The Ghetto is Public Policy

[StrangeSox]

And it would be equally beneficial for your side to actually admit that SOME poor people REMAIN poor because they don't want to work at it. It's fathomable that a poor person that gets their food, shelter, health care, education and personal property handed to them would rather just say "i want more" instead of spending the time/energy to become educated, get a job and get off the system. Or worse, that people who make stupid decisions in life (drugs, crime, kids) actually have some blame. Maybe. Just maybe, that's a possibility?

 

Everyone make stupid decisions in life. There's much less margin for error for the poor when they do, or maybe none at all. I could make dumb decisions in life regarding drugs, crime and kids and probably come out okay; my older brother did on the first two and is doing alright. Had my family been poor, he would probably have spent at least a few months in prison.

 

Your whole view of poverty seems to be centered on a minority of people who do not work even though they could; the working poor and lower-middle class don't even enter into the picture for you. I fully admit that I don't care about some concern-troll "moral hazard" fringe cases that do not represent a majority of poverty.

 

Except for an upbringing, society provides you everything you need to succeed. That is incontrovertible fact.

 

No, it absolutely does not. Again, this is your born-on-third privilege speaking.

 

That was my only point.

 

That point is incontrovertibly wrong. We provide people with a substandard education on how to fish and then tell them to go catch their own dinner after somehow purchasing their fishing rod and supplies, oh and don't forget that access rights to the rivers are owned by a handful of people extracting huge rents from anybody who wishes to fish them, and the few public streams are increasingly polluted due to relaxed environmental standards and insufficient ability to enforce.

 

That doesn't mean it's going to be an equal life. That doesn't mean it's not going to be harder. But it's absolutely possible in 2013.

 

That it's possible for some to bootstrap themselves out of poverty doesn't mean that we should accept our system that produces so much poverty or that it's possible for even a significant minority to escape it. Especially these days with record corporate profits, free-trade, high unemployment, decades of stagnant wages and exploding wealth and income gaps.

 

The rich white racist boogey-man doesn't exist.

 

Yes, he does, and he's called Donald Trump.

 

More seriously, systemic privilege that benefits the wealthy, whites over other races and men over women absolutely exists. Racism isn't limited to "hahaha! I'm going to enact Black Laws!" As I linked in the Collins thread, everyone is biased; in America, this bias manifests itself in favor of ethnically European males, and wealth is always a great way to control power, too.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/science/blogs/s...aXC1K/blog.html

 

Q: What has been the most surprising result over the years?

 

A: There is a series of studies that stand out in my mind because of how shocking the result was. This is the study when we ask, “Who is American?” We did it by giving people an IAT in which they saw faces of Americans: some are of Asian origin, Americans of European origin, but the test takers were told they were all born and raised in the U.S. We had the test set up so they had to [match the faces] with symbols that were obviously American symbols or symbols of foreign countries. Lo and behold, you get this result that’s not completely unexpected. People have a quicker association between European faces and American symbols than Asian faces and American symbols. You could say, Asians came to this country later and ... the category American means you’ve been here a very, very long time.

 

If that’s the case, use native American faces and European American faces and now let's associate them with American symbols and foreign symbols. Because things like the dollar bill and Washington monument were created by Europeans, let’s use natural scenes: Niagara Falls and the Grand Canyon. Still, we find European-Americans are associated more strongly with American symbols. So, to be American is to be white.

 

And we took famous Asian-Americans, like Connie Chung and Michael Chang and Kristi Yamaguchi and then we picked white foreigners: Hugh Grant, Katarina Witt, Gerard Depardieu. You know they’re not American. Now, associate them with American symbols and foreign symbols. It was easier to associate Hugh Grant with American symbols than Connie Chung; that shows how deeply the category “American” is white.

 

The reason I especially like that result is that in the first Obama election and since then, the issue has come up about these “birthers,” and I think what we captured there was a little bit of a birther in all of us. I think this is where conscious attitudes matter. You and I say, “I consciously know Barack Obama was born in this country, and I believe this because the evidence is there.” For some people who we might write off as the lunatic fringe, the association to be American is to be white. I can see for them that feels true.

[StrangeSox]

Common sense? The fact that there are a number of CPS schools doing just fine? The fact that they just closed a bunch of schools because they were being underutilized and wasting money? I didn't say it wasn't A problem, I said it wasn't THE problem. And to the extent it is a problem, the leadership isn't a bunch of rich white yuppies from the north side making all of the decisions on spending/allocating resources.

 

"Common sense" is just another way of saying "my pre-conceived ideas."

 

CPS school funding is not equal as the neighborhoods they serve aren't equal. They're closing a bunch of schools, which is highly controversial in both the number and the selection, not because they were "wasting money" but because populations have decreased. You hand-waved it away as being important to the issue at all.

 

The leadership isn't a bunch of rich white yuppies, but the board is hand-picked by one who's known for being a huge asshole and buys into some terrible public education policies as well (so does the Obama admin.)

 

And your upbringing clearly exposed you to all of those poor people who work 80 hour weeks and hate being on welfare? GMAB.

 

Nope! You know what has? Recognizing the privileges I've enjoyed and actively searching out other perspectives. How about you? How have your views been formed?

 

I took a public housing law/poverty class in law school, and nothing about the way Chicago handle's the poor made me change my opinion on this.

 

You took one law-centered class and think you understand how Chicago "handles the poor." Chicago is one of if not these most historically segregating and racist cities in the country.

 

As always, there are people that get a bad draw in life and just can't get ahead. But I literally met people who went from Cabrini Green to the new mixed housing buildings and b****ed for 2 hours about not getting more and for having to pay 1/5 of their electric bill.

Do you know anything about that person's life, if they could actually afford to pay 1/5 of their electric bill or why they might be b****ing?

 

Absolutely anecdotal but I'd bet a lot it's a common feeling.

 

Interesting that your "common sense" and your "bets" serve to reinforce your pre-formed conclusions.

 

Again, mainly from learning about how Chicago's office handles public housing, my cop buddies who work in the s***tiest neighborhoods and tell me how those kids act, and the news. It's not difficult to conclude that a 20 year old with 4 kids doesn't having education as a top priority.

 

I'm going to say that cops are probably the absolute s***tiest source of information on urban poverty you can possibly go to. Local news is probably in the top 5 with them.

 

Why not start following some writers who actually study this? Crack open some sociology works?

 

And I've responded to this argument a thousand times and said I agree generally. But that doesn't mean what I'm pointing out isn't a problem. I acknowledge it, you ignore it.

 

 

I don't think I've ever seen you explicitly agree, but either way, you still fall back to your concern-trolling "but what about the few that ARE lazy and shiftless drug-addicts?!" And I don't think you can agree generally with what I said there while asserting that society provides people with every opportunity to succeed.

[StrangeSox]

You're right, it is a problem. Just focusing on different things, I guess.

 

Focusing on the alleged moral failings of the poor is just a way to defend the current system that has benefited jenks (and myself!) immensely while disadvantaging others.

[StrangeSox]

Exactly. Which is at least partially the result of the policies SS was talking about in his first post.

Poverty is absolutely cyclical and self-reinforcing. This is intentional or, at best, a helpful byproduct of the hoarding of wealth and power by others.

[Jenksismyhero]

Everyone make stupid decisions in life. There's much less margin for error for the poor when they do, or maybe none at all. I could make dumb decisions in life regarding drugs, crime and kids and probably come out okay; my older brother did on the first two and is doing alright. Had my family been poor, he would probably have spent at least a few months in prison.

 

Your whole view of poverty seems to be centered on a minority of people who do not work even though they could; the working poor and lower-middle class don't even enter into the picture for you. I fully admit that I don't care about some concern-troll "moral hazard" fringe cases that do not represent a majority of poverty.

 

But those stupid decisions kill any shot you have at becoming middle class or more! That's a HUGE component to this. How many poor people do you know/hear about that are single or married with no kids. Very few!

 

 

No, it absolutely does not. Again, this is your born-on-third privilege speaking.

 

Bulls***. By the simple fact that the absolute poorest of poor in this country HAVE succeeded proves my point.

 

That point is incontrovertibly wrong. We provide people with a substandard education on how to fish and then tell them to go catch their own dinner after somehow purchasing their fishing rod and supplies, oh and don't forget that access rights to the rivers are owned by a handful of people extracting huge rents from anybody who wishes to fish them, and the few public streams are increasingly polluted due to relaxed environmental standards and insufficient ability to enforce.

 

I think the problem here is your view of "success" is a socialist dream world where everyone gets the same luxury lifestyle. You're arguing what's being provided isn't adequate enough to make someone Bill Gates. I'm arguing we provide enough to not be poor and live a modest, middle class American lifestyle.

 

Yes, he does, and he's called Donald Trump.

 

More seriously, systemic privilege that benefits the wealthy, whites over other races and men over women absolutely exists. Racism isn't limited to "hahaha! I'm going to enact Black Laws!" As I linked in the Collins thread, everyone is biased; in America, this bias manifests itself in favor of ethnically European males, and wealth is always a great way to control power, too.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/science/blogs/s...aXC1K/blog.html

 

OMG. The majority ethnicity in this country for the last 200 years self identifies itself as American. THE HORROR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited May 1, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

Ugh, SS, your bleeding heart is too much for me. I'm done wasting my time with this crap.

[StrangeSox]

But those stupid decisions kill any shot you have at becoming middle class or more! That's a HUGE component to this.

 

Right, you want to scold the poor for being immoral because they didn't walk the perfectly error-free path you believe they should walk that you yourself never had to. The upper-middle class teenager caught using coke is going to have a much, much easier time with the law than the lower-class teen. Those "stupid decisions" also arise from a whole host of systematic causes, especially crime, and the impact of those decisions varies wildly based on socioeconomic status.

 

More importantly, millions of working poor (and increasingly poor middle class Americans) get some education, work hard, avoid crime and drugs and out-of-wedlock children and still have been losing ground rapidly over the past several decades.

 

How many poor people do you know/hear about that are single or married with no kids. Very few!

 

Citation? "Common sense" doesn't count.

 

Bulls***. By the simple fact that the absolute poorest of poor in this country HAVE succeeded proves me point.

 

No, not really, it doesn't prove that anyone and everyone could escape poverty by bootstrapping some elbow-grease and getting some work ethics. It proves that some people have done it through a combination of natural talent, circumstances and luck. It's not an actual solution to poverty. Middle-class jobs are disappearing, meaning that the middle class is becoming more desperate and the opportunities to escape poverty aren't there.

 

I think the problem here is your view of "success" is a socialist dream world where everyone gets the same luxury lifestyle.

 

I think your problem is every single discussion with you involves having to discard bad-faith strawman after bad-faith strawman because you've got a very limited worldview and don't seem to care one bit to expand it. My preferred system is mostly reflected in modern-day Scandinavia, which I believe exists on Earth.

 

You're arguing what's being provided isn't adequate enough to make someone Bill Gates.

 

No, I'm not. This is yet another bad-faith strawman so you can keep defending your own unearned privileges as legitimate and justified without having to actually put forth any thought or effort.

 

I'm arguing we provide enough to not be poor and live a modest, middle class American lifestyle.

Right, and you're completely, 100% wrong and this places the entirety of the blame for poverty on the poor themselves.

 

Where's the quality education? Where are the jobs? (they're in Bangladesh, where our great plutocrats can pay labor less than $.25/hr and have little or no workplace safety and environmental regulations and attempts to organize labor result in people being murdered--this results in great profits for the capitalists, exploitation for the Bangladeshi and lost entry-level middle class jobs for 1st-world workers! a trifecta!)

 

OMG. The majority ethnicity in this country for the last 200 years self identifies itself as American. THE HORROR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

OMG! learn to f***ing read, I'm out.

[StrangeSox]

Ugh, SS, your bleeding heart is too much for me. I'm done wasting my time with this crap.

Yeah! How dare I care about widespread poverty in the wealthiest country in the world! What a bunch of unimportant s*** when we've got THE DEFICIT to think about!

[StrangeSox]

By the way let's not pretend that there aren't still racist policies that impoverish minorities today

 

Wells Fargo Bank will have to fork out $175 million for allegedly engaging in discriminatory lending practices from 2004 through 2009, following a Justice Department announcement, Crain’s reported. The country’s largest residential mortgage lender is accused of a pattern of prejudicial practices that forced 34,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers across 36 states and the District of Columbia to pay higher rates for loans simply because of their race, according to Deputy Attorney General James Cole.

 

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2012/07/12/wel...ination-charge/

[Marty34]

Yeah! How dare I care about widespread poverty in the wealthiest country in the world! What a bunch of unimportant s*** when we've got THE DEFICIT to think about!

 

How do you get people who don't care about the plight of the poor to care?

[StrangeSox]

Relevant article about the falling labor force participation rate; the jobs to escape poverty just aren't there because our public policy choices have allowed them to be shipped to the country with the lowest wages and loosest labor and environmental laws.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkbl...debate-matters/

 

 

[StrangeSox]

How do you get people who don't care about the plight of the poor to care?

 

b****ing endlessly on the internet, duh.

 

Spreading ideas and messages, supporting campaigns and groups who work for social justice.

[iamshack]

By the way let's not pretend that there aren't still racist policies that impoverish minorities today

 

 

 

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2012/07/12/wel...ination-charge/

Good...Wells Fargo is a bunch of assholes to everyone...

[StrangeSox]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archiv...-policy/275716/

Reader Devin Bunten sent me a note expanding on the problems of contract-buying, redlining, and the kind of segregated housing market that characterized America through much of the 20th century:

 

I wanted to send you a quick note about the thread today, with some added economics. I could/should just post it as a comment, but it's quite late for that thread I'm afraid. You mentioned in the thread that "the vast majority of these guys found themselves buying houses way beyond the appraised value." A house appraisal is only meaningful in the context of the neighborhood, and the switch from an all-white neighborhood to an all-black neighborhood would have changed the appraisal substantially -- which is of course a large part of the point.

However, that's separate than how economists think about price and value, and I think adding the econ perspective actually makes the situation worse. I'd think about it like this: in Chicago at the time, there were two fundamental housing markets: one for whites, and one for blacks.

 

Removing the black population from competition within the white market was a(nother) large transfer of wealth to whites: whites faced less competition for the large supply of houses, which actually kept white house prices lower than they would otherwise be.

 

This enabled a large number of whites to move up the ladder into the middle class. On the other hand, the legal framework, enforced by terror, that prevented blacks from moving into these neighborhoods meant two things: a small supply of houses in the "black housing market", and a large and increasing demand.

 

This would have kept prices quite high -- much higher than any appraised value. Any black family would be bidding not against the white speculator, but against the large number of other black families looking to get a house. Because the speculators were few and the black families were many, prices were kept quite high in these black neighborhoods. The rules you wrote about obviously kept these high prices from being realized by black sellers, as blacks so rarely came to own the homes they were paying for.

 

Devin's last point is basically how the the history actually played out. In the overcrowded ghettoes of Chicago, there was a pent-up demand for housing. The money was there. And the money was pilfered.

[...]

These American families were swindled by public policy, white terrorism, and private action. This was done to advantage people who happened to look different from them. And we are only talking about housing here. We are not talking about school segregation. We are not talking about job discrimination. We are not talking about business loan discrimination. We are not talking about the shameful implementation of the G.I. Bill. Or the sharecropping system in the South. This is but one front in the long war.

 

For young black people growing up in that era, what was the message? America's promise is that everyone who plays by the rules will have a chance to compete. If you are a black boy, or a black girl, and you watch your parents play by the rules while everyone else cheats, what do you conclude? How do you feel when your parents exhibit middle-class values and your country rewards them with pariah-class treatment? How do you then evaluate your own prospects? How do you see your country? Might you then look around, survey all the double standards and hypocrisy, and find yourself not so proud?

 

 

[mr_genius]

Bush's fault

[Texsox]

No.

 

There's a difference between "giving a place to a minority in a school/company" (ie, affirmative action) and minorities actually succeeding in those arenas. Our country does a lot with the former, but early education is still so terrible that the latter is disproportionately difficult.

 

But like Shack said, it's easy for me as a privileged white male to sit here and write all this without living it.

 

Level the start and not the finish. The biggest obstacle I see is using property values to determine school funding. It is one factor that perpetuates poverty. The poor have less to spend on education than the rich.

[StrangeSox]

Bump for a new article from TNC documenting this country's legacy of legal white supremacy and black impoverishment, both public and private policy.

 

The Case for Reparations

Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole.

 

 

Even if you don't agree with his conclusion (reparations), it's an interesting read of this country's racial history and often racist public policy, especially when it comes to housing.

[gatnom]

Bump for a new article from TNC documenting this country's legacy of legal white supremacy and black impoverishment, both public and private policy.

 

 

 

 

Even if you don't agree with his conclusion (reparations), it's an interesting read of this country's racial history and often racist public policy, especially when it comes to housing.

 

I might have just missed it because I didn't really have time to do anything but give it a quick glancing over while at work, but It doesn't seem to me that he really ever puts forth a legitimate plan for how reparations would work. Where would the money come from? How would it be used? Furthermore, I don't think that just throwing money at the problem will actually solve it the way he thinks it would.

 

 

[bmags]

I might have just missed it because I didn't really have time to do anything but give it a quick glancing over while at work, but It doesn't seem to me that he really ever puts forth a legitimate plan for how reparations would work. Where would the money come from? How would it be used? Furthermore, I don't think that just throwing money at the problem will actually solve it the way he thinks it would.

 

What he actually proposes in the article is that the bill that John Conyers puts to the floor every single year (Bill H.R. 40: http://conyers.house.gov/index.cfm/reparations) be passed.

 

What the bill actually does is it would form a committee to study slavery and its after-effects on current Black Americans, and would propose "appropriate remedies".

 

Coates isn't a policy wonk and I don't think an article like his requires the actual solution laid out, his point was to make the case that the idea of reparations should not be considered outside the bounds of social discourse.

Edited May 27, 2014 by bmags

[gatnom]

What he actually proposes in the article is that the bill that John Conyers puts to the floor every single year (Bill H.R. 40: http://conyers.house.gov/index.cfm/reparations) be passed.

 

What the bill actually does is it would form a committee to study slavery and its after-effects on current Black Americans, and would propose "appropriate remedies".

 

Coates isn't a policy wonk and I don't think an article like his requires the actual solution laid out, his point was to make the case that the idea of reparations should not be considered outside the bounds of social discourse.

 

That bill seems a little too hand-wavy to me (the link provided was broken). Coates doesn't sound like a very reasonable man, and for that his argument isn't very compelling to me. To him, I'm already guilty, and the only matter left to be decided is just how much money I owe him.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

That bill seems a little too hand-wavy to me (the link provided was broken). Coates doesn't sound like a very reasonable man, and for that his argument isn't very compelling to me. To him, I'm already guilty, and the only matter left to be decided is just how much money I owe him.

 

Bingo. I'm 32 from Chicago. I didn't own slaves. I didn't participate in the Jim Crow south. I didn't vote for or perpetuate housing discrimination. So why the hell should I pay anything?

[iamshack]

Bingo. I'm 32 from Chicago. I didn't own slaves. I didn't participate in the Jim Crow south. I didn't vote for or perpetuate housing discrimination. So why the hell should I pay anything?

Just playing Devil's Advocate here...

 

Do you not benefit from all kinds of other things that you had nothing to do with?

[Jenksismyhero]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here...

 

Do you not benefit from all kinds of other things that you had nothing to do with?

 

I'm sure that I did, but how's that relevant here? Are we all supposed to pay for our given lot in life?

[iamshack]

I'm sure that I did, but how's that relevant here? Are we all supposed to pay for our given lot in life?

Isn't that what we generally do as taxpayers for about a million other things?

[bmags]

That bill seems a little too hand-wavy to me (the link provided was broken). Coates doesn't sound like a very reasonable man, and for that his argument isn't very compelling to me. To him, I'm already guilty, and the only matter left to be decided is just how much money I owe him.

 

I don't know how anyone could read that article and come across with "he already thinks I'm guilty". That statement is hilarious to me.