Last spring at my son's high school graduation party, we had set up a zone in the backyard with a volleyball court as a place for the kids to gather while the older folks visited on picnic tables in the garage out front. The purpose for the segregation was not so much to isolate youth culture from the old, but to absorb the exuberance of the graduates into things healthy, at least for a time.
My son's friends are all good kids, and after satisfying my role as host with family and friends, I went out back to spend some time with them. Amid all the usual banter, the graduates got around to speaking of what they wanted to do with their lives. Of almost 30 kids, 25 of them wanted to work in the social services, social activism or environmental activism.
I was shocked. Certainly geography was a factor, our small town of Northfield Minnesota is home to two elite liberal colleges which has a profound influence on the culture of kids, but 25 out of 30? No business and accounting majors, no cops, no firefighters or plumbers?
I was intrigued; a few questions revealed that some had volunteered at homeless shelters in the Twin Cities, some taught English as a second language in Northfield and others had done activist work with churches and social organizations.
I pointed out that accountants, project managers and administrators in the rear echelons of social service are just as crucial as those on the line but this caused the enthusiasm to wane perceptibly; so I put the question to them straight up, "Do you want to help or do you want people to be helped?" Being clever kids who knew a trick question when they saw one, they answered this politically correct.
Stated another way, I asked a more pointed question whether what they wanted was for people to do well or for people to be helped. Again, the question was answered correctly but having become a damper on the party I wished them well and returned to the garage under the pretext of retrieving more soft drinks for the cooler.
My experience was quite different than that of these suburban kids. After growing up in the blast zone of The War on Poverty, I went on to work for several decades in the business of criminal justice, and in doing so gained a unique view on the carnage, burn-out, incompetence, miracles and success of social service and criminal justice systems.
The central question of our human services system is very much "Do we want to do well for people or do we want people to do well?" The two are not the same.
Take for example the kids volunteering at a homeless shelter. I fully understand the maturing value of having kids give of themselves and experience poverty. I fully understand the value of kids who have been given everything to at least witness the plight of people who have nothing, but I question, why would a homeless shelter be in need of labor?
As evidence by these kids, Social Justice Groups do quite well at increasing the level of compassion in society, but do they increase the level of good in the process? Central to the current political debate is how the question of compassion has been translated into funding rather than to a focus on results. In other words, we obscure the debate over how much people are helped by focusing on how much we should spend helping.
Instead of debating the level of funding for programs we should be focused on measures of how well people are doing, then identify outcomes against which both private and public initiatives are measured.
Finally as wonderful as they are, people who are consumed with issues of social justice need to do a better job on the quality of love and compassion rather than the intensity of it.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 95
For example my 31 year old daughter graduated from high school in the suburbs of DC and her friends were much like your son's friends. Many now work here in the DC area with associations, foundations etc though few of them at a personal on-the-street level.
On contrast, the friends of my son, now 25, who spent his teen years in a different sort of environment entirely, on the Delaware Atlantic coast, had a wider focus and became everything from enterpreneurs to PhDs in Biology to Paramedics.
Was it simply a function of my offspring's personality and thus the group to which they gravitated? The society in which they found thenselves? I'm not certain.
But now I'm curious and will want to dig a bit deeper. Thanks for the push in this direction.
So it seems to me that Greg's question comes down to this: "Do we want people to get what's best for them by having it given to them, or do we want people to get what's best for them by getting it for themselves." The liberal answer is typically the first: create a government program/agency/initiative to solve the problem. The conservative answer is typically to create the conditions where the person can do for themself. Same goal, two methods.
Nothing occurs in a vacuum. The War of Poverty was a direct result of American cities burning during the race riots of the 60's and third world poverty in a segregated south and slum riddled cities. The Depression era New Deal, the rise of unions, minimum wage and work standards were the result of the need to circulate money out of the hands of few into the hands of many and stop a growing threat of serious civil unrest, potential rise of communism and class warfare. That subsequent reallocation of money led to the creation of a middle class and has fueled the consumer economy which made America the strongest nation in history. The current attempt to crush unions and divide the nation into haves and have nots brings us back to the sandy ground of the Hoover Admin. (They called the railyard shantys "Hoovervilles" for a reason.)
The results orientated concept of aid is far more expensive to monitor than simply throwing money into programs run by pointy headed liberals. At least it used to be. Maybe with computers and communications it will work better.
Prevention is the best cure, more needs to be done to prevent social ills.
Greg's thesis (helping people vs. creating an atmosphere for people to help themselves) is merely a repackaging of the old conservative chestnut that maintains welfare provides an incentive for people not to work. Of course, this bit of propaganda is exploded by reality: the vast majority of people on welfare leave it within 2 years. This means, contrary to conservative 'wisdom,' most folks use welfare as intended--as a stopgap measure to tide them over during times of economic distress.
There is a perverse message Greg and his acolyte, Seth, are trying to advance--that welfare recipients are basically scam artists, content to collect public monies and refusing to work. Again, reality belies this message; welfare simply isn't a desirable lifestyle. In most cases, to live on welfare is to live below the poverty line. Seth tells us conservatives differentiate themselves from liberals by creating an atmosphere for people to help themselves. When? Liberal administrations have had a far better record on unemployment and have produced better national economic results than conservative administrations. And conservatives are deadset against raising the minimum wage which is the height of hypocrisy. If you want people to work--why won't you pay them a living wage?
Of course, there are many other examples of conservative compassion such as the 45M children who don't have access to health insurance and the like.
While our welfare system isn't perfect---it works. The historical evidence isn't in dispute. When FDR's New Deal initiatives were implemented, fully half of all Americans flirted with poverty; these figures hit the elderly particularly hard. 66% of the nation's seniors lived below the poverty line. By the 1950's--only about 20% were living in poverty. LBJ's Great Society programs cut that number in half. So, while there are too many people living at or below the poverty line today--it can't be denied many more would be were it not for social programs.
Ms. Harris write that for better or worse children, especially older children, are more influenced by their peers than by their parents. I attribute such a high percentage of kids wanting to be involved in social services to the subtle pressures and rewards of being in their particular peer group,...and as a product of the peer culture of their high school and community.
Hey, I am not complaining but it is interesting to watch unfold. Of all the fads they could have chosen, service to their community is one hell of a great one to select.
The best way to explain would be to quote the administrator interviewed by ABC News at (I believe) the Houston Astro Dome during the Katrina Crisis. He explained his mission as "putting his operation out of business as quickly as possible"; which he subsequently did.
He could have put himself in the business of helping Katrina victims for eternity but chose to focus the mission on the result of getting people out of the system as quickly as possible. There is a subtle but critical difference between the focus on what is good for the client and what is good for the agency. That difference makes all the difference.
And, let's not forget the biggest New Deal program. It helps all of us. Social Security.
The conservatives and liberals are not on the same side: Conservatives don't give a hoot if people are helped.
1) Government agencies most often express their mission in terms of service rather than terms of outcome.
2) Eisenhower's farewell address should have warned of more than just the military/industrial complex. Government is full of complexes that place their own agendas before public interest.
3) Governments cannot legally discriminate. While it should be illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, sex and so on, it should not be to deny a person benefits that are not beneficial to them.
4) Government must begin doing Social Impact Assessments of social programs to recognize and quantify the negative impacts of social programs.
Actually, it goes back further than that. In the early 1970's, I worked at the Faribault State Hospital in Minnesota during a time where "it was putting itself out of business". Faribault housed "retarded" people, most of who were remarkably adjusted to working in the hospital.
Though the de-institutionalization of the mentally ill was a resounding failure, the de-institutionalization of the mentally disadvantaged was a resounding success.
One of my favorite stories of the period goes like this: soon after the Faribault Hospital began paying its patients for work and allowing the basic right of being able to "walk around", a bartender called to say that two gentlemen from the hospital were at his bar ordering a beer. Taking the call, the director replied, "well then you better serve them or face a lawsuit".
Much of the problem with the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill came out of this same wonderful attitude. While the mentally disadvantaged were still wards of the state, the courts ruled that the mentally ill once released could not legally be bound to stay in treatment and the community oriented aspect of the program disintegrated.
Would that make them infidels?
Seriously, anyone who grew up in my neighborhood in the 50's, 60's, and 70's knows full well the horrible transformation that occurred there and in similar neighborhoods around the nation. In the 1950's, it was red-lining and racial discrimination that oppressed people, but as oppressed as they were they still lived in mostly intact families. By the mid-1970's, illegitimacy grew from one-third of families to two-thirds and by the late 1990's, illegitimacy pretty much clear-cut two-parent families from the area with census tracts running as high as 90% single-parent households.
Skyrocketing illegitimacy and drug-use is what drives the underclass; the same problems that drive the underclass in the socialist influenced countries of France, Germany, England and Sweden.
Conservatives focus on the dysfunction of the culture which creates problems like illegitimacy, drug-use and rampant senseless violence. These problems are cultural problems that will only be changed by people changing themselves. In this regard, conservatives are focused on the disease and liberals are focused on the symptoms.
The disease is the prejudice they face daily. The llives they lead are the symptoms of despair.
Sorry, I do not buy that for an instant.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the majority of African-Americans are middle-class. The single greatest determining factor for child poverty is NOT race, it is whether the parents are married.
If your thesis were true than logically one would see a decline in illegitimacy and drug-use as the effects of racism declined. Quite the reverse has happened.
You also have to realize that illegitimacy and drug-use has increased among people who are not African Americans, it increased along the same track in the chart though at a lower level than affected black folks.
To what do you attribute this?
Your discussion of unions, of haves and have nots contains a delicious irony. The single largest pool of capital is owned by union pension funds, ironically, (or not ironically) by civil servants pension funds....the very people who are charged with implementing these programs.
The wealthy no longer own the majority of wealth, institutional investors do. The largest single institutional investor is CALPERS,a California civil servants pension fund.
Poverty and single-parenthood are not isolated. Single-parenting causes poverty; if not poverty, a great drop in income.
As racism has decined? DECLINED? Give me a break. It might be better than in the 1950s, but talk to anybody non-white and ask them if racism has declined.
I certainly hope you are never in a position where you have nothing but to rely on federal funds.
You state things as if they are true. They are only your opinion.
And this is why I don't get involved in political discussion. Grrrr!
Delined does not mean eliminated. The meaning of the word declined is "to become less in amount and degree". Your thesis on racism being the cause of illegitimacy, drug-use and violence would suggest that these problems should have peaked during the worst of racism around the beginning of the 20th century and steadily declined since then. The precise opposite has happened with illegitimacy, drug-use and violence being at a low point at the turn of the 20th century and a high point at the turn of the 21st century.
When a thesis runs counter to the facts, one can either continue pounding a square peg into a round hole or look for another thesis. The fact that illegitimacy, drug-use and violence has risen in the majority population as well as the minority population and has risen in countries like England, Germany, Sweden, Italy and France would suggest that another mechanism is at work; one that hits everyone but hits minorities harder.
You will find the mechanism that influences these problems here -> The Great Disruption by Francis Fukuyama.
Social Justice should not about keeping faith; it should only be about the quality of results not about the quality or quantity of activists or activism.
I have a very different view on the social programs, both as a person who has witnessed the results of poverty programs from the ground-level and from the position of an analyst in government. I have seen a Model Cities program spend $350 million to move a ghetto 7 blocks north so that mostly liberal people (like Garrison Keillor) could move into a gentrified neighborhood. I have seen a school system "lose" $500 million that was supposed to be spent on advancing minority test scores. I have witnessed first hand the effects of the "No Man In The House Rule" as well as watched a neighborhood that was once vibrant and livable descend into violence, fatherlessness and drug-addition.
These things were not caused by racism. These things were caused by the ill-effects of programs with no clear vision of what it is that they were supposed to accomplish.
By the 1980's, the majority of Americans realized that government programs were simply not measuring up to expectations and we as a nation seemed to have been stuck right there with the left trying to "keep the faith" and the right moving the question to one of culture.
I started out as a very liberal person but the intransigence of liberal and progressive thought has turned me and so many others in a conservative direction because it seems that is where most of the new thinking is these days.
I have hope that we can all at least agree on what the results should be and move forward from there.
Exactly, now we agree on something.
How do you propose the nation return to an illegitmacy rate of...say the beginning of the war on poverty, 15% among white folks and 35% among black folks?
No rightwing attack on welfare is complete without the obligatory attempt to link welfare to black illegitimacy.
But like most of Greg's factoids--it is more rightwing smoke and mirrors. What if I were to tell you the black illegitmacy rate has been virtually the same since the 1920s? It's a fact. 80% of the increase in black illegitimate births as a *proportion* of overall black births is explained by an increase in married employed black women deciding to have fewer children. The rate of babies born to unwed black teenagers remains virtually unchanged from 1920 through the present day.
Further, Greg omits to note that illegitimacy doesn't correlate very well to welfare. Study after study shows increases in illegitimacy rates over all correspond across all income levels--not just the poor.
One of the comments begins with the following: "So many fallacies, misrepresentations, and falsehoods in this article--it's difficult to catalog them all". Actually the same can be said about the comment itself.
For the person who originally commented to state the following is self-serving.
"Of course, this bit of propaganda is exploded by reality: the vast majority of people on welfare leave it within 2 years. This means, contrary to conservative 'wisdom,' most folks use welfare as intended--as a stopgap measure to tide them over during times of economic distress"
It neglects the fact that since 1996 welfare reform legislation changed Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The 1996 reforms eliminated welfare's "entitlement" status and ending the automatic "right" to benefits. If one is able-bodied, and need assistance, you now have to get training or work to receive benefits. Since 1996, welfare is temporary assistance. It is a safe bet that Liberals did not do this on their own.
The current unemployment rate is approximately 4.8%. That is defined as full employment. The current economic boom is the best in the last 20 years (GAO report ). If I remember correctly a Democratic Liberal government was in power prior to the year 2000.
The Federal minimum wage is indeed low, and it has been that way since1991. Many states have increased the minimum wage far above that of the Federal government. Furthermore there is quite a bit or research that demonstrates not only the political, rather than the actual benefits of an increased wage, and explores the myths related to this panacea. I refer you to "The Minimum Wage: Washington's Perennial Myth" by Matthew B. Kibbe , a fellow at the Center for the Study of Market Processes, George Mason University, and to the detailed analysis by Donald Deere, Kevin M. Murphy, and Finis Welch entitled "Sense and Nonsense on the Minimum Wage".
You state that "…there are the 45M children who don't have access to health insurance." The 45 million Children number is wrong. There are 45 million uninsured Americans, not all of whom are children. As important , and something neglected in the comment, is the following report:
The Census Bureau said the percentage of the nation's population without health insurance coverage grew to 15.6 in 2003 from 15.2 percent in 2002. But the NCPA says the rise in both the number of people with and without health insurance is explained by growth in the overall population. While the exact number of people without health insurance has grown, the percent of the population without health insurance has remained in the 15-percent range. According to a National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) analysis of the just-released Census report:: "The number of people with health insurance increased by 1 million people in 2003, to 243.3 million, or 84.4 percent of the population. The number of people without health insurance grew by 1.4 million, or 15.6 percent of the population, and the proportion of children who were uninsured did not change, remaining at 11.4 percent of all children, or 8.4 million in 2003. (Susan Jones CNSNews.com Morning Editor August 27, 2004)
Finally in the sam ecomment, it was stated that. "So, while there are too many people living at or below the poverty line today--it can't be denied many more would be were it not for social programs." Perhaps it would be best if this statement were revised to read : So, while there are too many people living at or below the poverty line today--it can't be denied many are there because of poorly run social programs.
Another comment suggested that the homeless problem is, at least to a certain extent, the result of releasing the mentally ill from hospitals. This allegedly resulted in an exponential increase in the homeless population. The statement below is partially correct, but not in toto.
"… The homeless population swelled since the 1980s because state mental hospitals released vast numbers of patients in the community, on the assumption they would be able to help themselves and live in the community. Many homeless people are seriously mentally ill, many are schizophrenic….. So, from hospitals too cheap to continue long term care for patients to people who complain that the homeless are a blight on our society, we have to look at who the homeless are: incapable of caring for themselves, for the most part."
The closing of hospitals represented an economic as well as a new and different approach mental health care. The idea was to "mainstream" the mentally ill into small facilities within the community, thereby reducing the stigma of hospitalization, and at the same time improving the quality of care and saving millions of dollars. It was the theory at the time that small facilities would have better outcomes than larger hospitals. If you have ever visited or worked in a large mental health hospital ,you would know that many were no better than the "snake pits" depicted in the movie of the same name. They were under funded, understaffed and overpopulated islands of insanity. The idea of closing the hospitals, and treating the patients in the community fell victim to the law of unintended consequences. The major consequence was that communities did not want, and still do not want, mental health facilities in the neighborhoods – small programs or otherwise. The opposition to these facilities, coupled to the lack of funds for the program, basically killed the idea. This not only happened in the United States, but it also happened in Italy.
While these events may explain some of the increase in the homeless population, they cannot explain it all. Much blame must be laid on lax community loitering laws, the ACLU - whose determination that the rights of the homeless are of more importance than the rights of the population at large baffles me, and police who cannot enforce vagrancy laws. All of these result in a system that cannot actually help the homeless. They help them in the same way that an alcoholic is "helped "by his or her enabler.
There have always been homeless people. Years ago they were called bums, or hoboes or vagrants. That is not politically correct today, so these people are lumped together as homeless. Are there truly needy people who need a help finding a home or shelter? Certainly there are. However the reasons for this cannot be tied to mental illness or poverty in many cases. To do so actually discriminates against the individuals and families who really need a temporary helping hand, and whose mental health stress may stem more from dealing with incompetent bureaucrats than anything else..
On a lighter note, I do admire the perspicacity of the homeless who spend the summers in the Catskills and the winters in Florida. Many folks who work cannot do that routinely.
Uh Jade..........no one has said a word about welfare here....but you. No one has said anything about a "link" between "black illegitimacy "and "welfare" but you.
How do you intend to spin away the rise in black single parent families?
source
Rather than attempting to deny such readily verifiable facts, might it not be better to explore policies to correct the problem?
See PBS: Daniel Patrick Moynihan Interview
It's evident you've never supported a wife and three kids on $5.15 per hour. Given the right wing logic, they are perhaps lesser humans who are capable of or deserving no better. Trouble is the Constitution again and the 14th Amendment guaranteeing everyone the right to vote. So you see, the poor will always be with you, and they are a force to be reckoned with. The 14th Amendment is the silver spike in the conservative heart and wriggle as you may, it cannot be escaped.
The great bugaboo of slatternly black women with a herd of children sucking up welfare dollars is the poster child of right wing nightmare. Ditch the old man, get me some chillins and I gets the welfare check. There are those out there, for certain. There are white ones, Latino and Oriental too. Where there is a hole in a system, there will be those who exploit it. Kind of like Ken Lay, Skilling and the rest of the Enron boys. How many billions of welfare checks would they amount to?
To the conservative, we are not our brother's keeper. To the liberal, and I believe to the Constitution, we are. The conservative solution to the eternal poor is buck up, do what you can and be quiet about it. Nobody gave me anything, and I never asked for it, you can do the same. If you don't like it, move to some other country. If you get desperate, hungry, live in a stinking ghetto and commit a crime, I'm happy to spend zillions building prisons and zillions more to keep you there.
It behooves us as a nation to actively raise up the whole population and spend the money necessary. Programs succeed and programs fail. But we must keep trying and investing in Americans. That is the road to peace and prosperity, the first steps paved by Franklin Roosevelt.
I love it when people make assumptoins. I lived in a cold water flat where the toilet froze in the Winter because we (my wife and 1st child) could not afford a heater. Three years later, I redeemed found soda bottles near the end of the month so that i could feed my then 3 children. All of tihs was done between working my way through undergraduate, and then graduate school. Fially after 8 years, I got a job, borrowed the down payment on house, and became successful.
Deal with that!
Should we not define what it is we want to achieve before we advocate spending money?
What exactly do you suggest we spend money on?
All programs are neither complete failures or complete successes. The principal of intervention should be the first point of agreement. Do Americans, and consequently the govenment, have the responsibility to "promote the common good?"
Sam, you are rushing to an extreme to avoid the middle ground. May I suggest that the same number of conservatives want to totally eliminate government social programs as the number of progressives who advocate government ownership of the means of production?
The argument does not rest in the extremes; it rests on the effectiveness and harmful consequences of current programs.
My point in this article is to suggest that both the left and right can agree on the middle ground of setting specific outcomes then tailoring both government and non-governmental programs to achieve these results. We can then measure the effectiveness of programs against stated goals.
Apologies accepted, and thank you.
In answer to your question, yes we do. Americans are the government, in our representative political system, and all of us have a stake in providing the best we can to all citizens. Most disagreements have origins in how this is best accomplished. Conservatives - and I am one – believe that handouts may make the person giving the hand out feel better momentarily, but in the long run denigrate the individual to whom the hand out was given. We believe that limits and boundaries define character and values. Character and values, in turn, determine how one lives their life. Why do I believe so strongly that limits and boundaries are necessary?
Perhaps an example might clarify my position: What High School or College teacher is most remembered by most Students? The usual answer often is " Mr. or Mrs. X, and they were the meanest, most demanding, strictest teacher in the school". Well then why were they the ones remembered? The response usually is "Because they made me work, and I hated him/her at the time. Today I am thankful they were like that."
This happened in the residential adolescent treatment programs we operated. We held debriefings in the largest room in the program. All staff attended, as did all residents. The objective was to give the staff feedback on how they were providing care. Everyone understood that honesty was valued, and that there would be no consequences to either staff or residents if the feedback was less than positive. We saw it as a training and quality assurance opportunity. It was also a way to help the residents and staff understands that communications work. Invariably, the toughest, strictest staff was always applauded – literally and figuratively. When asked why this was the case the response was pretty similar to the students above. The best staff made them work, did not let them slide. Consequently staff helped them to fee that they – the residents – were changing their lives from delinquents, substance abusers and victims to productive teens with a future.
I know this is a long way to say that in thinking about the issues Greg explored, my conclusions are pretty much the same. We must help people understand that they must work to feel better. That work can be many different things, and needs to comport with an individual's ability. A successful Therapeutic Community in Los Angeles was named Tuum Est – Latin for "It's up to you" It really is.. Social programs need to promote this in every manner.
To reiterate, we do have a responsibility to assist those in need, and to help them to better their lives. Where we may differ is how that is best accomplished. We can probably discuss that for the next year or so and still not necessarily agree on the how of it.
As Mary so simply, and beautifully, said: teach a man to fish...
To make the statement that most African Americans are middle class accomplishes two things. First, it leads your readers to conclude that you are somehow shielded from reality, and second, it calls into question every other statistic and fact that you utter. It is a rediculous claim. Drive through the miles and miles of depressing poverty in South Central LA, the Roxbury section of Boston or the comparable areas of most other cities and you will see the absence of opportunity that most African Americans ever have to aspire to middle class status.
Also, whenever someone rightfully points out that wealth in this country is currently being transferred from the middle class to the wealthy, you bring up the fact that one pension fund or another has a greater accumulation of wealth than anyone. This is the classic bait and switch tactic. Pension funds are really companies, just like most charities are really companies. The fact that one has a great amount of assets presumably owned by California public employees, in itself, means nothing. This information is useless without knowing how many employees are involved and how their individual shares compare with what they used to be. But, here again, Greg, do you really expect people to believe that the pensions of these people are going to somehow prove that the wealthy in this country are not sucking up money like a black hole gone wild.
The wealthy make money through their corporate interests on most of the dollars that the government spends, and it is spending like mad. They have made far too much money on windfall profits in such industries as pharmaceuticals and oil. They have benefited far too much from the tax cuts, which were inapropriate to say the least. And every day we read of more examples of their insatiable greed. The size of teachers' pension funds are not going to overcome these facts - but perhaps the most intriguing question is why are you and Seth and Jerry, etc., etc., etc., willing to be shills for these reprobates?
How many years of re-distributive policies have we had, yet the poor are still poor. A wise man would realize that this sort of social engineering isn't workind so well.
I am curious why your first impulse was to dismiss rather than research the concept of African-American success; this impulse is at the center of the inability to implement effective social programs.
Using 2003 Census Data, we find that 5% of African-Americans households make over $109,148, 20% make over $61,824, 40% make over $38,000 and 60% make over $22,690.
According to the Census, the lower boundary of the middle-class is defined as twice the rate of poverty which for a family of four is $34,926, a number that falls comfortably in the middle of African-American median household income.
Oddly, I find little "opportunity" in my suburb of the Twin Cities. That is why I drive, bicycle and bus to my work location 18 miles away. Not oddly, so do also the substantial minority population who are my neighbors.
Pension funds are not "companies" they are trust boards who manage assets in "trust" for the people who own the assets.
It was my hope that rational people who are interested in facts rather than ideology would quickly pick up from these facts that wealth is being transferred to non-taxable pension and trust funds at a greater level than it is being transferred to wealthy people.
Yes, but institutional investors such as pension funds and charitable trusts are making more money off of corporate investments than "the wealthy".
It is also my hope that people who are truly interested in Social Justice would focus on the optimism of goals and outcomes rather than wallow in the politics of envy and alienation.
I disagree with that assessment. While the design of federal programs may have been with good intentions, the evidence suggests that the intentions were not to produce productive citizens.
The intentions were to improve the living conditions, not the opportunities of the poor. The very term "Entitlement" was created to undercut the pride which prevented people from taking "hand-outs".
With the exception of programs like The JOB CORPS (aimed mostly at young people), there were few programs oriented toward education, training and the cultural change that was the key to success.
So, we DO have something in common, you and I.
I, too have an African-American brother-in-law. Though racism may not be as bad as before Civil Rights, I still think it is very strong. More on that in upcoming articles from me.
:)
Yes, and no matter how high taxes were in the bad ole liberal days, the rich were still rich.
Quite simply redistributing wealth makes for a healthier society than an economic elite lording it over a rapidly disappearing middle class and using it's wealth and power to sustain itself in that position.
The culprits, as stated in at least one long post, are "Corporations", those entrenched barons of greed that feed on the little people. How dare they want profits, how dare they ask for less taxes, how dare they demand that employees even work. God have they no souls!
Would that there were small companies that offered wholesome work places, high salaries, great benefits, and products that would feed, cloth and equip the world. Then we would not need corporations so large that they employ as many as 100,000 to 150,000 people, demeaning them with productive work, reimbursed overtime, and health care that in most cases is either free or represents a very small part of salaries.
Let's see how we can do this, and make the more humane contributors to this discussion more comfortable. Let's start with the energy companies. We need to develop smaller energy companies. That's it, we need to find a way to explore for oil, go where it is, build platform in deep water, and bring that oil to market, but only if we can find a small company – your know a Mom and Pop – that can do this. Never mind that jack-up rigs cost $200,000/day, drilling platforms costs multiple millions, many wells are dry, or that some product needs excessive work to make cleaner burning fuel. I cannot think of a way to do this, but we must stop the success of these big oil companies who provide the materials for our power, our plastics, our building materials and our incomes. They are too successful anyway.
Wal-Mart and all the stores like them are too big Let's tax them out of existence, and the hell with those people who work there and the other ones who shop there because items sold there are cheaper than elsewhere. Who are these people who want cheap goods? Don't they know they are only helping the Chinese take over America? God! What is with these people? What we need are small stores on every street corner, even in residential neighborhoods. Then we can show these corporations that we do not need them, and they can all close. Cities and counties who garner taxes from the sales in these stores are just as bad as the stores, so the hell with them too!
Next the big car companies have got to go. Who need these cars anyway? They are too expensive, and cause too much pollution. We can use skateboards, bicycles, roller skates and legs to get us where we are going. It's a good way to meet your neighbors. More car companies should be like the small company that makes the Saleen. Each car is hand made by true artisans, and not that robotic production that screws things up. Small companies are good. So what if we have to pay more for things made by small companies. It's good for America. The base price on a new Saleen is $765,000, because these poor fellows can only make 50 cars each year. General Motors could learn from these folks. Probably their unions could learn too.
Pharmaceutical companies are the worst. They have destroyed hospitals by making these fancy drugs that allow patients to be treated outside of the hospital, thereby eliminating much needed health care jobs. The problem is that a $100.00 prescription serves to take the place of a $1100/day hospital bed. What a waste! So what if the latest research by Tufts University and a recent publication in the Journal of Health Economics certifies that the average cost of bringing a new drug to market is $802,000,000 and take 10-12 years. Too bad! Is it our problem that it us necessary to sell at least 4,000,000 prescriptions at $200 each before breaking even. Come to think of it, after breaking even the drugs should be free anyway. What is this profit nonsense?
See, eliminating big, bad, corporations, and all those nasty people who benefit from them is not difficult. Let me know when you start on this project, as I would like to be kept informed or your progress.
The culprits, as stated in at least one long post, are "Corporations", those entrenched barons of greed that feed on the little people. How dare they want profits, how dare they ask for less taxes, how dare they demand that employees even work. God have they no souls!
Would that there were small companies that offered wholesome work places, high salaries, great benefits, and products that would feed, cloth and equip the world. Then we would not need corporations so large that they employ as many as 100,000 to 150,000 people, demeaning them with productive work, reimbursed overtime, and health care that in most cases is either free or represents a very small part of salaries.
Let's see how we can do this, and make the more humane contributors to this discussion more comfortable. Let's start with the energy companies. We need to develop smaller energy companies. That's it, we need to find a way to explore for oil, go where it is, build platform in deep water, and bring that oil to market, but only if we can find a small company – your know a Mom and Pop – that can do this. Never mind that jack-up rigs cost $200,000/day, drilling platforms costs multiple millions, many wells are dry, or that some product needs excessive work to make cleaner burning fuel. I cannot think of a way to do this, but we must stop the success of these big oil companies who provide the materials for our power, our plastics, our building materials and our incomes. They are too successful anyway.
Wal-Mart and all the stores like them are too big Let's tax them out of existence, and the hell with those people who work there and the other ones who shop there because items sold there are cheaper than elsewhere. Who are these people who want cheap goods? Don't they know they are only helping the Chinese take over America? God! What is with these people? What we need are small stores on every street corner, even in residential neighborhoods. Then we can show these corporations that we do not need them, and they can all close. Cities and counties who garner taxes from the sales in these stores are just as bad as the stores, so the hell with them too!
Next the big car companies have got to go. Who need these cars anyway? They are too expensive, and cause too much pollution. We can use skateboards, bicycles, roller skates and legs to get us where we are going. It's a good way to meet your neighbors. More car companies should be like the small company that makes the Saleen. Each car is hand made by true artisans, and not that robotic production that screws things up. Small companies are good. So what if we have to pay more for things made by small companies. It's good for America. The base price on a new Saleen is $765,000, because these poor fellows can only make 50 cars each year. General Motors could learn from these folks. Probably their unions could learn too.
Pharmaceutical companies are the worst. They have destroyed hospitals by making these fancy drugs that allow patients to be treated outside of the hospital, thereby eliminating much needed health care jobs. The problem is that a $100.00 prescription serves to take the place of a $1100/day hospital bed. What a waste! So what if the latest research by Tufts University and a recent publication in the Journal of Health Economics certifies that the average cost of bringing a new drug to market is $802,000,000 and take 10-12 years. Too bad! Is it our problem that it us necessary to sell at least 4,000,000 prescriptions at $200 each before breaking even. Come to think of it, after breaking even the drugs should be free anyway. What is this profit nonsense?
See, eliminating big, bad, corporations, and all those nasty people who benefit from them is not difficult. Let me know when you start on this project, as I would like to be kept informed or your progress.
The pattern of logic dates back to the beginnings of the industrial age. It was the currency used to justify early London sweatshops and Chicago meat packers. It was used to justify American slavery, for paying Central American tyrants for bananas and today sweatshops for those cheap Vietnamese shirts in WalMart. It's the logic that's caused countless small town to become no more that gas stations and supercenters. It was the prevalent concept in the coal mines and just about everywhere else before Oct. 29, 1929.
Rampant, unrestricted capitalism is socially unsustainable. There is no example of it remaining active and growing long term. Wealth gets concentrated and consumer spending decreases in a continuing cycle until social revolution. Ask the Russians. It is inherently impossible in a Democracy where everyone can vote. Those whose merit enables them to be successful predators may find this reality unjust but real it is.
I was using paradox and sarcasm to make a point. Capitalism is the underlying process in the United States. It may come as a surprise to you, but your first paragraph is right on the money. It's my money and I actually can do as I please. This is true of the venture capitalist, the CEO and of the heroin addict .
Profit is not a dirty word, and if you think that any other financial system is better, i.e. more productive and more fair to the employees and employer, you are mistaken. Look at the unemployment figures in Europe, and then look at the growth of their economies. Very low compared to ours. If there were no profit ,there would be no jobs, and no industry, and frankly many would be in dire straits. I think that it is time to toss your Marx and Engles.
I will not argue with you that there are, and have been, companies, large and small, who take advantage of the system. There are far more that do not take advantage. There are many reasons for this, but the simplest is perhaps best (Occam's Razor). What successful CEO would not treat productive employees well? There is no point or profit in that. A good CEO rewards productivity, and does everything he or she can do to keep productive folks happy. Only an incompetent executive would act in such a manner. I am well aware that there are many of these, but fortunately, they do not last long in our competitive, capitalistic environment.
You use history that is irrelevant in this instance. There are no more sweatshops, and Chicago has no more slaughter houses as of old. Speaking of meat cutters: Have you tried to get a special cut of meat at a store lately. The unions have it so that a cutter needs to cut the meat, and a packer needs to pack the meat and a checker needs to check you out. Sweatshop? Forget it. The reason for higher prices? Probably.
Slavery is over. That is difficult for many to admit because in doing so it destroys a straw man, and leaves one with out an argument. As an Italian, I can rail against the 10,000 Italians who were placed in concentration camps during WWII (Yes by that paragon of virtue - Roosevelt), because they could be enemy agents. Those not sent ot camps were restricted to their homes. Why should II beat this old horse? That time has passed and that is over. My guess is that nothing you did was responsible, so telling you that is the reason for one thing or another is meaningless to you.
By the way it is no longer 1929.
Your comment: "Rampant, unrestricted capitalism is socially unsustainable. There is no example of it remaining active and growing long term. Wealth gets concentrated and consumer spending decreases in a continuing cycle until social revolution. Ask the Russians" is silly. Nothing I said recommended "rampant" capitalism, however you define the term. We are growing, have been growing and will continue to grow. Will there be bumps in the road?, Of course. I suggest that you look at a 100 year chart of stock market returns. The least square line for the period goes up at a 45 degree angle. Close inspection of the dfata shows that some years are good, while others are bad, sometimes very bad. However to continue its upward march the good years have far outnumbered the bad. I will await the revolution , but I will not panic.
At any rate Sam it is nice to chat with you. I am awaiting your response, and fully expect that the word "proletariat" will appear sooner or later.
The activism of my son and daughter's peer group is one of deeds; they actually do things. On the other hand they were quite demonstrative of their contempt for "Cause-heads" their term for people who wrap themselves in causes instead of devoting their lives to service.
In the spirit of this article, may I be so bold as to suggest that "cause-heads" are those who focus on the struggle rather than focus on the goal.
For instance, not to accuse Jana, David, or Sam of being blinded by their cause, but would not a solution to the problem of corporate abuses be to rally the people who own corporations to change corporate boards and corporate policies?
Today, the world's top 300 pension funds hold $8.5 Trillion of wealth. This is money held by and in trust for some of the most liberal sectors of society.
For instance:
TIAA-CREF $330 Billion
California State Teachers: $116 Billion
California Public Employees $168 Billion
Texas Teacher $84 Billion
New York State Teachers $79 Billion
There is enough money in just those funds to buy Wal-Mart and Exxon lock, stock and barrel and have enough pocket change to purchase controlling interest in Microsoft. Rather than caterwauling about "the wealthy" it is about time that "the left" step up to its responsibility and put its money where its mouth is?
There are some glimmers of hope: 'Make TIAA-CREF Ethical' Coalition Asks $330 Billion Teacher's Pension Fund to Promote Corporate Responsibility; Coalition Submits Shareholder Resolution Before February 10 Deadline
I wholeheartedly agree. And many on the left are doing this. It's called socially responsible investing. It's called thinking critically about globalization. I'm not sure, however, how effective such efforts will be in the end. Corporations are, by their nature, highly organized entities with deep pockets, incredible societal and political influence, and the solitary objective of creating growth and profit. Individual investors are . . . well, individuals. Not inherently connected or organized or well-funded or influential. I laud every effort by individuals to organize and to prod corporations into social and environmental responsibility. I don't think their efforts will be sufficient to make significant changes in the social ills of the globe.
I also agree with your argument that we should study what works and what doesn't work in our approaches to social ills, and that we should think more about outcomes, intended and unintended. I'm not confident, however, that we'll successfully be able to "measure" societal outcomes. We can't even agree, despite many studies on the issue, on whether TV violence is harmful to kids. Society is complex. One can't conduct a controlled experiment into whether, say, recent welfare reforms have made the poor more self-sufficient. How do we measure self-sufficient? Is someone who is working, but who has to leave her three young children locked in her apartment while she goes to work, and who ends up as a charity case in the emergency room because she lacks health insurance, satisfactorily self-sufficient? And is that kind of self-sufficiency good for society? And once we agree on how to measure a change in self-sufficiency, how do we isolate the "cause" (as if there could be just one)? How do we isolate the effects of welfare reform from the effects of a changing economy, the effects of soaring health care costs, the effects of race, the effects of changing educational opportunities, the effects of other changes in the complex web of federal and state assistance programs?
I'm not saying we shouldn't try to study these issues. I'm saying it's much more complex than even you have acknowledged. Do social assistance programs cause more harm than good? I'm willing to study the issue. But we'd better not use simplistic, logical fallacies such as, "If African Americans are better off today than 100 years ago, then prejudice must be less pernicious." Or, "Since fewer people are on welfare than five years ago (I don't know if that's true), welfare reform must be working." And let's not assume that the choice is between two opposites--public assistance is good, or public assistance is bad. The possibilities and the real-world solutions will never be that simple.
Bravo.
You are quite right, socially responsible investing is a nascent trend whose time should have come a decade ago. While you are correct about the difficulty of rallying individual investors, you neglect to acknowledge that there are highly organized, politically liberal, motivated groups of investors who are doing little but enjoying the benefits of corporate largesse.
I can think of no better example than the teachers, social workers and civil servants I referenced above. The civil servants of California certainly had no trouble organizing themselves against the Governor's civil service initiatives -- why not use some of that energy to alter their $350++ Billion worth of corporate investing power?
As for debating outcomes, you are right, we will never agree on outcomes, but what a delightful debate to be arguing over what the outcomes should be! What a breath of fresh air!
The thing that government does the best is to measure. Though you are correct about the debate of whether we are measuring right thing or if we are measuring the thing right, the fact is we have been measuring massive social trends for decades and virtually ignoring them.
One of those devastating trends has been fatherlessness. For instance, we could meet the objective of raising almost 2% of all children living in poverty out of poverty by implementing the affirmative action goal of ensuring that more fathers be given physical custody of children than grandparents.
Tailoring social programs to measured social outcomes would require a shift in paradigm and a lot of oxen would be gored, but it is something we owe our children to do.
$40 Billion...that is pocket-change for pension funds. $40 Billion is less than what the civil servants of just one state control (Minnesota). The difference, however, between Mr. Buffet and the teacher of Minnesota is that Mr. Buffet's corporate profits are taxed whereas those of the teachers are not taxed.
The problem with David's party line is that it is focused of the politics of envy rather than on solutions or macro-economic trends.. The simple facts are that wealth and corporate ownership is shifting away from wealthy individuals who are subject to tax and towards institutions and trusts that are not subject to tax.
David, the subject of this article was the quality of compassion; it was first Sam then you who tried to switch the discussion to one of class conflict and the politics of envy.
Fine, I played along by citing the fact that $8.7 Trillion of corporate wealth has been transferred out of the pockets of wealthy investors into the pension funds of the middle class. Most people who are aware of basic macro-economic trends are fully aware of this. Why are you not aware of this?
When you say something silly in public, people correct you. Call that "switching" if you prefer but remind yourself that in public people do not play the same nodding agreement game that they do in like-minded groups.
You say: "Do we want to do well for people or do we want people to do well?" The two are not the same.
My opinion: While they aren't the same, neither are they mutually exclusive nor is one possible without the other.
We used to keep such kids in closets or institutionalize them. Was that a conservative thing to do or a liberal thing to do? Or, was that all we knew at the time. Now we try to integrate them in to the greater society – is that a liberal or conservative thing to do?
I am sick and tired of this liberal vs. conservative arguing – back and forth. Not ever getting anywhere. Or society has major, major issues. When are we going to get together, as the autistic basketball player school, and solve them!
Autism, just one of our social challenges, is an incredibly expensive social issue that puts a great burden on many of our school districts. And, those school districts that have the courage to deal with it have parents moving into their district so their autistic children can be served. This in turn makes the school districts "numbers" look bad and politicians want to punish them by reducing their budgets. It doesn't make any sense. It is just part of the blame-blame game. STOP IT!
The only trouble is, either you are a poor mathematician, or you are perhaps hoping your readers are. The fact is that 20% of black households earned less than $11,000 (for some reason, you left that one out), 40% earned less than $22,690, as you more or less said, and 60% earned less than $38,000. That means the highest earning household in that 60% block earned $38,000. And obviously 2/3 of all the households in that block earned under $22,690. To quote additional information from a Census Bureau release: "Black households had the lowest median income. Their 2004 median income was $30,134." (White MHI was 62.5% higher.) The povery rate for Blacks was 24.2% in 2004 vs. 8.6% for Whites. It is interesting that you assume that there are 4 people in the average Black household, but - anyway - even accepting your figure of $34,926 as the very bottom of the middle class range, you will note that this lowest rung is higher than the median income for all Black households. The majority of African Americans are middle class? It doesn't seem to wash.
And, once more, all your data on the pension funds and - hey - you can include the pensions managed by the Life Companies, and the corporate pension plans - but it's all nothing more than a smoke screen. The point you don't seem to want to face is that the wealthiest 1% of Americans - INDIVIDUALLY - and with the support of yourself and those who believe as you do, and with the assistance of the politicians that they have financially endowed - are systematically looting this nation. It is inevitable that some day, even you, will wake up to this fact and realize what is going on.
And as for your article on Compassion, the centerpiece of all the commentary here, it is a very interesting and well written story, but I, personally, detected a thread of logic, if you will, that seemed to be anything but compassionate. Particularly, I noted your desire to shift the emphasis away from the funding for social programs to the focusing on how well people are doing, etc., etc. That sounds to me like just another way of saying let's cut the costs - again.
The end game of Social Justice is that society would spend no money on social programs; that society would not need them.
The end game of racial integration is a day when half the minority population votes Republican just as the majority population does.
What should concern us all are those who interests would not be served by the advent of this day.
I did not "switch" to the subject of the welfare of African-Americans. I responded directly to Kathryn's comment which read:
You are correct that the median income of Black households was $30,134. I speculated that the balance point was higher. Digging more precisely into the data to confirm what I have read about the black middle-class, we find the average size of a Black household is 2.64. source The poverty threshold for a family of 3 (vs 2.64) is $14,680 source. The definition of the lower end of the middle-class is an income that is twice the poverty threshold which would be $29,360. So you can see over half of the African-American population of the United States is middle-class.
Logically David, logically, if institutional investors own more than half the wealth, which they do, then it is (again) logical to assume that more than half of all corporate profit goes into pockets belonging to people other than "the wealthy".
Logically, since wealthy individuals pay taxes and pension funds and trusts do not pay taxes, the share of corporate ownership by individuals will decline and the share of corporate ownership of funds and trusts will increase.
A trend that has been true since 1965 when wealthy individuals owned 95% of corporate assets, today they own under 48%.
However! There is still a place and a need for social work and volunteers - a great need due in part to, yes, lack of funding.
The overused and misunderstood adage "help people to help themselves" has some merit but too often lacks its own "quality of compassion". There truly are people who are unable to help themselves at some point in their lives for a myriad of reasons. Unless we experience this or, like Greg's son's classmates, see it with our own eyes, we are unqualified to judge what kind of "help" is needed.
Regarding the comment about "wealthy individuals" owning under 48% of corporate assets, who owns the other 52%? And how are we defining "wealthy individuals", "corporate assets" or even "corporations"? If the implied fact is that "corporations" own their own assets and this is somehow tragic for the former "wealthy individual owners", it's a sad day in America.
I also agree that there is intrinsic value in spending time doing for others, especially others not so blessed as ourselves; we must be mindful however that this is primarily more for our own benefit, not for the benefit of others.
The purpose of this article was to ask people to focus on the quality of compassion; to focus on outcomes rather than to campaigns; from a reading of the comments, including mine, such things are easier said than done.
In the spirit of avoiding the discussion of outcomes, here is a short list of things that shift focus away from the goal of social justice and cause society to waste its resource.
Funding
Funding like anything has a propensity for good and not so good. Not unlike the common complaint of teachers that national tests forces educators to teach to the test, so it is with the funding that forces social service agencies into solutions and modes that are funded versus those that are effective.
Constituency
This is the feedback mechanism which occurs once an organization aligned itself with the funding stream which tempts it to begin politicking for keeping things the way that they are most comfortable with. In the process of competing for funds, organizations mobilize every resource at their command to persuade society that their mode is the right mode.
Squeaky Wheel
This is the place where the Funding and Constituency factors merge, but the reason that it has its own category is that often the constituency appears before the structure is created; usually because the public gets excited about some issue and politicians or funding agencies respond by tossing funds in that direction.
Newton's First Law
An organization in motion will continue on the same course forever unless an outside force intervenes. This is the nature of human organization and is true of everything from a Bridge Club to the United Nations. Organizations tend do what they are comfortable with rather than what serves the common good. Over time, the distance between what an organizations should do and what it does increases.
Dwindling Alternatives
This is the witching point where all these factors combine. The world of possibilities narrows perceptibly when the mass of Funding, Constituency, Squeaky Wheels and Inertia becomes critical. The greater the mass, the more difficult reform and redirection become. This problem is one of the great challenges of the western world. Our institutions have matured to the point where they are almost impossible to change.
What to do? The answer: manage society like a garden.
Plant and Prune
No gardener would plant a garden than refuse to cut its growth back. Cutting the unchecked growth of anything is necessary for not only the greater good but the organism itself.
Grow From Seeds
Put simply, social service works best from the bottom-up instead of the top down. As a principle everything from funding to management should be on the level closest to the target problem.
Allow Old Growth to Die
Nothing more needs to be said here.
What Will The Garden Look Like When It Is Done?
Who would plant a garden without thinking about the outcome? What would a world of Social Justice look like? What would it really look like? (Hint: not the way you would like it to look).
The great hope and despair is that the majority of corporate ownership is held by institutions, primarily pension funds and charitable trusts. The hope is that these institutions would better manage their power for the benefit of society. The despair is that they do not. Pension managers all too often view their singular role as to make as much money, anyway they legally can for their trustees. Their trustees, all too often, only measure their performance on that basis.
Whenever I hear a teacher or social worker complain about "corporations" I point them to the $Billions of corporate assets held by their particular fund and remind them of their last quarter's rate of return on investment.
They usually react negatively to the messenger, rather than the message.
Corporations cannot "own themselves"; all assets are owned by the shareholders. Though corporations can hold large pools of liquid wealth, they do so at the risk of subjecting themselves to a corporate raider.....so this is very rare these days.
The income levels of $38,000 quoted as census figures is just SLIGHTLY over the qualifying income for Medicaid in Massachusetts (Mass Health), the health insurance for the poor. The qualifying income for Mass Health (Medicaid) in Massachusetts is about $37,000 plus, but lower than $38,000. So, most blacks are NOT middle class, but still qualify for Medicaid.
One can take a "glass is half-empty" or a "glass is half-full" approach to this definition. I prefer the more optimistic definition because it is empowering.
One of the great risks of pessimism is that it is contagious and discourages people from even trying...or encourages them to give up when the going gets tough, as it inevitably does.
Just to clarify, I assert that HALF of all African-American households can be classified as being middle-class.
Are you certain?
May I suggest that 200 percent of the federal poverty level may define the absolute upper limit of eligibility?
400% of federal level?
The 2005 federal poverty guideline for a family of four is $19,350. Four times that is $77,400. The median household income in Massachusetts for 2002 was $51,470.
I am not sure what you consider "middle-class" to be, but it is certainly not an income greater than average......that would be upper-class.
MassHealth in Mass is tied to 200% of the federal poverty level.
Yes, the median (not the mean, or the average, but the median, in Mass. is around $51,000, possibly up to $60,000 now.
The Boston Globe did a story two months ago on the vast numbers of millionaires in Boston and surrounding areas. Weston, Wellesley, my town of Belmont (and, Mitt's town, too) were on the map of millionaires, as was Lincoln, Lexington, Carlisle, Concord, other towns...many, many millionaires in this state.
Also, vast numbers of uninsured in this state.
Romney is trying to charge companies (with greater than 10 employees) a fee if they do not offer health insurance to their workers. Mass Health and Free Care are a huge burden for the current administration in Massachusetts.
How do I know these numbers for MassHealth and Free Care are accurate? My family was on Free Care in 2004. We were on MassHealth from 1995-2002. For a Massachusetts family earning greater than the 200% over the federal poverty level,
MassHealth offers Children's Medical Security Program for $33.00 a month premium for two children. CMSP offers doctor's visits and outpatient hospital visits. I don't think it offers ER or inpatient hospital. It also offers limited prescription plans. CMSP is for children under age 19, I believe, though possibly until 23. This year, my kids are on CMSP. My husband and I are covered through my employer at a cost to me of $74.00/week.
In Massachusetts parlance, MassHealth and Free Care are health insurance programs for the poor. Massachusetts has a relatively large number of lower income residents; Massachusetts also has a relatively high number of high-income residents, due to the number of universities, hospitals, and financial institutions in Massachusetts. The number of Harvard grads working in the Bay State is staggering.
The median home price in a number of towns in my county is staggering. In my town, the average home is at $750,00. 10 years ago, that same home cost $250,000. This will buy you a three bedroom, but probably not a four bedroom.
The number of homes selling for greater than $1million is staggering. I don't have the Boston Globe figures, but there are a lot of homes, especially in wealthy Middlesex County (Weston is number 1 for family income and home price) greater than $1 million.
Westchester County in NY has a much greater number of homes over $1 million, but that's like comparing apples and oranges.
So, the vast numbers of Blacks are still in the lower income groups. Middle class means you own a car and preferably own a home and have a job. Owning a home is very difficult for African American families in the Bay State, due to the sheer cost of TRYING to be middle class.
I am not sure of the relevance of this since a large percentage of middle-class African-Americans work in civil service and for large corporations where family medical coverage is a benefit.
I am quite aware of the ridiculous cost of homes in many places on the coasts. Obviously, I can find no justification for starting a life there. People, especially lower income people, should be encouraged to move elsewhere.
Which is what they are doing.
Migration to the South Brings U.S. Blacks Full Circle
In regards to outcomes - I have been working in the trenches for years and have seen some disturbing trends. First of all, in community agencies that are funded by govt dollars and insurance companies, there is a rising trend to base outcomes on productivity. It has become a numbers game because of the number of MBAs who have decided to move into the non-profit sector. In order to make the money that is out there we are expected to work ourselves to death to see as many people as possible to make the numbers. Outcomes have become numbers rather than a measure of how a person has become self sufficient or how their quality of life has changed.
It seems that many of the points I would have wanted to make were covered by Kathryn but I will bring up one final point. There is a movement to build affordable housing in this country that sounds good but is actually lacking in substance. Affordable housing or workforce housing provides homes to persons who are above the poverty line. I don't have the numbers handy, but I know that it is basically to provide housing for those who are in the income range of teachers and public servants. There are many folks below the poverty line who are being displaced in order for developers to move in and build housing that is still not affordable by most of the folks who have had to move, persons who make miminum wage and work in service industries. Beware of affordable housing programs in sheep's clothing.
This debate between conservatives and liberals will never end. It is a debate of ideology and each side will always be able to drum up the statistics and background necessary to state their case. It is sad that we have become so divided. This takes so much energy and it is getting worse. Kathryn, you have my sympathy. You were pulled into an argument that will never be resolved.
As for outcomes, I am glad that social services are beginning to take modern management seriously but as you note it often takes modern mismanagement seriously too.
I am not paticularly supportive of programs that seek to build "low-income" housing in high-priced markets. To me this is just a way of subsidizing an overheated housing market.
We are a nation of immigrants. Everyone here, excluding most african-american....migrated here for a better life. Mobility is the key.
We need to encourage people to adapt to changing markets by changing themselves. By educating themselves, by moving across the country or across the city.
You are correct about liberals and conservatives. The debate will go on, and that is a good thing. One of the values of debate is avoiding the echo-chambers that fool people into believing that everyone agrees with them.
WHAT???
Federal, state, county and city governments as well as business spend well over $1 Trillion annually on "compassion".
What is lacking in this society is optimism. This overriding, all-consuming, pervasive addiction to seeing the dark-side in everything is horribly contagious...........and is at least in my humble opinion the primary force that is holding people back.
Do not get my wrong, I do not have a Pollyannaish view of society; humans are incredibly resilient creatures who have an amazing ability to overcome obstacles if simply encouraged to do so.