I agree with Margaret Thatcher - "poverty is a lack of gumption." and I disagree with Robert Bregman when he says - "poverty is a lack of cash". I believe it is not a lack of character, poverty is a lack of planning...from both the US people and politicians. I also would caution that the context in which "poverty" is used in this sentence - describes it as a permanent thing, unchanging - or incapable of change - as if it were a perpetual state of human existence for some; therefore, it should be planned around. Poverty is the result of unemployment or underemployment. It is the result of a flailing or failing industries in a region or in a country; take for example - the coal, steel, and auto industries.
Poverty in Flint, Michigan is rampant whereas this town as well as Detroit, Lansing, Grand Rapids, etc. used to boast bustling suburbs and communities for the better part of the 20th century - now these place are ghost towns with boarded-up 1950's homes in desolate neighborhoods.
Similarly, I'm originally from the Tri-State area of PA, WV, and OH. There, thousands of families and workers experienced similar lay offs from Murray coal mines and Wheeling - Pittsburgh steel mills being closed. Even the BOOM of gas drilling will be a temporary fix.
and poverty will become rampant again.
Many residents of these small towns do NOT want to leave "home." They want jobs to come back to them. They WILL work. They will NOT in many cases, relocate to the "big city" of Columbus or Pittsburgh to find jobs though.
The government has a responsibility to pave the way for NEW industries that are sustainable for the next 1-2-3 generations - such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal. The government can subsidize these industries with tax incentives, move from fossil fuels to renewables, and by and large foster these new jobs just as it does the farming, airline, and railroad industries that operate at billion dollar losses every other year and need bail outs and subsidies.
A.I. is coming - I recently saw an advertisement for "The Flippy" which is automated hamburger flipping and French fry maker. It is a robotic arm that will take the place of a slacker teenager who quits in 2 weeks anyways. Even fast food is doomed for $15 minimum wages.
America needs to invent and invest in future jobs, NOT in fatherly handouts. Not everyone wants to go to college. Not everyone wants to work at a bank. Not everyone wants to learn a trade or join the military or become a teacher or doctors and lawyers or go into STEM.
We need new industries.
My point here is - people NEED a purpose to live. Let's fix the root of the problem. There are a lack of future-proofing jobs. Our elected leaders need to come up with new ways to secure and embolden new industries for Americans.
Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful comment, Zin. I agree with the idea of lots of new, and hopefully well-paying jobs coming from the renewable resources sector. And I certainly agree that the government should encourage R and D and and construction of renewable resources thru incentives, rather than continuing to incentivize fossil fuels— but we have at least one Senator, still raking in profits from the coal industry, who has blocked this part of the infrastructure bill.
Let me point out though, what happened in Michigan—GM closed that factory and moved it to Mexico where labor is less expensive and there were few, if any environmental laws—they could discharge their waste straight into the river. So rather than pay people a living wage and take care of the town and people who hosted them, GM chose profits.
And the UBI I'm in favor of is in addtion to people working, unless they are physically or mentally unable or elderly. Yang has proposed $1,000/month to help a whole range of income levels cover the basics. I speak from first hand experience when I say that few would think it OK to live on $12,000/year.
I also get the idea that people don't want to re-locate to a larger city—I'm with them!
Great points Joan! I agree - physically or mentally unable or elderly SHOULD receive a stipend; however, I believe they ALREADY do - social security/disability (the verbiage I am rusty on). I am 100% for increasing it - $12,000 seems a "little" low in this day and age. I am opposed to the government doling out $1,000 to every man, woman, and child in America much like Alaska has done with their Pipeline Fund. This is not sustainable (as the profits were tied to the resources market share) let alone is it practical for a productive society. I work one FT job and 2 PT jobs. I'd work more if there were more hours in the week. Also - UBI does very little or nothing at all to "fix" unemployment and underemployment. The US Govt could TAX the hell out of GM and other companies for outsourcing over profits. They could INCENTIVIZE the hell out of GM as well to keep them here. Carrot or stick - you choose - I am for it. UBI is just a BAD idea for EVERYONE. Especially, when we have a robust economy, employment opportunities out the wazoo, and a government that promotes Small Business start ups. I am concerned with our care for seniors and retirees - but this is an easy fix - increase the SS allowance to say $2,000 per month - still below the poverty line - but I believe as we see our aging population increase - this will be necessary.
I agree with Margaret Thatcher - "poverty is a lack of gumption." and I disagree with Robert Bregman when he says - "poverty is a lack of cash". I believe it is not a lack of character, poverty is a lack of planning...from both the US people and politicians. I also would caution that the context in which "poverty" is used in this sentence - describes it as a permanent thing, unchanging - or incapable of change - as if it were a perpetual state of human existence for some; therefore, it should be planned around. Poverty is the result of unemployment or underemployment. It is the result of a flailing or failing industries in a region or in a country; take for example - the coal, steel, and auto industries.
Poverty in Flint, Michigan is rampant whereas this town as well as Detroit, Lansing, Grand Rapids, etc. used to boast bustling suburbs and communities for the better part of the 20th century - now these place are ghost towns with boarded-up 1950's homes in desolate neighborhoods.
Similarly, I'm originally from the Tri-State area of PA, WV, and OH. There, thousands of families and workers experienced similar lay offs from Murray coal mines and Wheeling - Pittsburgh steel mills being closed. Even the BOOM of gas drilling will be a temporary fix.
and poverty will become rampant again.
Many residents of these small towns do NOT want to leave "home." They want jobs to come back to them. They WILL work. They will NOT in many cases, relocate to the "big city" of Columbus or Pittsburgh to find jobs though.
The government has a responsibility to pave the way for NEW industries that are sustainable for the next 1-2-3 generations - such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal. The government can subsidize these industries with tax incentives, move from fossil fuels to renewables, and by and large foster these new jobs just as it does the farming, airline, and railroad industries that operate at billion dollar losses every other year and need bail outs and subsidies.
A.I. is coming - I recently saw an advertisement for "The Flippy" which is automated hamburger flipping and French fry maker. It is a robotic arm that will take the place of a slacker teenager who quits in 2 weeks anyways. Even fast food is doomed for $15 minimum wages.
America needs to invent and invest in future jobs, NOT in fatherly handouts. Not everyone wants to go to college. Not everyone wants to work at a bank. Not everyone wants to learn a trade or join the military or become a teacher or doctors and lawyers or go into STEM.
We need new industries.
My point here is - people NEED a purpose to live. Let's fix the root of the problem. There are a lack of future-proofing jobs. Our elected leaders need to come up with new ways to secure and embolden new industries for Americans.
Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful comment, Zin. I agree with the idea of lots of new, and hopefully well-paying jobs coming from the renewable resources sector. And I certainly agree that the government should encourage R and D and and construction of renewable resources thru incentives, rather than continuing to incentivize fossil fuels— but we have at least one Senator, still raking in profits from the coal industry, who has blocked this part of the infrastructure bill.
Let me point out though, what happened in Michigan—GM closed that factory and moved it to Mexico where labor is less expensive and there were few, if any environmental laws—they could discharge their waste straight into the river. So rather than pay people a living wage and take care of the town and people who hosted them, GM chose profits.
And the UBI I'm in favor of is in addtion to people working, unless they are physically or mentally unable or elderly. Yang has proposed $1,000/month to help a whole range of income levels cover the basics. I speak from first hand experience when I say that few would think it OK to live on $12,000/year.
I also get the idea that people don't want to re-locate to a larger city—I'm with them!
Great points Joan! I agree - physically or mentally unable or elderly SHOULD receive a stipend; however, I believe they ALREADY do - social security/disability (the verbiage I am rusty on). I am 100% for increasing it - $12,000 seems a "little" low in this day and age. I am opposed to the government doling out $1,000 to every man, woman, and child in America much like Alaska has done with their Pipeline Fund. This is not sustainable (as the profits were tied to the resources market share) let alone is it practical for a productive society. I work one FT job and 2 PT jobs. I'd work more if there were more hours in the week. Also - UBI does very little or nothing at all to "fix" unemployment and underemployment. The US Govt could TAX the hell out of GM and other companies for outsourcing over profits. They could INCENTIVIZE the hell out of GM as well to keep them here. Carrot or stick - you choose - I am for it. UBI is just a BAD idea for EVERYONE. Especially, when we have a robust economy, employment opportunities out the wazoo, and a government that promotes Small Business start ups. I am concerned with our care for seniors and retirees - but this is an easy fix - increase the SS allowance to say $2,000 per month - still below the poverty line - but I believe as we see our aging population increase - this will be necessary.