top of page
  • Writer's pictureJoanne Jacobs

Poverty is down, but can they fish?


"A River Runs Through It" (1992), set in Montana, boosted interest in fly fishing.

Fewer people are living in poverty, but not because they're earning more, writes Jon Baron on The Hill. We're doing better at giving money to the poor, but not at helping them climb out of poverty.

To paraphrase the proverb, we are giving people fish, but not enhancing their capacity to fish for themselves. Furthermore, our expansion of safety net payments carries the risk of damaging work incentives and inadvertently reinforcing the poverty cycle. Indeed, there is evidence from randomized trials that at least some government payment programs, such as housing vouchers and possibly cash transfers, cause people to work and earn less.

The decline in the Census Bureau's Supplemental Poverty Measure, which includes a “sharp” “stunning” drop in child poverty, "stems from an increase in government payments to low-income people through safety net programs such as food stamps, housing and earnings subsidies and the child tax credit," writes Baron "Poverty measures that instead focus on people’s earned income" show "no overall progress on poverty since the 1970s."


Many federal anti-poverty programs, such as Head Start and Job Corps "produce small or no lasting improvements in participants’ lives," writes Baron, who founded the Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy.

There are success stories. Job training programs that partner with local employers, such as Per Scholas and Year Up, increase long-term earnings significantly, he writes. "Career Academies in high-poverty schools, providing students with hands-on technical and career training as part of a small learning community, increase long-term earnings by $3,000 per year."


Increasing funding for education and training won't pay off, he concludes, unless we focus on what works.


The push for universal basic income goes the other way: Everyone will get "money for nothing," as Dire Straits put it.


Americans are losing their work ethic, writes Matt Welch in Reason. In particular, men are leaving the workforce, says American Enterprise Institute economist Nicholas Eberstadt. They're not "working in community gardens or brushing up on their Schopenhauer or whatever. What this trend has meant is slower economic growth for the country, wider income and wealth gaps, more dependence on government welfare programs, more pressure on fragile families, less social mobility, less involvement in society, and a lot more deaths of despair."


Who's working? Immigrants.

6件のコメント


ゲスト
2022年12月11日

Men with just a high school education here are looking for a govt job as its the only way to get the bennies and have something left over to raise a family on. They may or may not work above the table until their ship comes in. Those from single parent households usual qualify for free tuition, so they do continue on and become skilled, if they have the ability. When boomers begin retiring from civil service, they may get their chance.

いいね!
ゲスト
2022年12月12日
返信先

Jeez, we already have too many people working civil service jobs as it is. Government jobs don't produce anything, they just regulate the people who do.


Why not go to work for Walmart or McDonalds or any of the many other entry-level employers who provide health care?

いいね!

ゲスト
2022年12月10日

I can tell you from close observation of a number of people in my community that the fact that earning more than a very minimal income makes you ineligible for Medicaid is a factor here. Once you are earning too much (still at a very low income), you are thrown onto the private health insurance market, which even with ACA subsidies is very poor coverage and a bureaucratic nightmare. Medicare for all would solve this. And would a the same time release a burst of entrepreneurial energy.

いいね!
lady_lessa
2022年12月11日
返信先

Another solution to the very real problem of making too much for help, but not enough to buy the insurance yourself is to have a graduated program. Very little income-full benefits, some income full benefits but recipient pays a little money back and keeps going that way with increasing income means increasing paying for it. I'd suggest that it goes all the way until the amount a person is paying is comparable to what a similar policy costs.


I also recognize that my suggestion means increasing a bureaucracy, which isn't a good thing, either.

いいね!

ゲスト
2022年12月10日

Who could have predicted this outcome? Who?

いいね!
ゲスト
2022年12月11日
返信先

Anyone who understands human nature.


--mrmillermathteacher

いいね!
bottom of page