Scott Sumner explains some of the reasons that we’ll never end poverty:
1. Because we think of poverty in relative terms.
2. We are very good at noticing subtle differences in status. Make the differences smaller in objective terms, and they’ll still seem just as big in subjective terms. If everyone in my department had a salary within $1000 of each other, then differences of just $50 or $100 would drive people insane.
3. Government quality regulations are set based on average living conditions. Hence societies tend to criminalize poverty. It’s illegal to provide goods and services at Bangladesh levels of quality to Americans. Even SRO apartments have been regulated away; we prefer our poor to be homeless and without medical care, rather than living in substandard housing or getting treated by someone who is not a certified MD.
4. In any society, some people are less competent than others. By no means are all poor people incompetent, but people who are incompetent often end up poor. (I don’t mean ‘incompetetent’ as a pejorative, rather as someone who struggles with the demands of the modern world.) The cynical conservative says that if you completely equalized wealth tomorrow, a year from now there’d be lots of billionaires and lots of homeless people. And unfortunately that’s true.
5. Items 3 and 4 interact in a particularly nasty way. I have a PhD in economics, and yet often feel incompetent when trying to deal with the complexities of government regulations (or private utilities). The regulatory state makes things especially difficult for the poor. Some poor people are in and out of jail for being unable to pay various government fines for violating various regulations.
I have no objection to using the power of the federal government to help people who are genuinely in need. However, we should recognize that the number of people who are needy is dwarfed by the number that are want-y.
Here’s my question. To what degree should the federal government be intervening to help people maintain their lifestyles? I can see legitimate reasons (especially political reasons) that local governments might want to intervene for that reason. I wish there were more general recognition of the degree to which local governments actually make it hard for people to maintain their lifestyles.
But not the federal government. I’m hoping someone can explain the need for federal intervention for people who aren’t homeless, starving, unable to obtain medical care, etc.
First you need to establish what are the minimum standards. For people who have seen real poverty, it is something you never forget, and I have never seen it in the US. In the US, I have seen poverty and mistreatment together and alone. There is also poverty with what used to be the “nice to have” items – smartphones, cable, laptops, etc.
Once that has been established, I think it needs to be debated whether any assistance given will be in-kind (cheese, peanut butter, medical clinics, soybeans, cell phones, internet access, etc) or money (EBT card). If the recipient is able to decide what is best for them and an EBT card is issued, they are apt to make the wrong decisions, but if they cannot be trusted, perhaps the individual does not know best.
I would add that where the poor live is important, but I doubt that any policymaker will ever allow a poor person to live in their neighborhood.
There is a moral and philosophical/theological aspect. The moral question is about one’s fellow man and what minimum level of help one is morally required to give. The philosophical or theological aspect is about the minimal level of help one should give beyond the minimum.
In the US, all levels of the government provide freebies for citizens. All public infrastructure is provided on a pay-one-price regardless of amount used. I rarely leave my house, but I must pay the same for many transportation services as my next door neighbor who travels all over. There are city beautification projects, national security, museums, etc. that do not serve the poor. These are freebies for the middle and upper income people.
These are justified on various grounds, but if these are vital, why are the poverty programs not a beautification project also? If not physically beautifying, they are spiritually, emotionally, or morally beautifying.
In a wealthy society, it is possible to afford nice-to-have items. If this were not the case, there would be no McMansions or Red Barchettas. In a wealthy society, few people will ever pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Those born middle income will remain middle income, and they will augment their lifestyle with government freebies.
If you do not think so, let me at the budget. I will have you howling worse than Sen. Sanders.