The journey from there to here

For some reason, I got to thinking back to a discussion about whether it was appropriate for aid agencies to teach budgeting, menu planning, and other skills to families applying for aid. The more I think about it, the more I realize it is not only appropriate, it is in some cases absolutely NECESSARY.

No, I'm not watering down my libertarian philosophy and advocating for a nanny state. I am simply stating a matter of fact, gleaned from personal experience.

See, I come from a world with which I think it is fair to say very few of you are familiar. I have mentioned before that I am the only person I know (besides one younger brother) whose parents fought a custody battle NOT to have custody. When one parent had custody, I was simply warehoused until they could pass my upbringing on to someone else. I spent half of my formative years in foster care, and, in fact "aged out" of foster care.

Until I was 16, my "budgeting" skills were limited to turning over all of my earnings to my stepmother, who would put it in a jar, and use it as her personal "slush" fund while forcing me to beg for five bucks here and there. When I was 16 and in foster care, I was taken to open a checking account, but wasn'yt given the skills to manage it. Certain hygiene skills such as shaving I had to figure out by myself; I simply had noone to teach me (thank GOD we live in the era of the disposable safety razor, or you all might be calling me "scarface".

If you think my situation is unique, think again. There are over 580,000 children in US foster care, and the government is putting financial pressure on the states to seize MORE of these children. Only 44% of these children will ever see their biological parents again (despite the fact that 97% have never been criminally charged with abuse or neglect, but I've already written on that multiple times). I believe very firmly that if the government sees it appropriate to take upon themselves the care and nurturing of these children, the government needs to be fully responsible for their upbringing. Failing to do so condemns the majority of children to a life of poverty, frustration, and all too often crime and suicide.

Now, of course, the government shouldn't be in the child rearing business. They really shouldn't be in the child seizing business. The handling of displaced children should be handled by private groups within the community (possibly, in the case of crime related seizures, with some compensation from the justice system). And those groups should accept FULL responsibility for the raising of these children, including teaching them life skills.

But it doesn't end there. I believe the single largest contributing factor to generational poverty is that we have an entire class of people who have never been taught what they must do to pull themselves out of poverty. And we've tried to treat the problem superficially, without considering that the deficiencies of one generation are all too often passed onto the next. One example would be in the slaves we freed from the south. We freed them from a life where they never HAD to make these decisions for themselves, without teaching them HOW to make these decisions for themselves. While an increasing number of determined descendants of slaves have taken self education upon themselves to pull themselves out of poverty, it seems that there are countless numbers among them who have not. They have accepted the easy answers from "leaders" like Farrakhan, Sharpton, and Jackson, and have simply accepted a society that has allowed its collective guilt to lure it into throwing more and more money at the problem. The result is an underclass that is in grave danger of becoming a PERMANENT underclass.

When I worked on an advisory board for our community's Second Harvest in Wisconsin, for instance, we discussed the fact that too often we would give food to the hungry who had no idea how to cook it. The solution we arrived at was to set up a kitchen at the warehouse so we could use it for exactly that purpose, and to teach the food banks in our area how to pass those skills on to those they were assisting. That is a process that requires a TIME, rather than a money, commitment.

We DO need to get past our insistence on dependence on the government. But we can only do so if we take the time to teach the skills that will allow such independence to be possible. Such an approach necessarily requires un-learning some hundred plus years of backwards thinking and actual involvement in the community, but I have little doubt that if a workable to helping the poor achieve self sufficiency can be done, this is the best country to do it.


Comments
on Mar 24, 2006
Teaching skills is a very conservative concept.  The liberal answer would be to give them McDonald's certificates so they could eat prepared foods.  There is nothing wrong with hand holding, if the end aim and result is independance.  A hand up, not a hand out.
on Mar 24, 2006

Bingo, Dr. Guy! I believe every "help" program should have a plan for its own obsolescence.

Out of curiousity, what do you think of my analysis regarding the generational povery resulting from freeing the slaves without giving them the tools to handle their own independence? I'm sure that's going to generate a lot of charges of racism, but I can't help but think there's a causal connection here.

on Mar 24, 2006

The slave analysis is a bit of a stretch.  For it was not until the Great Society of the 60s that black poverty became a problem.  It would have been better in 1865 ot provide them with an education, but they already knew how to make decisions, and for the most part, take care of their own.  So you are really looking at a 100 year gap between cause and effect.  Yes, part of the effect was noticeable back in the 19th century, but they were not dependant as there was nothing to be dependant upon.

The primary cause of the black poverty today, and the lack of skills is more directly tied to the enabling of a welfare class where it was no longer necessary to have skills to survive, as the government took care of that. 

People often bemoan the number of poor back before the great society.  But poor does not mean dependant or not self sufficient.  I grew up poor, but my mother never accepted a dime, and we learned how to survive, indeed even thrive with the lot that life dealt us.  Having 13% poor that cannot care for themselves is a lot worse in my book than having 25% poor that know how to survive and improve themselves.

on Mar 24, 2006

The slave analysis is a bit of a stretch. For it was not until the Great Society of the 60s that black poverty became a problem.

But what I am saying is that the blacks in the 1960's, when the Great Society was introduced, had always been poor; it was just a state of being that was accepted up until the Civil Rights movement. The children of the plantations were never taught skills for upward mobility because it wasn't largely possible in the Reconstruction South, and these deficiencies were passed to their children and grandchildren who would go on to be the beneficiaries of the Great Society, which at least acknowledged there WAS a problem.

The problem is, the Great Society treated the problem as if it were best solved by throwing money at it, rather than acknowledging that the problems that caused the poverty were FAR more deep seated than anything that could be solved by writing a check. If they would have acknowledged that these were people who were culturally taught how to BE an underclass rather than how to overcome such a repressed state and geared their response more appropriately, they might have had greater success.

on Mar 24, 2006
I'd agree with your argument. Where I live noone is allowed to collect unemployment benefits for longer than six months without enrolling in some form of education or a 'work for the dole' style program. Budgetting is just one of those programs. Initially I thought it was a stupid idea (these people should be out looking for work rather than wasting time learning elementary skills) but over time it seems to have proven itself worthy, because the unemployment rate has shown some changes, particularly amongst the long-term unemployed.

I don't disagree with the slavery example either. I don't think it's racist. There are plenty of ethnic Chinese, Anglos, Viets, Hispanics etc who also are locked into the cycle of poverty through lack of access to skills. A system that increases their access to traditionally middle-class skills probably won't do any harm. It may be expensive though.
on Mar 25, 2006
We DO need to get past our insistence on dependence on the government. But we can only do so if we take the time to teach the skills that will allow such independence to be possible. Such an approach necessarily requires un-learning some hundred plus years of backwards thinking and actual involvement in the community, but I have little doubt that if a workable to helping the poor achieve self sufficiency can be done, this is the best country to do it.

Feed a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life.

The biggest problem that I see with government assistance programs is that in the name of "fairness" it treats everyone the same. Rather than analyzing a persons needs and giving them the assistance that THEY need, a "one size fits all" approach is used. Some people need to learn basic skills, some have mental health issues, some have addiction issues, some have abuse issues, some need financial assistance, and some may have a combination of issues.

We need a system that applies the correct solution for the given individual. It should be based on the premise of treating the individual for what needs to be treated, with the goal of getting them off of assistance and onto self-sufficiency in a timely fashion.
on Mar 27, 2006
But we can only do so if we take the time to teach the skills that will allow such independence to be possible.


I agree with the intent behind your article, but wouldn't support it in reality. Reason being, as much as teaching a man to fish idea has great value in my world, in this case it's still government intervention, with associated costs and added infrastructure, which I am against. Plus, someone would be deciding who gets taught and who doesn't. It's not the governments job to parent anyone, including those without parents.

What I see that relates is if church's conducted this activity as part of their normal community support contribution, with funding provided by congregations.
on Mar 27, 2006

Reason being, as much as teaching a man to fish idea has great value in my world, in this case it's still government intervention, with associated costs and added infrastructure, which I am against.

You misunderstand me, titan. I'm not suggesting that MOST of these cases be handled by the government, but rather, by PRIVATE organizations. The exception being cases such as mine, where the children "age out" in foster care. My argument is, the government assumed responsibility for my upbringing, they should have assumed responsibility for ALL of it. They didn't ALLOW parents and community support to raise me. With 580,000 children in the US foster care system, and over half of those never to see their biological parents again, this is a pressing concern that we need to recognize...and FAST! My SOLE saving grace was a judge that saw potential in me when I stood before him almost two decades ago in criminal court. He insisted those deficiencies be corrected before I became a career criminal.

on Mar 27, 2006
Gid, first this is a great, GREAT article! I saw the title last week and groaned because I assumed it would be another one of "those" articles that bemoaned the poor being poor and getting hand outs and what "we" or someone who considered themselves "above it all" think the government should or should not do. I apologise for making assumptions! Heh, and I know better than to do that!

Second, your article is so accurate in it's summation and so direct in what you're talking about. I agree with you wholeheartedly that people do need to be taught these skills and accepting this is not a hand out as so many of us like to think.

What is so wrong in people who need help accepting help? Why do people like to brag that, "oh I was poor and down but I never accepted one penny from the government". What's up with statements like that? Is is so wrong for people who really, really need help, and have no where and no one else to turn to, to accept the help that is there? I really think this is the wrong way for others to look at it. If they were able to pull themselves up without accepting any help, then more power to them. But there are so many who don't know how to do that, who never had the foundation of knowing how to go about doing something to get themselves up and out of their situation. And please don't consider the first part of my statement as a "thrashing" of anyone who has been able to do without, that isn't my intention. I'm just wondering why would it be such a shame or stigma if you had to accept the help, even if only for a moment.



Reply By: Bunnahabhain


The biggest problem that I see with government assistance programs is that in the name of "fairness" it treats everyone the same. Rather than analyzing a persons needs and giving them the assistance that THEY need, a "one size fits all" approach is used. Some people need to learn basic skills, some have mental health issues, some have addiction issues, some have abuse issues, some need financial assistance, and some may have a combination of issues.We need a system that applies the correct solution for the given individual. It should be based on the premise of treating the individual for what needs to be treated, with the goal of getting them off of assistance and onto self-sufficiency in a timely fashion.


Well said! I've always said this (not with the same words!) in discussion with others on this subject. It is unbelievable that everyone is still being treated with this "one size fits all" approach.




I agree with the intent behind your article, but wouldn't support it in reality. Reason being, as much as teaching a man to fish idea has great value in my world, in this case it's still government intervention, with associated costs and added infrastructure, which I am against. Plus, someone would be deciding who gets taught and who doesn't. It's not the governments job to parent anyone, including those without parents.


Titan, I agree it's not the government's job to parent anyone, although they do try to do it all the time, however I have to disagree with you on why you wouldn't support the intent of this article. You see, this is the very reason why nothing usually gets done or solutions are not found to these issues because the first reaction by most people is

"in this case it's still government intervention, with associated costs and added infrastructure, which I am against. Plus, someone would be deciding who gets taught and who doesn't. It's not the governments job to parent anyone, including those without parents."

And then nothing ever gets done and it's back to business as usual until some crises comes along to draw attention to the problems.


What I see that relates is if church's conducted this activity as part of their normal community support contribution, with funding provided by congregations.


Now this I agree with! Although some churches are doing this very thing. The problem though is that not enough of them are doing it. If all of them were, there would be a lot better situation for most communities in this country.

Gid, you're getting an insightful from me for such a thought provoking article. Too bad there's not too many responses on it.
on Mar 27, 2006
Reply By: Bunnahabhain


You got an insightful from me too!
on Mar 27, 2006