POVERTY

Poverty has always been one of the most widespread and intractable problems facing mankind. There is a great deal of debate about the “causes” of poverty, but by and large poverty is not so much caused as alleviated—or not. Everyone is born naked and alone; you go through life convincing others to give you things, first your parents, then employers or customers, or maybe charities or the government. But if the people you’re relying on can’t give you much because they already gave to someone else, or because they never had much to begin with, you’ll stay poor. Of course, an incidence of misfortune such as a layoff or a medical emergency can cast a person or family into poverty, and yes, poor choices such as getting involved in drugs or crime can make one unemployable. Broad-based economic forces can have a tremendous impact on many people’s fortunes, but ultimately—especially in the US in the 21st century—there is no one, overall poverty problem but rather countless individualized ones.

How best to address the problem(s) is a perennial political issue. All factions profess concern for the poor and to make fighting poverty a priority, but differ sharply on specific policies. Socialist systems seek to provide for human needs by pooling and distributing of resources by a government-run bureaucracy. Such systems can address varying concerns and be imposed to varying degrees. Communism could be considered “total socialism” in that government controls every aspect of the economy and many other aspects of life as well. Even if we sidestep the serious issues of civil liberties, communistic and heavily socialistic systems have proven to be economically inefficient. Purportedly about helping the poor and promising full employment, they “kill the goose that lays the golden eggs” by attacking capitalism or saddling it with heavy tax burdens. Free market entrepenuership and it attendant job creation is by far the most important tool in fighting poverty, and keeping taxes and regulations to a minimum is important in maintaining a healthy economic environment for such growth. But there will always be people who find themselves in dire financial straits and need help in avoiding becoming destitute (if they aren’t already). To help such people in their time of need is not only the humanitarian thing to do, it’s in society’s best interests, and besides, you never know when you might be the one who needs help.

But when welfare programs provide extended cash payments to the indigent, they can, over time, create a “culture of dependency”. If folks can get along without having to work, they won’t develop the skills and motivation needed to hold down a job, making it that much more likely that they will remain unemployed. And their children may very well grow up dependant on public assistance as well. This means that welfare can cause or perpetuate poverty even while it’s trying to solve it. It would be wrong, however, to portray everyone being helped by a social program as in the process of developing permanent dependence. Many people are disabled and can’t work, and then of course, there’s the elderly (Social Security and Medicare being major issues in their own right). But an important point that’s often overlooked is the fact that most able-bodied recipients of public assistance are on it for only a short period of time—weeks or months, not years. An episode of bad luck such as the loss of a job or a medical emergency can trigger a chain reaction that put you out on the street, kids or no kids. Most people are willing to work, and if faced with a financial crisis, will use the help they get to bridge the gap rather than become dependant on it.

There is much that the government can do to help people get out and/or stay out of poverty without requiring massive tax increases or fostering dependency. The trick is to tailor specific programs to address the specific needs any given individual or family while keeping costs under control. Giving people money has the advantage of it being “fungible”, that is, useful in addressing a wide variety of situations, but it has the disadvantage of being inefficient. The cost to the taxpayer is not just for the needed commodities, but for the administration and the profit and overhead of the private businesses from whom they are purchased by the beneficiary. (It should be noted, however, that this does help stimulate the economy–contrary to the popular belief that every dollar taken in taxes is a dollar taken out of the economy.) Providing commodities directly to those in need rather than converting them to cash and back again would be much more efficient. But the need to distribute the help across a wide geographical area makes it a challenge. If the help and the people who need it could be brought together in one place, then the efficiency problem could be solved.
(more…)