Poverty, American Style: Cars, TVs, Three-Bedroom Homes

Human Events ^ | Oct. 13, 2003 | Robert Rector

[VegasBaby]

Okay, here's how I see it:

***poor americans are lucky to have a surplus of second-hand goods to make poverty more comfortable, but it doesn't make it any less spiritually destructive.***

I guess my argument to the above statement would be that people shouldn't define happiness by what material possessions they may have versus the well-to-do family across town. The poorest of the poor can still find happiness from their family and friends or through their deeds. Why do people let society define the haves from the have nots? As long as you have a roof over your head, food to eat and love, that's all you really need (now I'm sounding like a song, huh?).

***many people are looking for work and cannot find it, or they cannot find work that pays better or offers any more opportunity for advancement than welfare***

I don't agree that people cannot find work. It doesn't matter how little education or income one might have, if a person truly wants to work, he or she can find work. However, your argument seems to be that the types of jobs that are available don't pay much more than welfare and so a person is, by default, left with no other choice but to go on welfare. But how is welfare going to help that person in the long run? Maybe the answer is that people might have to work more than one job so they can put a little money away to pay for educational opportunities that could lift them or their children out of their current situation. Let me give you an example of this: my best friend's mother who had no more than a high school diploma was left single with children and was barely scraping by, but she refused to let the government take care of her or take any kind of hand-out. Instead, she worked several low-skill level jobs (yes, even those that would "dress her in a silly uniforms") for several years until she had saved enough money to enroll in a community college. Even while she was a student she still needed to take care of her children so she worked while going to school. It took a lot time and a lot of hard work, but she eventually earned an accounting degree and easily found a good-paying job that could support her family. What made her proud was that she had accomplished all of it on her own. The point is that it ultimately comes down to a person's attitude: are you going to find a way to lift yourself out of a bad situation (no matter how tough that may be) or are you going to rely on the government or others to help you just get by day to day? Of course a person wouldn't have much chance for advancement it they didn't aspire to something higher.

***working in america for the most part means working to enrich someone or some company you don't respect. we all hate it, but we act like it somehow makes us better people to give our time to some coporation that's going to rape the environment, employ slave labor overseas, dodge taxes, brainwash our children with advertising, and sell us overpriced garbage that we don't need. we pretend like it makes us self-sufficient***

This is the classic "corporate america is bad" argument. Well I would ask you, what's the alternative? Have the government take care of our every need and that will somehow make us feel more "self-sufficent"? Isn't that a total paradox? It seems to me that the free market society has made us more self-sufficient because we have the choice to work for the big bad corporation (which, by the way, is owned by ordinary Americans like you and me), work for an independent business owner or open our own business.

I hate to break it to you, but corporations, for the most part, are not evil--I work with them every day (and I'm anything but a member of upper management or management in general). I see a lot of good things that Corporate America does that don't get a lot of media attention (community sponsorships, charitable contributions, mentoring programs, etc.). The idea that a business can deny its workers the right to unionize is untrue--it's against the law to do so and I don't know any corporation that would fire someone without providing either severance or at least assistance with finding another job. A few years ago I was in a situation where huge layoffs had occurred and my company (which employed over 100,000 workers) ensured that every last person was taken care of by offering both severance pay and job placement. Furthermore, the idea that a corporation can "dodge taxes" is impossible because regardless of the amount of taxes paid at the Corporate level, taxes will ultimately be paid at the shareholder level through the dividends tax, it's simply unavoidable.

As far as the "sliding into debt" issue is concerned--that fault falls solely on the individual. It's simply irresponsible to spend more than you earn (except of course for a few basic items like a modest car loan or mortgage payment) and I'll leave it at that.

As for other various items you point out about businesses, I would offer the following:

***...rape the environment"

That's why we have the EPA and environmental standards.

***...employ slave labor overseas"

Is it our fault that foreign countries allow these conditions to occur? Don't you think its their responsibility to protect their own citizens?

***...brainwash our children with advertising***

Children are only brainwashed to the extent that their parents allow them to be. Parenting can easily rectify this.

***...sell us overpriced garbage that we don't need***

Simple...so don't buy it.

I'm not trying to attack you with all of this, but I'm just trying to point out the distinction between personal responsiblity and government reliance. I'm certainly not blind to the fact that some people truly do need help and we should be compassionate to them. It is at that point that some level of government and community or charitable involvement would be needed, but this should be a last resort, not a safety net.