A couple of years ago, when the LTR was still attending the University, one of her classes had a guest speaker. This speaker was, by all description, a consummate SWPL lefty liberal with theories galore. Ostensively, this speaker was there to dispel the class’ illusions regarding the true nature of poverty in the United States. As you may guess, this lady was providing half-truths and misdirection and filling the ladies’ (as 95% of the class were women) heads with more pretty lies.
During her presentation, this woman asked the class what they thought the most important factor was to eliminate or reduce poverty. The class replied that education was the most important factor. Now on the surface this would appear to be true. Unemployment rates typically are higher for those people who have less education. There does appear to be a correlation.
This woman giving her presentation on poverty asserted that education, or lack thereof is not the root cause of poverty. She then provided all kinds of left speak about structural causes such as discrimination, poverty culture, and so on. Poverty culture is an interesting turn of phrase. It is one of those nebulous phrases that can go undefined or poorly defined for a long time, and yet every right thinking individual will agree that it exists and that money needs to be spent to overcome these ingrained patterns of behavior.
But step back for a minute and examine the word, poverty. What images come to mind? Urban blight, the monolithic apartment towers of the inner city projects? The old share cropper huts in the American South? Boarded up crack houses in cities like Philadelphia and Detroit? American Red Necks? Ghetto matriarchies? We all see these things and can point to them and say, that’s poverty. But that doesn’t really define what it is.
The United States government sets an arbitrary income level for a family of four to define poverty. Does a family of four earning that amount living in rural Mississippi have the same standard of living as a family of four in say New York City? I would hazard a guess they wouldn’t. Poverty as defined by the government has to be an arbitrary thing. It is used in order to categorize, label, and identify an idea that it is a problem that can be solved.
I am not saying that poverty is an arbitrary thing for those who truly are poor. I’ve been temporarily poor myself. Trying to borrow money from all my friends just to scrape up rent for a one bedroom shit hole so I wasn’t living out of my car. Eating peanut butter sandwiches for every meal because that was all I could afford. Unlike those who’ve lived in poverty all their life, I knew I would eventually find myself in better circumstances. My poverty was a transitory thing.
Poverty as defined by the government is a problem that can never be alleviated or solved by any government. Because the poverty level is set arbitrarily by the government, there will always be roughly 12%-14% of the population below the threshold. The bureaucracy and the politicians don’t care that it can’t be solved, it gives them an excuse to throw money around and to sell the big lie that they care for those less fortunate. They can get up there and sell the lie, that education is the key to success. They can sell the lie that no child will be left behind while turning a blind eye to the reality that intelligence matters, ability matters. Well, it used to matter more than it does now, but I’ll save that for part 2.
