No amount of federal money can cure poverty in big cities

[SoCalDem]

... at least in the current way we do it... When federal money comes into cities. It comes to the leaders who then get to decide HOW the money gets spent.

People are poor because they have no money ….. They have no jobs of any consequence because rich folks closed up the factories that used to employ them. The jobs that do remain are mostly service jobs that cannot sustain a family…and to use services, you still have to have money..which they mostly don’t have.

They rent in substandard buildings because those are the only places they can afford. If money goes into rehabbing those buildings (in the form of grants to owners or tax credits), the owners will probably sell the building or raise the rents. It’s called gentrification..and it’s the modern-day “urban renewal”.

The Mom who chased down her son, has 6 kids. And probably has a hard time finding a place big enough for all those kids. Her choices of rentals is very limited. There are many people in her same situation.

The ONLY way that would work would be to set up a minimum income for all poor folks and just give them the money..without strings. Many would probably pool the money and just move to a cheaper place to live.Some might start their own small businesses...Some would not get supplemental jobs, but many would...

If every poor family got a decent subsidy, they would automatically bring up the economy of their community because they would have money to spend. It might also deter the younger folks from risking their lives to sell drugs.

The way our government works, this will never happen though, because we refuse to believe that any of us are complicit in the problem, and the last thing our government wants to do is to pay people who do not “deserve it”. The group think is that people are failures ( i.e.poor) because they do not try hard enough or they did it to themselves.

Poverty is multi-generational because children DO learn what they live. By the time a child is 9 or 10, they pretty much know how their life will be, based on what they see in their family. If they are a poor child (urban or rural) most probably know that their “big job” might be clerking at a store or in an office locally. College is a pipedream for most.

If FREE college was at the end of high school for all poor students with a B average, school might be more appealing, and might break the cycle…but we are pennywise and pound foolish, so we will do nothing…just like we always have done.

Except for cutting assistance, closing schools, and locking people up in jail

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. But, but if they only voted!!!

Here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6598101

A lot of people do not get it. Not one bit. So it is what it is.

[SoCalDem]

2. Many have lost their right to vote

due to incarcerations..

Perhaps Cummings & others can spur Baltimore residents to see how much voting cam accomplish.. Ms. Mosby was elected.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. And many simply gave up

I hear ya, but this is complex and people here seem unable to want to listen as to why folks really do not give a shit about voting in many a case.

[ananda]

7. Add voter ID laws and voter suppression tactics ...

... targeted at all poor people and students.

[ladjf]

4. ... but a much higher minimum wage would be a good start. nt

[appalachiablue]

5. K & R. Thoughful & well written article. Guaranteed minimum income would help-

There are so many problems now, 30-40 years worth and it didn't have to be this way, all man made. But it's what we have to deal with, or some of us-

[jwirr]

6. I like this but agree with you that Congress will never do it. They need to be reelected. The only

way this will ever happen is just like the safety programs from the Great Depression did. Everyone was in trouble and the country was threatening to dump both parties. Only if the PTB and the rich are forced to listen will it happen and I shudder to think of the many deaths of the protesters that would take.

[dembotoz]

8. if there are no jobs minimum wage don't mean shit

I live in a @10.000 house suburb
We have
1taco bell
2 dq
2 mc dons
2 subways
1 cousins subs
3 chinesse buffets
1 costco
1 meijers (opens next month)
1 pick n save--large grocery
1 sendiks--large grocery
1 piggly wiggly--large grocery
1 target
1 aldis
1 homedepot
1 best buy
more banks than taverns--saying something here in wisconsin....
1 shopko (think kinda like target)
some more retail and chain restaurants
did i mention pizza? all the chains and some independents
a tourist area---get the idea?
lots of business with lots of jobs

Now find me a central city neighborhood in milwaukee with similar numbers of business

ain't gonna happen
same number of houses, maybe similar population and no where near the same number of jobs

lets blame the poor for not having jobs that do not exist

[SoCalDem]

10. I did not advocate a minimum wage.. I said income subsidy

Poor would be free (the no strings part) to still work to make more, but at the very least they would be guaranteed a higher income than many have now..

Minimum wage is meaningless, unless there is a job for you.

[daredtowork]

9. "The Poor Will Always Be With Us"

As a recipient of services, a see a lot that can be done on the ground level, but there is a lack of political will to get anything done and no way to communicate what needs to be done. Yes, giving people a "mincome" would be the easiest and most direct solution: but as you pointed out, politics and prejudice won't allow that. So we do need to do things the hard way and work with the system we have.

One of the most important things that can be done is to empower the recipients of services with more feedback/pushback mechanisms. Right now everything is unilateral. The most ridiculous absurdities can be inflicted on recipients of welfare programs, and there is nothing they can do about it: no accountability measures relate to the success from the point of the client. There need to be more advocates and checkpoints in the system to make sure it works "upward", not just all the cuts and fraud checks and human error that weigh "downward".

Society can usually get on board with basic human needs, as opposed to "money" - re: "housing", "food", "health care", etc. Perhaps if we can get back to the idea of the case worker as someone who addresses those things on a case-by-case basis...?

The argument would then be: "Arg, but there are TOO MANY POOR PEOPLE...!!!"

This is where the system is really failing, and where the poor need to be able to talk back. The employment system is an epic fail for certain categories of people: the disabled, people who have been in prison, older job seekers...any one who would have "strikes" against them in a tight job market, and thus have "gaps in their resume" on top of that. In your job seeking efforts all you get is a lot of resume advice and attempts to help you "come across better" to employers. Somewhere at the HR stage you might get a boost if you're in a protected class, but you still have to get past the hiring manager first. This is not efficient, and people with employable skills are left out of the workforce for years because of it. If you complain about it, everyone throws their arms up because this is just the way the world works: nothing can be done.

Any system that fails to employ so many educated and skilled people should be making some attempt to change. I believe that the changes need to start happening on the business side. They should acknowledge that it is exhausting and unfair for potential employees from classes with "many strikes" to continually be hurling themselves up against a brick wall and instead make more efforts to reach out and make bridges TO them: hold DIRECT HIRE job fairs. Make the process simple and fast. Compensate for the fact these people have been sending resumes into the void for YEARS. Hold fairs for GOOD jobs - don't make the assumption that people who have been excluded from the workforce are all uneducated and unskilled. This is my immediate answer to poverty: stop the B.S. with the job searching, start considering that the people who haven't been able to get work this way for a matter of years might have a valid complaint about the SYSTEM, and just HIRE a lot of people. Also, sweeping the whole recruiter/temp system out of the way and bringing back employment agencies would be helpful, too.

That should leave a much lower caseload of the truly unemployable for social workers to deal with, and they will be able to perform on the flexible wrap-around approach described above.