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.

Remember the “poor farm”? Well, those places had their ups and downs. The destitute had a place to go where their needs could be met, but there was a great stigma attached to living there. There was often a judgmental or punitive atmosphere about those places, which were often run by religious disciplinarians. Poor farms were phased out with the introduction of the welfare system that, though more depersonalizing, could distribute relief more effectively if not, ultimately, more efficiently. But the homeless are out on the street in greater numbers, federal and state budgets are strapped for cash, and the syndrome of welfare dependency is cycling through successive generations. It’s time to give the poor farm concept a second look, not as a means to do away with welfare, but as an alternative, an option, a means to solve at least part of the problem of chronic poverty in a cost effective manner.

How should we design the modern poor farm? First of all, let’s get rid of that name. For want of a better one, let’s call it the “welfare community” for now. Old style poor farms were literally small farms operated on the county level. A welfare community should be operated on state-level and be village-sized. Ideally, a state’s welfare department would locate a small town which has gone belly-up and, with the help of a federal block grant, but up the place lock, stock, and barrel. Sizable tracts of nearby farmland should also be obtained.

Then, start recruiting people and put them to work. At first a skeleton crew would fix the place up and get it ready a larger number of huddled refugees from urban chaos. Existing buildings and infrastructure should be made use of as much as possible, but a number of new structures, for residential and other use, will probably need to be erected. At least one set of farmyard buildings will be needed for the agricultural operation, which should strive to produce as wide a variety of food products as possible. This will necessitate the equipping of food processing operations such as slaughtering livestock, canning produce, baking, processing dairy products, etc. The scale of the operation need only be as large as is necessary to meet the needs of the community, but any surplus could be sold for cash to the outside world. That goes for any manufacturing efforts which might be feasible, such as furniture making, pottery, garment making, you name it. While diversity in the name of self-sufficiency should be emphasized, modest commercial aims could be considered. Goods produced by the community could be packaged with a special label, indicating a good cause, and sold to visitors on-site or supplied to retailers elsewhere. Each community may choose to specialize in certain products, perhaps setting up a small factory, to improve the cash flow.

Indeed, despite any reliance on state or federal subsidies, commercial activity, or donations, it should be assumed that cash will always be tight. It might be a good idea to develop a credit system to pay the members of the community for the work that they. Credits could be used to purchase the basic stuff produced by the community, as well as converted to cash (at an inevitably unfavorable rate) as necessary. Any number of goods and services will have to be brought in from the outside. Creative ways to minimize cash expenditures should be pursued, such as scrounging for used or donated clothing, housewares, appliances, and raw materials. Playing up the “bold new venture” angle may keep the charitable contributions flowing. Whether such a venture can attain self-sufficiency even while expanding depends on to many unpredictable factors, and this brief outline cannot address all the problems that might be anticipated. The community might need special legal status to minimize the impact of state and federal regulations as well as civil litigation. Having to constantly shell it out for insurance, taxes, lawyers, and award settlements is something we can do without. And as for health care, one would hope that it would be possible to fund a reasonably well equipped facility which would simply dispense care to the members with further ado? It’s when a system requires monetary transactions and makes open-ended promises that it gets ruinous.

It is the number and nature of the people who arrive to start a new life who will most determine the success of the community. Upon opening, the first welfare community may attract more applicants than it can accommodate or too few to make it work. Those who join should have instilled in them the spirit of community and a willingness to work hard to help advance both the group and themselves, as well as behave in a responsible manner to preserve the harmony. Raw from the streets, the social fabric must first be knit together. All sorts of community events could be held, while the social structure could be designed to invite participation and innovation. Elections for local offices no doubt would be held. There should also be a variety of aid or outreach programs to help members with problems or handicaps or who need help fitting in. Incentives for personal advancement or initiative should be nurtured (with the necessary safeguards against corruption), while even those who can’t or wont do much work should be guaranteed at least a minimally dignified living standard. All-in-all, the most important thing will be how well the skills the members bring with them can be adapted to fill a wide range of vital roles in the community. The goal is to create a genuine, functioning village, even if in a laboratory out of spare parts.

There should be no illusions that such a project, even if it branches out all over, can have more than a partial impact on the plight of the underclass. The problem is so large and complex that no solution can easily be devised to save everyone from poverty. But by approaching the problem from a number of directions and providing people with a number of opportunities, we can reach more of them and foster more consistently a climate of community self-help. It is no doubt to this end that the Republicans’ plan to establish “enterprise zones” in major cities is aimed. Special tax and other incentives may make it easier to start up a business and create jobs, but the locals’ lack of income, exacerbated all the cuts in assistance, will continue to stunt economic growth in the zone or out. But if there are block grants in the air, well then, the best idea may be to anchor each enterprise zone with a commercial operation, like a factory, which can provide a decent number of jobs while bringing money into the neighborhood from outside to be spent at all the other businesses in the enterprise zone.

Such a facility should assume a pro-community bent as much as possible, say by incorporating child care facilities or community meeting rooms. Make it a clearinghouse for ideas and initiatives. Let’s say that the jobs in the factory are all filled, but people are still showing up looking for work. There ought to be plenty of ways to keep them busy, ways which help rebuild the community, be it cleaning the streets, renovating old buildings, or maybe helping with children or providing neighborhood security. Better still, make it a place where people can get counseling, sign up for community events, or make their own special contributions as well as find work. Just so long as the people in the community know that if they show up they can be guaranteed both economic opportunity and a place to belong, a place for a person to put to use whatever he or she has to offer.

But, horror of horrors, it’s going to have to be government run. The only problem with a project being government run is that it can be overly bureaucratized and unresponsive, and have a runaway budget. So we simply keep these things in mind and try to prevent them. Yes, taxpayers’ money will need to be spent, but since this is meant to be an alternative to welfare, which is a complete waste, all should agree that this is a better way to spend it. A continuous emphasis should be placed on keeping spending down, but since the whole point is to put people to work, self-sufficiency might at least be approached. How many people will show up to participate is anybody’s guess. It could be flood or famine. Maybe some of those who apply at the urban location will agree to be bussed out to the rural location where there’s more room and more of a community atmosphere. I am confident that if you build it, they will come–’cause it takes a village to raise a bum (sorry, I couldn’t resist).

This entry was posted on Saturday, May 26th, 2007 at 8:08 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.