Today, I read the most interesting article about poverty that I’ve read in a long time. In the recent article, Steven Pearlstein explains the ideas of Charles Karelis in regards to the seemingly counterintuitive behaviors common to poor people. I include an excerpt:
The reason the poor are poor is that they are more likely to not finish school, not work, not save, and get hooked on drugs and alcohol and run afoul of the law. Liberals tend to blame it on history (slavery) or lack of opportunity (poor schools, discrimination), while conservatives blame government (welfare) and personal failings (lack of discipline), but both sides agree that these behaviors are so contrary to self-interest that they must be irrational.
[…]
If you and everyone around you are desperately poor, maybe it’s perfectly rational to think that an extra dollar or two won’t make much of a difference in reducing your misery. Or that you won’t be able to “study” your way out of the ghetto. Or that if you find a $100 bill on the street, maybe it’s logical to blow it on one great night on the town rather than portion it out a dollar a day for 100 days.
On the other hand, maybe the point at which people are most willing to work hard, save and play by the rules isn’t when they are very poor, or very rich, but in the neighborhoods on either side of the point you might call economic sufficiency — a motivational sweet spot that, in statistical terms, might be defined as between 50 percent ($24,000) and 200 percent ($96,000) of median household income. And if that is so, then maybe the best way to break the cycle of poverty is to raise the hopes and expectations of the poor by putting them closer to the goal line.
I highly recommend reading the whole article by Steven Pearlstein. Finally, I got to read an article written outside the bipolarized political partisanship so common to any discussions about political economics. I like how Pearlstein described the partisan ideas of the left and right, and the stale and unproductive debate between them.
In regards to the excerpted portion, I think it did a great job in explaining the mentality that causes poor people to not fight harder to get out of poverty. Unfortunately, poverty arouses feelings of hopelessness and discouragement. With limited opportunity, poor people will not receive the same benefits as more privileged people when they do the same amount of work. For example, working hard at an inner-city public school won’t get a person even close to as much as working hard at a high-class private school. That seems very discouraging.
Of course, this reminds me of the importance of positive role models. Among the many benefits they offer, positive role models show others, namely children, the possibility of success. The existence of positive role models offers children a tangible example of what hard work and dedication can do, which can help replace hopelessness with hope and replace discouragement with motivation.
Of course, poor people, namely children, actually need to have a reasonable route to success. I say reasonable route, because it won’t work if only exceptional children can escape poverty. It needs to apply to the rule, not to the exception.
I suggest offering full student loans to anyone who wants them. These student loans need to completely fund high-quality education, job training, and then job placement, as well as food, clothes, shelter, and healthcare the entire time. Such student loans would offer everyone a viable route to success.