The war on poverty was a failure.

Despite good intentions, the war on poverty was a big disaster. The model cities targeted by the program are now poster child's for the folly of central planning. All, without exception. Despite trillions in social welfare taxing and spending, which consumes most of our budget, the real income of the poor are largely unchanged, and the falling poverty rate has slowed to a trickle and is now climbing as we reach record social welfare spending levels. Has there been any stories of a neighborhood or a city improved by these programs? Seems each of the "model cities" peaked in the 60s when these programs started. If not, why is there such support for these programs instead of reforming them? We used to spend very little at the federal level alleging poverty and a growing middle class flourished. Ever since the war on poverty started there has been decline or stagnation of social mobility with a few exceptional periods, the last 6 years of the Clinton and the Reagan terms. Clinton caved into sweeping welfare limitations and wages rose among the lowest earners. Reagan of course was a god among mere men.

I think everyone who supports that status quo, or simply, "more of the same" should ask themselves:

Is there any argument that the status quo should be continued?
Teenage unemployment has risen since the minimum wage increase in the 60s, do you think these unemployed teens are more likely to commit crimes and ruin their chances to earn later? Does their lack of a work history hurt them later when trying to get better jobs?

Does a program that has restrictions on family cohabitation real up families, keep them apart, or create an incentive for them not to form in the first place?

Does social security restrict the working class's ability to pass down a sizable I hermits cd to their kids so they can live a better life they had?

Does the availability for benefits for immigrants attract more poor, and lead to our higher poverty rate? More immigration happened before the welfare state, but back then you had to be sponsored and earn a living.

 

Trillions spent and all it did was make millions believe the government owes them a living.

 

I think you are right, its greatest "success" is that people believe they are owed a living and that the wealthy took so etching from them since their distributive share has gone down. Nowadays we add more to the government welfare rolls then we do to full time payrolls.

But all this wealth envy and society splitting hasn't done a thing for them.

 

The problem with the "War on Poverty" is that it is based on the "Welfare" system.
Had it been based on a "Workfare" model it may have worked.
How can poverty be effected when there is a lack of employment in the areas of the densest poverty?
The approach should have been, Education, Apprenticeships, Employment. Not "welfare".

Moi

 

Agreed. This makes a mountain of sense.

 

It is rephrasing the campaign of my hero, Eugene McCarthy and his 1968 run for the presidency.
Senator Eugene McCarthy referred to our present programs for the poor as "gilding the ghettos" and pointed out they were areas of no employment opportunities.

I do not maintain anyone is required to accept WorkFare.
But, after a period of time and opportunity to find employment at their present address the choice is offered,
Relocate per WorkFare or Live Free !
Of course WorkFare relocation must account for roots involving extended family, health conditions contrary to the new location, etc.
Assigned Education, Apprenticeships, Employment should be in cooperation with the applicant, their wishes and aptitudes.
Everything with an appeals process of course. Let's be Fair with the Fare.

I deny it is anybodies right to live where they wish and expect sustenance.
Working people often have to relocate for the job.

Moi

 

Putting aside for a moment the issue of welfare (I'll come back to it in a moment). What is poverty? I don't mean relatively speaking as in the "if you think you're poor you ought to go to India..." I mean what is it in a technologically advanced western society? Firstly, I think it's being without a job when you want work. Secondly it's being in work but part of the "working poor". So in the first category someone is poor because they are not earning any money. In the second someone is poor because they aren't earning enough money. Now, let's canvass some of the causes of these two categories.

The first is straightforward, not enough jobs for people.
The second is a bit more complex. The working poor tend to be people in low-skilled occupations. I assume that minimum wage in the US is compulsory for all employers. If that's so then it's obvious the minimum wage is too low for those working poor in low-skilled occupations. At this point I have to anticipate objections. I understand the problem where someone who is working poor is not living frugally and beyond their means, but those are individual cases. I think the problem of minimum wage being too low is a stronger cause than individuals living beyond their means.

These seem to be structural problems.

Welfare ideally is a temporary situation - but where there are structural problems welfare becomes permanent.

 

I thi k workfare should take up the slack of government work. Paint the schools, pressure clean the sidewalks, mow the grass trim the bushes etc...if everyone is going to be entitled to income it should be via a job.

The truly disabled excepted of course, I don't expect people with heart trouble working, quadrapelgics etc..

 

Wow, so much ignorance, where to begin? Maybe a good point to start is with the fact that any supposed "war" on poverty was pretty much sabotaged by special intrest groups and wealthy people who want to knock the chair out from under our economy, who in turn were consistantly and strongly represented by conservative idealist who backed the Republican party that serves them. If there ever was a war on poverty, half the country has been fighting to keep us in poverty for the last 50 years. You can't expect to make any headway if people are going the wrong way in the first place.

Anyone who makes the argument that we as a nation or even a society should not even try to solve poverty are just working for those who want to hurt this country and wreck the American dream. Congratulations, you now share the same goal as the Al-Qaeda and every other despot dictator in history!

 

Democrats essentially owned both houses of Congress from 1933 to 1993, disregarding minor blips of Republican control in one or the other, here and there.

That's 60 years, Jack.

And they didn't "solve" a damned thing.

 

I agree that our war on drugs is pretty expensive, we didn't ask for it, and some people think they are "owed" a drug war.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe we really are "owed" the moral goodness of true witness bearing to our own laws regarding employment at will, simply for the sake of a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge. Only the right seems to have a problem with that concept.

 

In my opinion, not planning to solve for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is merely planning to fail in public policy choices.

We could be solving simple poverty with existing legal and physical infrastructure in every State of the Union and the federal districts.

- - - Updated - - -

My good comrade,

Your program does credit to any true form of communism.

 

"Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment"

Explain?

 

The way to eliminate poverty among the working poor is to eliminate privilege from the system. Privilege leads to rent-seeking where the privileged capture income or more income than they deserve by restricting competition, or by gaining control of natural resources.

A partial extract from wikipedia (Rent-seeking):

“A study by Laband and John Sophocleus in 1988 estimated that rent-seeking had decreased total income in the USA by 45 percent.” -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

With rent-seeking privileges reducing the wages of productive work by 45%, it can come as no surprise that poverty remains persistent. Put an end to privilege and allow wages to rise to their natural level and poverty would all but disappear from society. High wages are the best incentive to encourage productive work and the only way to increase wages is to abolish the privileges and related rent-seeking that keeps wages low.


"Economists are almost unanimous in conceding that the land tax has no adverse side effects." — William Vickrey, Nobel laureate in Economics (1996)

 

Here it is:

- - - Updated - - -

Socialism is an "evolution" from Capitalism, and can solve simple poverty.

 

Oh. Yeah, there is always structural unemployment. It's no problem.

I thought you had some evidence of deleterious effect.

 

If poverty could be solved by distribution or redistribution, it would have disappeared a long time ago.

Doesn't work. You can throw pearls before swine, but you can't make them into merchants...

 

Capitalism creates the boom and bust cycle which ensures that there will always be involuntary unemployment. You can read more about it here: http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp22.htm

 

A lot of Georgists on this site. That is so odd.

 

Please clarify. No one is required to be part of WorkFare. It would be voluntary.
Please explain. Do you mean true Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, Old Sovietsky or Maoist. And how so.
The current welfare system seems "more so".


Moi

 

Yes and no.

Yes there will always be involuntary unemployment. I don't see that as a problem, because changes in the economy are natural for a growing country. There used to be thousands of people in the typewriter industry, working shops making typewriters. Those people lost their jobs, because we moved past typewriters. Equally we used to make thousands of pagers. We've moved past pagers.

The only way to prevent these layoffs, is to ban innovation and growth of the economy. If the government bans advancement, then we can achieve continuous high employment, by having a stagnate life where typewriters and pagers are the limits of human achievement.

Of course this is simply the result of human advancement, and happened even in Socialized countries too. It's not inherent to Capitalism.

Second, you have speculation bubbles and busts. Speculation is merely the result of allowing people the freedom to purchase things they want. As long as people have that ability, there will always be speculation. This isn't a problem limited to capitalism either. After all, the Tulip mania of 1637, was merely a speculative bubble, and that was when most people were paupers.

Lastly, I have heard about this natural boom and bust cycle, and I know the arguments for it, and against it. I think typically a natural boom and bust, is generally minor and more of a speed bump than a road block.

Thus far, every time there has ever been a real significant economic boom, and bust, it has always been under the influence of government. If you have a counter example, I'd love to hear it, but generally only government has the ability and authority to effect the entire economy, which is what is required to cause a boom and/or bust.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes and no.

Yes there will always be involuntary unemployment. I don't see that as a problem, because changes in the economy are natural for a growing country. There used to be thousands of people in the typewriter industry, working shops making typewriters. Those people lost their jobs, because we moved past typewriters. Equally we used to make thousands of pagers. We've moved past pagers.

The only way to prevent these layoffs, is to ban innovation and growth of the economy. If the government bans advancement, then we can achieve continuous high employment, by having a stagnate life where typewriters and pagers are the limits of human achievement.

Of course this is simply the result of human advancement, and happened even in Socialized countries too. It's not inherent to Capitalism.

Second, you have speculation bubbles and busts. Speculation is merely the result of allowing people the freedom to purchase things they want. As long as people have that ability, there will always be speculation. This isn't a problem limited to capitalism either. After all, the Tulip mania of 1637, was merely a speculative bubble, and that was when most people were paupers.

Lastly, I have heard about this natural boom and bust cycle, and I know the arguments for it, and against it. I think typically a natural boom and bust, is generally minor and more of a speed bump than a road block.

Thus far, every time there has ever been a real significant economic boom, and bust, it has always been under the influence of government. If you have a counter example, I'd love to hear it, but generally only government has the ability and authority to effect the entire economy, which is what is required to cause a boom and/or bust.

 

Only the right tends to be that cognitively dissonant. Poverty is one deleterious effect.

 

Absolute forms of poverty have been solved in the US, through distribution or redistribution; haven't you noticed the right complaining that the poor in the US are not really poor enough.

 

No, not of structural unemployment. Not at all.

People who leave the workforce to train up for a better living are not on the poverty rolls, generally speaking...

 

Is that a solution?

Give a man a fish, and all that...