Originally Posted by
PennyQuilts
Treating generational poverty is different than treating families who simply fall on hard times, typically from a job loss or illness. Transitional poverty (for instance, new immigrants or a student) is a different type of poverty.
Often, people who teach about poverty seem to primarily use a densely urban model that focuses on high population centers with large groups trapped in generational poverty and high numbers of new immigrants who struggle with language and cultural issues in their transition. These groups often deal with high crime, often violent, and bad schools. It some ways, it makes sense to use a densely urban model because that is where most poverty is located that call for professional assistance. In urban centers, the answer is to typically provide public services including after and before school care, housing assistance, etc.
You see the most economic inequality in large urban centers because it attracts highly educated professionals (because that is where the good jobs are) as well as the lowest incomes because social services are provided and attract the poor.
Alternatively, they teach rural poverty such as you see in Appalachia where you see generational poverty resulting from living in areas where the infrastructure is poor, education is difficult to come by/not valued and there is a certain level of isolation from other areas. That's a whole different world than the urban jungle, notwithstanding they share some of the same problems.
IMO, these traditional poverty studies are well and good for the populations they address but seems to me, they often skew a mindset to "see" what they expect to see based on their education. And you can get the same sort of education back east and at OU. Someone from NYC might be justifiably upset about income inequality because they see it everyday. That their solution to the problem only increases the likelihood of it expanding is one of those loops that is hard to get out of. Maybe impossible, short of a collapse or near collapse. The day NYC isn't filled with very rich and very poor won't be when there are no longer any very poor or they are subsidized into the lower middle class - it will be when the very rich relocate. It is already extremely difficult for middle class families to make a living there.
Moreover, unlike many places in flyover country, there has been a move away from charitable support in favor of government subsidies - and that has trickled down to the population. Accordingly, someone who studies urban poverty often builds a mindset that private giving, much less faith based giving, is too unreliable to be worthwhile. And yet, in a different community/culture, that sort of thing is commonplace, targeted and the individuals involved are dedicated. This is an area where you see a lot of private support in medical assistance, for example. Someone who studies poverty too often, IMO, thinks the whole country is like Queens. It isn't.
It is difficult to get too upset about income inequality in much of the midwest because we're in a different situation than big urban areas or Appalachia. We make far less money but housing and expenses are much cheaper and a look at a bell curve would give us a big fat middle compared to a lot of bigger cities. That isn't to say that poverty doesn't exist, but when the brilliant egg heads insist (or at least imply) that we are all living in shacks and going hungry due to horrible poverty based on our income levels without taking into account that this isn't NYC, LA or the south side of Chicago, you have to wonder what planet they are living on. We have our own types of poverty issues but people poor in OKC aren't necessarily poor for the same reasons they are poor in a big city - and accordingly, the solutions aren't necessarily the same.
Here's a for instance. It is one thing to not have a job because there are no jobs. It is another thing to not have a job even though there are jobs to be had. At that point, you have to ask the question of why this individual isn't working - is it because of lack of training or education? Disability? Drug abuse? A criminal record? Government subsidies make working a waste of effort? Laziness? Independent wealth? Rearing children or caring for sick/elderly relatives? A student? They can't speak English? Depending on the demographics, you are liable to get more or less of the above categories. Our government, unfortunately, has a one sized fits all mentality with a citizenry that wants to help and worries that targeting assistance will end up having it be too narrow to cover all the needs. Sometimes, a policy causes more ultimate harm than good but I don't expect to see any real constructive reforms until we run out of money.
As someone who spent much of her career trying to find public and private funds to assist families with special needs, it is frustrating to see huge sums of money going to people it isn't really helping while families that really need the help go without. People tend to think there is plenty of assistance available without realizing that most of it is put into little funding pies depending on the community. Once a given pie is exhausted, too bad, so sad. Come ask us next year. We spend so much money on deadbeats that waste it and every dime of that could be going to help a child that is really needy. I guess what I am really saying is that if you want money to support a poor family, ask the government. They'll give you housing, food stamps, blah, blah. Chances are, they aren't going to get off the public dole anytime soon. Even families with skills and education typically wait until the funding runs out.
Alternatively, if you have a family with special needs - a kid out of control, drug abuse or mental illness, a child who needs counseling following abuse, etc., funding is sometimes available but you have to prove it is needed and there is great competition for these resources. Once it is gone for the fiscal year, look for other funding sources and good luck. Thank god for private giving.
Re: Poverty in Oklahoma City
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks