsible adults." Who do you think is going to do the "grunt work" in society? Absent someone to pick up the trash, stock shelves, clean bedpans, etc. society would break down. Honest work, however humble, should be appreciated, not sneered at.

[LandRunOkie]

Of course society needs people to clean bedpans. And if those people teach their children to apply themselves to their studies in public school, that child should have a strong chance at being better off. Unfortunately that is becoming less and less true. If you are suggesting public education doesn't need major overhaul, you're part of the problem. Economic history is the most revealing of all forms of history and is the one conspicuously absent from public education. If debt was demonized as much as evolution in the schools poverty would be a mere curiosity rather than a pandemic.

[PennyQuilts]

Of course society needs people to clean bedpans. And if those people teach their children to apply themselves to their studies in public school, that child should have a strong chance at being better off. Unfortunately that is becoming less and less true. If you are suggesting public education doesn't need major overhaul, you're part of the problem. Economic history is the most revealing of all forms of history and is the one conspicuously absent from public education. If debt was demonized as much as evolution in the schools poverty would be a mere curiosity rather than a pandemic.

I am not sure where you got that I said anything about school reform. All I addressed was individual aptitudes and abilities and took issue with elevating one "career" track over another. Personally, I completely agree that kids are not being taught anything about basic economics and they should. And I am not just talking about personal finance or even high finance - I mean they should understand how the economy actually works. Most adults I know don't have a clue of cause and effect or how governmental policy impacts the way business (and everything else) is conducted. They don't seem to even consider cause and effect or what is likely to happen if this or that is adjusted or changed. To me, good government policy has to be wed with sound economic reality. Not to derail this, but take Obamacare - it is as if the morons that wrote that law (and regulations) are living on another planet with no earthly idea of how that law would play out in the real world, practically and in terms of the economy. It is one huge unintended consequence, most of which was easily predictable when economics (and human nature) was factored into it.

[PennyQuilts]

If debt was demonized as much as evolution in the schools poverty would be a mere curiosity rather than a pandemic.

We will always have poverty but I agree, we'd be much, much, much better off, individually and as a nation. Yes, sometimes you need to go into debt but the way we handle it is idiotic. People don't understand the difference between going into debt as a genuine investment vs. just borrowing to get something rather than saving up for it.

[soonerguru]

I think this is a great discussion, and I hope to keep it as devoid of politics as possible. Let's also avoid demonizing poor people -- it is ridiculous to say people "choose" to be poor. This is something someone says to themselves to feel better about having greater fortune.

Those of us who are successful, and educated, and have careers that are fulfilling and challenging, should feel blessed. Yes, we work hard for our success, but we are also lucky to be in the position we are, and probably benefited from many people helping us along the way.

There's no way to address the problem of poverty by casting blame on the poor.

Let's move this toward discussion of ideas that can actually positively impact this problem.

Great comments from Penny, by the way, about employment. No one should ever look down at anyone for what they do to contribute to society. What is forgotten -- or unknown -- is that most poor people have jobs. The population of working poor in this country is enormous. It is extremely unhelpful and inaccurate to characterize the poor as welfare recipients.

[PennyQuilts]

I think this is a great discussion, and I hope to keep it as devoid of politics as possible. Let's also avoid demonizing poor people -- it is ridiculous to say people "choose" to be poor. This is something someone says to themselves to feel better about having greater fortune.

Those of us who are successful, and educated, and have careers that are fulfilling and challenging, should feel blessed. Yes, we work hard for our success, but we are also lucky to be in the position we are, and probably benefited from many people helping us along the way.

There's no way to address the problem of poverty by casting blame on the poor.

Let's move this toward discussion of ideas that can actually positively impact this problem.

Great comments from Penny, by the way, about employment. No one should ever look down at anyone for what they do to contribute to society. What is forgotten -- or unknown -- is that most poor people have jobs. The population of working poor in this country is enormous. It is extremely unhelpful and inaccurate to characterize the poor as welfare recipients.

Thank you for the good comment statement but I didn't see anyone demonizing the poor, either and you seem to be going off on something not part of this conversation. If you are saying none choose to be poor, that's simply the flip side of demonization and it is also untrue. Some do choose that path and they have that right. Pretending it doesn't happen because YOU find it too shameful to acknowledge is your prerogative but I wish you wouldn't try to control others' speech or ask them to also ignore reality.

Demanding that this truth be not spoken is one of the reasons hard topics are increasingly difficult to address. It reminds me of the days when rape and incest were dirty little secrets that people couldn't talk about. There are many reasons people are poor including choice. The mere mention of that is not demonization and I hope you weren't trying to equate the two. There is a fundamental difference in terms of addressing the issue between someone poor by choice vs a multitude of other paths. If we can't look at this issue with open eyes due to some ideological filter, we might as well give up. Please don't try to claim an honest discussion amounts to demonization simply because you are projecting your own intolerance on others. If you can't tolerate including choice among the many reasons people may be poor, all you will do is shut down a constructive conversation. We don't need to be preached to, thank you very much. That attitude is one of the primary reasons we can't get it together, policy wise, to help people in need. We were having a pretty good conversation until you brought your bias into it and got preachy.

[PennyQuilts]

And let me throw in there my own experience - finished high school, married at sixteen and had my third child at age 22. I sure felt poor and it was hard - even with a spouse.

[soonerguru]

Thank you for the good comment statement but I didn't see anyone demonizing the poor, either and you seem to be going off on something not part of this conversation. If you are saying none choose to be poor, that's simply the flip side of demonization and it is also untrue. Some do choose that path and they have that right. Pretending it doesn't happen because YOU find it too shameful to acknowledge is your prerogative but I wish you wouldn't try to control others' speech or ask them to also ignore reality.

Demanding that this truth be not spoken is one of the reasons hard topics are increasingly difficult to address. It reminds me of the days when rape and incest were dirty little secrets that people couldn't talk about. There are many reasons people are poor including choice. The mere mention of that is not demonization and I hope you weren't trying to equate the two. There is a fundamental difference in terms of addressing the issue between someone poor by choice vs a multitude of other paths. If we can't look at this issue with open eyes due to some ideological filter, we might as well give up. Please don't try to claim an honest discussion amounts to demonization simply because you are projecting your own intolerance on others. If you can't tolerate including choice among the many reasons people may be poor, all you will do is shut down a constructive conversation. We don't need to be preached to, thank you very much. That attitude is one of the primary reasons we can't get it together, policy wise, to help people in need. We were having a pretty good conversation until you brought your bias into it and got preachy.

There was a very specific post on this thread that said people choose to be poor. I didn't want to get into a flame war. And you are right, there are some people who make very poor life decisions that lead them to being poor. I was just hoping people could discuss specific ideas AT THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL that have worked in other cities.

[traxx]

There was a very specific post on this thread that said people choose to be poor. I didn't want to get into a flame war. And you are right, there are some people who make very poor life decisions that lead them to being poor. I was just hoping people could discuss specific ideas AT THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL that have worked in other cities.

Dude, stop beating around the bush. Come right out and say it. You're talking about my post. When you say that some don't choose to be poor, you're getting into semantics and splitting hairs. It's the same sort of thing as no one chooses to have cancer yet they continue to smoke a pack a day. They make the choices to end up where they do.

I never made a blanket statement saying all poor people made the choice to be that way but there's a lot in this state that make the choices to cause them to end up being poor. Government assistance and government programs aren't gong to solve this problem. You have to change their mindset. Or at least break the cycle so it's not passed down to their children. You have to change the culture. The question is how do you do that?

[soonerguru]

Dude, stop beating around the bush. Come right out and say it. You're talking about my post. When you say that some don't choose to be poor, you're getting into semantics and splitting hairs. It's the same sort of thing as no one chooses to have cancer yet they continue to smoke a pack a day. They make the choices to end up where they do.

I never made a blanket statement saying all poor people made the choice to be that way but there's a lot in this state that make the choices to cause them to end up being poor. Government assistance and government programs aren't gong to solve this problem. You have to change their mindset. Or at least break the cycle so it's not passed down to their children. You have to change the culture. The question is how do you do that?

Good question. I don't think anyone here has an easy answer. If they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. As for your post, I avoided calling you out because there was much more depth to what you were writing than that statement.

And I agree people make very poor choices that lead them to where they are. That does not equate to them saying, "I really want to be poor. That would be awesome."

It seems you're making a blanket statement that no government programs will solve the problem. While that is true, does that not mean that government programs can be helpful in solving this problem, or at least in lessening the severity of this problem?

There are many very successful people today who, for example, lived in government housing. There are many others who lived in similar housing who led failed lives. So the net is not "government housing is the answer" just as much as "government housing is bad."

[JenX67]

REPORT on KGOU: Grapes of Wrath is 75 today, But Its Depictions of Poverty Are Timeless Here's Doug Dawg's piece from 2007 that addresses how the Dust Bowl was felt in OKC. Click: The Dust Bowl.

[JenX67]

Perhaps we'll have more definitive answers soon. The Gaylord College of Journalism will receive a $35,000 grant to work with the nonprofit investigative journalism organization Oklahoma Watch, students and faculty, and university and community partners on a project focused on poverty in Oklahoma City. Read more via Norman Transcript.

[JenX67]

BRIDGES OUT OF POVERTY Aims To End Generational Poverty via KSWO, Lawton. Click here to see the story.

Excerpt: "The group of more than 100 people, from several organizations, attended Thursday's "Bridges out of Poverty" training course sponsored in part by the Salvation Army of Lawton-Fort Sill. They're trying to launch a statewide program called "Getting Ahead" to help families and individuals get off of welfare by giving them a chance to succeed."

[JenX67]

A report on poverty in Oklahoma from OPI via KTUL. Click here to read hear the story.

Also, there's this from OPI: Paying a poverty tax: The high cost of being poor in Oklahoma

Yesterday, my friend M. posted the following on his FB page:

"Looking at some of the statistics in the 2013 school report card that _______ (his kid) brought home today:

The percentage of hispanic students in OKCPS (47%) is equivalent to the combined percentages of white and black students. Not surprising at all, if you spend time in any neighborhoods south of NW 23rd Street.

86% of OKCPS students are eligible for free/reduced lunch.

45% of OKCPS families are single parent, and 26% live at or below poverty line.

The OKCPS district has an unemployment rate of 9%, which is interesting since our civic leaders proudly touted an unemployment rate less than 5% for Oklahoma City last fall."

Does anyone have a source on that last stat of 9 percent?

[JenX67]

The New York Times has won the the Best Data Story at the 2014 Data Journalism Awards for this 2013 infogram: “In Climbing Income Ladder, Location Matters.” According to this data, if a child in Oklahoma City is raised by parents in the 10th percentile for income they will end up on average in the 31st percentile.

[Dubya61]

The New York Times has won the the Best Data Story at the 2014 Data Journalism Awards for this 2013 infogram: “In Climbing Income Ladder, Location Matters.” According to this data, if a child in Oklahoma City is raised by parents in the 10th percentile for income they will end up on average in the 31st percentile.

Please enlighten me on that datum: Does that mean that the child will end up on average in a higher income bracket? or a lower income bracket?

[JenX67]

I think it means higher -- so I don't know why this isn't a bigger story. It's very hopeful news, I think!

[JenX67]

From Krisiti Eaton and the Associated Press: Oklahoma businessman's program to improve student achievement in Oklahoma City's high-poverty public school system Here is the program's website: Fields and Futures.

From Mikah Young's song, Fields and Futures, written for this project.

FF to around 2:05 seconds and have a listen.

Out on this field
We're all a part
Of what could heal
This city's heart
Our time has come
And we're on fire
Our voice is one...
Let them be a part of something
Bigger than themselves...

[JenX67]

Oklahoma's Child Well-Being Rank Drops from 36 to 39

Oklahoma drops in a new report about how states care for children. The report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation says Oklahoma took one of the biggest dives in child well-being of any state in the country.

The Kids Count Data Book says Oklahoma dropped from 36th place to 39th in the latest research released by the foundation.

“We’re close to being in the bottom ten for outcomes for children,” said Terry Smith the president and CEO of the Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy, “the numbers are not good, many areas are getting worse.”

The Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy, or OICA, receives some of its funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation and works to promote policies and programs for children in the state. Smith says one of the issues that contributed to Oklahoma’s decline is poverty.

“Poverty is an incredible issue in Oklahoma right now the new data shows that one in four children in the state of Oklahoma lives in poverty,” Smith told Fox 25.

The report showed Oklahoma did make small improvements which included a reduction in births to teenagers, a slight increase in reading and math proficiency as well as a reduced child and teen death rate.

Those small gains were not enough to drop Oklahoma’s overall ranking. Smith says not focusing on the needs of at-risk children lead to higher costs later on in for the form of need of other social services and even higher incarceration rates.

“There’s a lot more kids that are being removed from their homes right now for child abuse and neglect, many of those kids then go into the juvenile justice system,” Smith said.

[JenX67]

A new initiative from the Obama administration offers new hope to high poverty areas

I'm posting this because it highlights Sara-Jane Smallwood who grew up in Southeastern Oklahoma (one of the hardest places to live) where "more than 60 percent of the population lived below poverty." Smallwood Smallwood is now the coordinator in the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma for a new national anti-poverty initiative the Obama administration is calling Promise Zones.

There are five Promise Zones. They include L.A., San Antonio, Southeastern Kentucky, Philadelphia and the Choctaw Nation. More form NPR.

[JenX67]

I think this is a great discussion, and I hope to keep it as devoid of politics as possible. Let's also avoid demonizing poor people -- it is ridiculous to say people "choose" to be poor. This is something someone says to themselves to feel better about having greater fortune.

Those of us who are successful, and educated, and have careers that are fulfilling and challenging, should feel blessed. Yes, we work hard for our success, but we are also lucky to be in the position we are, and probably benefited from many people helping us along the way.

There's no way to address the problem of poverty by casting blame on the poor.

Let's move this toward discussion of ideas that can actually positively impact this problem.

Great comments from Penny, by the way, about employment. No one should ever look down at anyone for what they do to contribute to society. What is forgotten -- or unknown -- is that most poor people have jobs. The population of working poor in this country is enormous. It is extremely unhelpful and inaccurate to characterize the poor as welfare recipients.

Yes, if we can keep this conversation from devolving that would be great. I agree with your comment about the state. Ugh. Cities can and do act as incubators for the social and cultural innovations that shape our world. That's one reason I think a discussion of the working poor in OKC is appropriate. Local governing bodies across the metro can serve as beacons of great processes for the entire state. Well, maybe...hope springs eternal.

[LandRunOkie]

I missed the part where the poor were blamed or characterized as welfare recipients. This may not be surprising since I skip any post longer than my pinky finger (here's looking at you PQ!). My point, which can be examined by looking at the book I recommended, is that traditional values have been beaten out of people's heads by mass media. If we want to eradicate poverty, the public schools have to play a primary role. Thrift and savings are simply not values that are passed down from generation to generation anymore. Propaganda, even corporate propaganda, rather than government-sponsored, is powerful. Imagine if the USA declared a Cold War on debt rather than the Soviets.

[PennyQuilts]

Here's a question: Young, healthy, unmarried woman of average intelligence who does not abuse drugs or alcohol from a middle class family finishes high school but rather than go to college, takes a low wage job and has three children before she is 24 with 2-3 different dads she has no plan to marry. Her siblings stayed in school, married before having babies, and are all doing well.

Did she choose to be poor or did she just make bad choices? And does it matter? How do you compare her situation with a new immigrant or someone who is disabled or has a drug/alcohol problem?

[PennyQuilts]

I would count myself among the working poor for quite a long time - living paycheck to paycheck with the kids getting older and more expensive by the day. Frightening. When my youngest was a year old I went back to school, eventually got my degree and after working a few years, went back to law school. It is SO MUCH EASIER to have money and the working poor have a special place in my heart.

There are so many roads to poverty - bad decisions (my hand just went up), illness, etc. Helping someone who is mentally ill and poor as a result is one thing. Just keeping them on an even keel with their bills paid may be the best you can hope for and so much depends on the extent of their illness and social network. A new immigrant with poor language skills who can't get a decent job is another situation and, candidly, it may be that their children are going to be the ones to be upwardly mobile since they won't be as hampered by language barriers and/or will have better opportunities to network with the children of the middle class. Encouraging someone who made poor decisions but has the ability to be socially mobile is a whole different problem and every situation is different. Some people are just stupid, some just have awful judgment. Some are just young and that is a time honored detour that doesn't have to ruin a life. I couldn't cite you the studies but from what I recall, although there is increasing income inequality, the stats suggest that it isn't static and that there is quite a bit of upward and downward income mobility with individuals.

We had a thread awhile back where we discussed the phenomenon of how the widespread education of women and increased employment opportunities have contributed to less upward mobility. So the theory goes, not long ago women tended to have less education and married "up." By virtue of their marriages, their children ended up in a higher income class and their extended family also tended to benefit. These days, women going to college tend to marry men in college. Women in the work place are not as likely to marry the boss as in the old days, rather, they marry peers. The end result is that poor women are less likely to marry up and more affluent women are marrying in their own income class. The end result is less social mobility and people aren't really interacting with people not like themselves.

[zookeeper]

I would count myself among the working poor for quite a long time - living paycheck to paycheck with the kids getting older and more expensive by the day. Frightening. When my youngest was a year old I went back to school, eventually got my degree and after working a few years, went back to law school. It is SO MUCH EASIER to have money and the working poor have a special place in my heart.

There are so many roads to poverty - bad decisions (my hand just went up), illness, etc. Helping someone who is mentally ill and poor as a result is one thing. Just keeping them on an even keel with their bills paid may be the best you can hope for and so much depends on the extent of their illness and social network. A new immigrant with poor language skills who can't get a decent job is another situation and, candidly, it may be that their children are going to be the ones to be upwardly mobile since they won't be as hampered by language barriers and/or will have better opportunities to network with the children of the middle class. Encouraging someone who made poor decisions but has the ability to be socially mobile is a whole different problem and every situation is different. Some people are just stupid, some just have awful judgment. Some are just young and that is a time honored detour that doesn't have to ruin a life. I couldn't cite you the studies but from what I recall, although there is increasing income inequality, the stats suggest that it isn't static and that there is quite a bit of upward and downward income mobility with individuals.

We had a thread awhile back where we discussed the phenomenon of how the widespread education of women and increased employment opportunities have contributed to less upward mobility. So the theory goes, not long ago women tended to have less education and married "up." By virtue of their marriages, their children ended up in a higher income class and their extended family also tended to benefit. These days, women going to college tend to marry men in college. Women in the work place are not as likely to marry the boss as in the old days, rather, they marry peers. The end result is that poor women are less likely to marry up and more affluent women are marrying in their own income class. The end result is less social mobility and people aren't really interacting with people not like themselves.

Thank you, Penny. You are one of the most honest posters here. I don't always agree with you (but often do!) but I appreciate your willingness to weave your own experiences - even when they weren't the best decisions - to make a point and show alternatives. It's also clear to me that you are a kind and compassionate poster from just little posts you make checking on people, remembering little things people mention and check back on progress, etc. You don't often find that in forums like this. I'm a Penny fan.