Increasing American Prosperity

Home :: Search :: Memberlist :: Privacy Policy :: Donate!

Increasing American Prosperity

Home // Liberals Versus Conservatives

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

cornopean
Forum Elder

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject:

Quote:

cornopean wrote:

Quote:

What do you mean by "self-caused"?

the poverty is brot on as a result of some decision they themselves made.

Probably.

Such reasoning is often used to deny people help. You don't think that way, do you?

I definitely think that is a very good reason to deny them public (i.e. govt or taxpayer) help. certainly not a reason to deny them private help or charity as it is called.

Quote:

the #1 cause of poverty is single parenthood.

How so? I mean, single parenthood is more common amongst the urban poor (as far as i know), but where are you getting the causality from?

First, do you deny that single parents cause their own poverty and their children's?
Second, my facts on this largely come from here:
http://www.jewishworldreview.c.....061301.asp

The article focuses on the black community but the same applies to all communities.

Illegitimacy among blacks today is 70 percent. Only 41 percent of black males 15 years and older are married, and only 36 percent of black children live in two-parent families.
In 1940, illegitimacy among blacks was 19 percent. From 1890 to 1940, blacks had a marriage rate slightly higher than whites. As of 1950, 64 percent black males 15 years and older were married, compared to today's 41 percent.
In Philadelphia, in 1880, two-parent family structure was: black (75.2 percent), Irish (82.2 percent), German (84.5 percent) and native white Americans (73.1 percent). In other large cities such as Detroit, New York and Cleveland, we find roughly the same numbers.
According to one study of black families (Herbert G. Gutman, "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925"), "Five out of six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents."
That study also found that, in Harlem between 1905 and 1925, only 3 percent of all families were headed by a woman under 30 and 85 percent of black children lived in two-parent families.

So these numbers seem to point to a correlation between the poverty we see in the black community and the breakdown of traditional family values; especially two parent households. so I haven't proved causality............but it seems to definitely point in that direction. how would one prove causality anyway?

we also know that staying out of poverty is not rocket science or difficult. the same Walter Williams wrote this article:
http://www.jewishworldreview.c.....051105.asp
in which he writes;
Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married. Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum wage. And, finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior. If you graduate from high school today with a B or C average, in most places in our country there's a low-cost or financially assisted post-high-school education program available to increase your skills.

Most jobs start with wages higher than the minimum wage, which is currently $5.15. A man and his wife, even earning the minimum wage, would earn $21,000 annually. According to the Bureau of Census, in 2003, the poverty threshold for one person was $9,393, for a two-person household it was $12,015, and for a family of four it was $18,810. Taking a minimum-wage job is no great shakes, but it produces an income higher than the Bureau of Census' poverty threshold. Plus, having a job in the first place increases one's prospects for a better job.

cornopean
Forum Elder

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:06 pm Post subject:

Quote:

[quote="Lester"]

cornopean wrote:

Quote:

A society where the economy is governed by the simple rule, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

what incentive is there to produce and innovate in this kind of an economy?

The same there is in any society.

in the US, if one produces something, he is entitled to own it and to any profits that might result from his producing that. In a communist country, no matter what he produces, he does not recieve any more or less of the gain or benefit from his producing that. In my book, that means there is no incentive for him to produce more or to innovate since the gain from it will not be his. isn't that rather obvious?