People
caricature the poor and speak of multi-generational poverty. There are some
women who keep having kids in order to stay signed up for subsidies and they're
pretty wicked for doing that. But for others, and let's face it, most people
don't want to have a bunch of kids, as soon as their kids are school age, you
must enter a job seeking programme or you get cut off. And at that point if
you're eligible for a job and you turn it down, you're cut off.
Yes,
there are people who work the system, sabotage job interviews, get fired for
various reasons. I'm not denying that but again Sowell and those like him are
generalizing and often caricaturing the situation.
As
far as the automobile, a luxury according to Sowell and something no truly poor
person would possess...after World War II, Europe built health care systems and
mass transit. Today you can live in small towns and ride the train with ease to
larger towns. For many in Europe you don't need a car.
The
United States instead decided to build the biggest military in the history of
the world and interstate highways to facilitate it and the automobile industry.
The business interests behind these enterprises guaranteed it and committed our
society to the automobile and what might be called a hyper-petroleum economy.
Because
of consumerism Americans worship their cars and oddly consider them to be an
extension of their personality. The car is central to the American lifestyle, it's
an expression of sexuality, status and much more. It's admittedly pretty sick.
And
yet there are many poor people who have acknowledged the automobile is their
bane. For many it is their most costly expense. In terms of investment the only
thing worse than a car is a computer or mobile phone. Cars retain little value
and are terribly expensive. For those on low budgets, an older car ends up
being a money pit.
And
yet there are very few parts of the country where you can live without one. The
car has decimated the small town. We live in and are surrounded by small towns
that used to be miniaturized versions of the city and the larger society. They
had stores, places to eat, and entertainment. Today they're bedroom
communities. There are a handful of service jobs but anyone who actually makes
any money drives out of the town every day to larger towns often 5,10, 20, 30
miles (or more) away.
The
automobile revolution literally destroyed not only vast sectors of the economy
but entire communities. The television was the nail in the coffin. Now when
people come home they're tired and detached from the community. They close
their doors and watch television. The days of porch sitting and sidewalk visits
are over. There are moral components to these technologies.
Sowell
the pseudo-economist and ersatz social commentator doesn't live in the real
world or understand how it works. He simply observes that if you've got a car
then you're not poor.
The
fact that Sowell has enjoyed success as a member of academy, an author and
commentator is in itself an indictment of our society. It demonstrates the
simple reality that people are unable to read through a simple one page article
and interact with it. It's also telling how much academia has been infiltrated
by and overtaken by political interests. This is true across the entire
political spectrum.
Sowell:
This
kind of "poverty" can easily become a way of life, not only for
today's "poor," but for their children and grandchildren.
Even
when they have the potential to become productive members of society, the loss
of welfare state benefits if they try to do so is an implicit "tax"
on what they would earn that often exceeds the explicit tax on a millionaire.
If
increasing your income by $10,000 would cause you to lose $15,000 in government
benefits, would you do it?
Proto:
Again
there are plenty of people on the Left who realize the problem, but every time
they try to change it and incentivize success and give people a reason to get
off of assistance the Republicans block it. You're not allowed to have too much
in your bank account...$2000 apparently means that you're rich. Of course for
someone to get off of assistance they have to possess enough money to break
free of living week to week. There are plenty of people not on assistance that
are also in that trap but often they've got a small amount of savings to fall
back on or even a credit card if they're in a real pinch.
Sowell:
In
short, the political left's welfare state makes poverty more comfortable, while
penalizing attempts to rise out of poverty. Unless we believe that some people
are predestined to be poor, the left's agenda is a disservice to them, as well
as to society. The vast amounts of money wasted are by no means the worst of
it.
If
our goal is for people to get out of poverty, there are plenty of heartening
examples of individuals and groups who have done that, in countries around the
world.
Millions
of "overseas Chinese" emigrated from China destitute and often illiterate
in centuries past. Whether they settled in Southeast Asian countries or in the
United States, they began at the bottom, taking hard, dirty and sometimes
dangerous jobs.
Even
though the overseas Chinese were usually paid little, they saved out of that
little, and many eventually opened tiny businesses. By working long hours and
living frugally, they were able to turn tiny businesses into larger and more
prosperous businesses. Then they saw to it that their children got the
education that they themselves often lacked.
By
1994, the 57 million overseas Chinese created as much wealth as the one billion
people living in China.
Variations
on this social pattern can be found in the histories of Jewish, Armenian,
Lebanese and other emigrants who settled in many countries around the world –
initially poor, but rising over the generations to prosperity. Seldom did they
rely on government, and they usually avoided politics on their way up.
Proto:
As
far as poverty being comfortable and the Left hindering the advancement out of
poverty, this fallacy has already been addressed.
As
far as the Chinese and others he makes an interesting point but again it is an
oversimplification and his argument is a non sequitir. In 1994 China's economy
was just getting on to its feet and to compare US and European Chinese
immigrant wealth to China itself is not a helpful comparison. The economies and
values of currency were not comparable.
At
times I am in awe of what people were willing to endure when they came to this
country. My own ancestors left England, Scotland, Ireland and Germany and made
their way to this country and often lived pretty destitute. Compared to the
mild climate of northern Europe, the Eastern United States and in particular
the South (for some of them) must have been nothing less than brutal.
But
compared to the conditions which they departed they were happy to sweat and
deal with the poison ivy, rattlesnakes, and all the rest.
They
had a place to flee to and were 'free'.
The
people who stayed in Europe did not have a place to go. Obviously some left and
went to the New World, South Africa and places like that. But those that stayed
had to deal with the realities of oppressions and exploitation. This eventually
led to further social unrest and revolution and in some cases the violent
overthrow of the establishment.
This
is also true with regard to China. Those who stayed ended up violently
overthrowing the social order and may do so again before long.
Those
that fled were able to start anew and yes they had to work very hard.
When
the poor or the Left complain about the status quo people like Sowell are quick
to accuse them of envy. That's true in some cases. But often people are
outraged at the criminality which surrounds them. The injustice angers them
because they are not so blind as to not realize they're being taken by the
system.
And
yes some of them are bitter because they hate the system but must also depend
on it.
Other
groups suffer a sort of persecution syndrome and it is ingrained within them
that they must excel. Armenians and certainly Jews belong to this category.
But
Sowell misses another point. These groups possess something individualist
America lost long ago... a sense of community.
Why?
That's a long story but again and with no little irony I would argue that the
ethics of Capitalism have played no small role in creating this modern reality.
Ultimately
the Jews and Armenians and even the Chinese who remain in this culture and
assimilate within it will find themselves facing the same social crisis. Sowell
might read some authors like Khaled Hosseini or Jhumpa Lahiri to learn
something of the immigrant experience and how American culture begins to
unravel the family.
So
does lack of community excuse laziness? Of course not. But community provides security
and opportunity that the lone poor person cannot even conceive of.
I
don't wish to make endless excuses for the poor or even minorities. These
groups have real problems and they're pretty successful at generating their own
troubles. Yet, as usual it's more complicated. The White middle class is not a
paragon of anything virtuous and has done a splendid job at exporting problems
around the world.
Our
culture is undoubtedly decadent but decadence is far more than a lack of
innovation or mere laziness. This culture worships money and consumerism is
itself a philosophical system with its own worldview, ethics and epistemology.
It's hard to break free from it.
But
sacrificing all for the sake of making a dollar is also a form of decadence and
idolatry. I refuse to do it. I would rather be poor. While I'm sure many could
not articulate it, once again there are some if not many poor who also look at
the lady I mentioned who works two jobs, basically never has a day off and
still can't get by...and they rightly ask, "For what?"
What's
the point? As a Christian I can provide an answer for that. But a non-Christian
is going to see a racket of a system, one in which they will never get ahead or
much of anywhere at all.
The
idea that anyone can 'make it' if they just work is a myth. That's even truer
today than it was one or two generations ago. The economics are not what they
were two generations ago. There's more to it than hard work. I personally have
seen (and I know I'm not alone) many cases where the hardest working person
doesn't get ahead. I've seen cases where people have worked hard, done
everything right, and still fall flat on their face.
In
a Capitalist system for every success there will be many failures and the
system counts on, in fact depends on a certain number of people being at the
bottom. It can't exist without them. Not everyone can become a store manager or
successful entrepreneur.
