SebastianJer

Impacting Poverty

Posted by: sebastianjer, 1:03 PM GMT on June 18, 2012

Impacting Poverty

Star Parker

The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously observed that “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

It’s an admonition not taken particularly seriously by today’s political left. They embrace, extol, advocate ideas and policies based on what they wish were true, regardless of how often and consistently their ideas have been proven wrong.

Take, for instance, the minimum wage.

Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Ill) wants to again raise the minimum wage – from $7.25 to $10.00 - despite an abundance of experience that doing so accomplishes exactly the opposite of what minimum wage advocates claim is their objective. Make low income earners better off.

Why doesn’t McDonalds increase the price of Big Macs if they want to sell more? It’s pretty obvious that consumers will buy less of a product when its price goes up.

Is it not equally obvious that consumers of labor – employers – will buy less of a class of labor if the price of that labor increases?

The data bears out this very simple logic. We have a long history showing correlation between increases in the minimum wage and corresponding increases in unemployment in those sectors that earn in this range – the young and unskilled.

University of Michigan economist Mark Perry has calculated that over the period of the last minimum wage increase – increasing it from $5.15 in 2007 to $7.25 in 2009 – teen unemployment increased 5 percentage points more than the general increase in unemployment over that period.

Nevertheless, Rep. Jackson feels entitled to his own facts. At his press conference announcing his bill to raise the minimum wage, he said, “Now it’s time to bail out working people who work hard every day and they still only make $7.25. The only way to do that is to raise the minimum wage.”

Ron Haskins, Co-Director of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution, recently testified before the Senate Finance Committee on hearings on poverty.

Among the factors that he identified as the causes of poverty is declining participation in the work force. According to Haskins, between 1980 and 2009, work force participation among males declined from 74.2 percent to 67.6 percent.

However, among young black men, work rates declined from 60.9 percent in 1980 to 46.9 percent in 2009.
How exactly does Rep. Jackson think he is helping the prospects for these young black men by making it more expensive to hire them?

Haskins’ testimony presents an abundance of facts about our experience with poverty and with government-centered approaches to dealing with it. Experience generally characterized, for those that choose to consider facts, by more and more government spending getting less and less.

According to Haskins, federal government spending, per person in poverty, has tripled, since 1980. The total being spent by all levels of government – federal, state, and local – per person in poverty is now about $23,700 per person.

Despite dramatic expansion of government spending on poverty programs over the years, there has been little change in the overall rate of poverty.

What’s key in alleviating poverty?

Individual initiative and personal responsibility. According to Haskins, following three rules reduces to 2 percent the chances that an individual will wind up in poverty and increases to 72 percent their chances of winding up a middle class wage earner.

“Complete at least a high school education, work full time, and wait until 21 and get married before having a baby.”

According to Haskins’ research, those violating these three rules have a 77 percent chance of winding up in poverty.

What can government do so that our economy will grow more rapidly and generate more jobs?

Appreciate that government cannot create jobs or wealth. Only private individuals can do this.

Government should do its proper job and protect lives and property of citizens and minimize getting in their way so they may work, produce, and invest.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits

Create your own visitor map

()()()()()()()()(()())()()()()()()()()()

Interesting Pics 2012

########
The religion of Climate Science

#######
Jer's Photo of the Day

Photos and Photo Art by Sebastianjer

()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()

NOT EXACTLY FRONT PAGE NEWS

***

CONSTITUTION 101

History in Pictures

###
TODAY'S QUOTE

Permalink | A A A

Top of Page

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200

Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 1 - 12

Page: 1 — Blog Index

1. spathy 9:39 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Hi Jer Thanks for the good reads. There was one thing in this read that just burns me. According to Haskins, federal government spending, per person in poverty, has tripled, since 1980. The total being spent by all levels of government – federal, state, and local – per person in poverty is now about $23,700 per person. Its not that that number seems too large for those that cant work etc. Its that there are way too many capable people sitting on their posteriors receiving that amount and more. And dont tell me there arent that many. I know more than I should. I dont know that many people. And whats sad is many of these people were at one time proud hard working,self reliant people. After running into a rough patch and getting "relief" from the Gov they are now lazy demanding people. One of them just turned down a $14/hr job and a 3yr contract. Reason? Job paid too little! In Florida with 7 to 9 % unemployment! After several years of being unemployed and loosing a house I cant comprehend that decision. That is until you look at that #. Almost $24 thousand/year. In this instance I am sure the # is larger. Whats Newtons law? An object in motion.... An object at rest...... When you have been out of work for so long,fear,insecurity and dependance are powerful influences. And the Left is depending on it! Member Since: June 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10475

2. latitude25 10:20 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
work, rest, play........ Member Since: August 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654

3. CosmicEvents 12:04 AM GMT on June 19, 2012
Like Spathy, that 24k per person in poverty figure stood out to me. . But, I wonder how that number is derived? 24k seems too high. That's 96k a year for a family of 4!!, whether it's 2 adults/2 children or 1 adult/3 children. It can't be food stamps/SSI/unemployment payments, etc.....in other words some sort of cash alone. It's got to include other things like rent subsidies, and most important health care. . I wonder how much of that 24k per person in poverty is health care related. I wouldn't be surprised if it was more than 50% of that 24k, much more, as health care costs have shot up far faster than other costs, the opinion piece does say the 24k is triple what it was 30 years ago. Those emergency room and hospital charges are exorbinant compared to preventive/maintenance care. Member Since: August 3, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 5098

4. spathy 12:21 AM GMT on June 19, 2012
Cosmic Tax "refunds" cash payments! are quite often above $8000 a year for a single Mother of two. Then start adding the rest. There are a thousand ways to that Sunday restful lifestyle. Dont forget the household full of illegals that actually live in (name country)that get over $35,000 in tax refunds per year. Its a government that is not only out of control but not in control. Member Since: June 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10475

5. spathy 12:26 AM GMT on June 19, 2012
Oh and Cosmic. That article states that Fed spending has tripled and the total outlay of all levels of Gov,is the 24K. Member Since: June 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10475

6. spathy 12:29 AM GMT on June 19, 2012
Dont forget OIL heating assistance. Hummm How could we lower that expense from tax payers? Member Since: June 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10475

7. CosmicEvents 12:37 AM GMT on June 19, 2012
Thanks Spathy.....I added an etc. to my comment. You're right, there are oil/phone lifeline/other utility expenses, plus there is the earned income credit which I think you're referring to in the 8k cash payment. I don't think it's quite that high, but close enough.....and it peaks out there only for those who earn only 12-24k and have 2 children. But even adding in 8k for a family of 3/4 into the mix....I still don't see cash/cash equivalent payments anywhere near that 24k per person figure, which translates to 72k/96k per year for a family of 3/4. It has to lead back to health care as the main expense, by far. Member Since: August 3, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 5098

8. sebastianjer 12:48 AM GMT on June 19, 2012
Re 1 &3 Here is a link to the Brookings Report, and here are the key paragraphs which indeed shows that medical is the #1 driver and that it includes some caveats. It also shows that spending has increased dramatically under Obama."More recently, means-tested spending increased from about $477 billion to $626 billion in the first three years of the Obama administration, an increase of about 31 percent." Here are the two summary paragraphs On a per-person in poverty basis, that figure represents about $23,700 in spending by federal, state, and local governments. But this estimate should be considered in light of several caveats. The first is that not all of the spending on means-tested programs goes directly to individuals and families. Some of the money is spent on programs, such as the $14.5 billion spent on Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act and the $9 billion in spending on employment and training programs, that provide services rather than direct cash or in-kind benefits to individuals and families. Second, some of the money in programs that provide cash or in-kind benefits directly to households goes to individuals and families that are not below the poverty level. Children in families of up to 200 percent of the poverty level, for example, are eligible for Medicaid or the Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in almost every state. [24] Similarly, people in households with incomes up to 130 percent of poverty are eligible for SNAP benefits (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, previously food stamps). In the case of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), in 2010 a single mother with two children could receive benefits if the mother’s income was below $40,964, about 225 percent of the poverty level for this family. Thus, means-tested spending has increased enormously no matter how it is measured. Although there have been some periods of comparatively rapid growth, such as during the recession of 2007 to 2009, Figure 2 shows that spending has grown almost every year for the last five decades. The increase in spending has been the most rapid in health programs, but cash, nutrition, and several other types of spending have also increased rapidly. Spending per person in poverty has also increased substantially, although not quite as rapidly as total spending. Unfortunately, as we have seen, the high level and remarkable increases in means-tested spending have not led to consistent declines in poverty, although we have learned a lot about what works and what doesn’t, a topic to which we now turn our attention. Member Since: August 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197

9. CosmicEvents 1:41 AM GMT on June 19, 2012
Thanks Jer. I read that link you provided. Unless I missed it it didn't answer my premise....if health care costs represented more or less than 50% of that 24k figure. I think it alluded to it and I'm right, but I'm not sure. . One thing that I think all of us agree on is that citizens want to eliminate the fraud endemic in the system, on all levels, but it's mainly state-based. Rooting out able-bodied folks living on the dole isn't all that hard. It just requires a political will, which we haven't seen from either party on the state(with rare exceptions) or federal level. . What to do with the legitimate family with 2 kids and 2 working parents but only making 30k(where the benefits max out) is apparantly a question for some. . I don't see it as a political thing in the sense that Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc., all haven't shown the ability to stand up to the Wall Street/Big pharma/hospitals/insurance co's, etc. I suspect costs have risen under all of them. I see no reason to expect that Romney of all people is going to stand up to the multi-national corporations. Bush the Second added plenty which is carrying over now and going forward under any POTUS with his Medicaire Drug Coverage. Member Since: August 3, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 5098

10. spathy 3:06 AM GMT on June 19, 2012
How about we stand up to and put in its proper place,BIG GOV! Then the other smaller bigs will have little influence. Hummm? How about that? Member Since: June 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10475

11. billsfaninsofla 3:10 AM GMT on June 19, 2012
CE.... and lawsuits! They have driven the cost up astronomically. Member Since: September 5, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 5236

12. CosmicEvents 3:24 AM GMT on June 19, 2012
Quoting billsfaninsofla: CE.... and lawsuits! They have driven the cost up astronomically. I'm all for tort reform. The present state is ridiculous. Courts filled with nuisance suits. It would be great if common sense prevailed and a cap was put in to eliminate the ambulance chasers while still allowing for the rare egregious error, which would need to have a much stronger proof of negligence or malfeasance in the extreme. Member Since: August 3, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 5098

Viewing: 1 - 12

Page: 1 — Blog Index

Top of Page

New Comment

Community Standards Policy Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

About sebastianjer