I think we often simplify individual instances of poverty, or poverty as a whole, to either “not their fault” or “their fault” when in reality it could be any mix of the two for an individual.
Systemically, we do have policies that lead to some guaranteed level of poverty - our economic system requires that there be some optimal level of unemployment, the minimum wage basically determines the minimum standard of living for a fully employed person, and policies like how much SSI/disability pay directly impact the recipients’ standard of living. And then of course there are contributors like cyclical/generational poverty in ghettoes and certain rural areas, the war on drugs (the associated gang/criminal activity, imprisonment affecting careers, children growing up without a parent), an often poorly performing public educational system.
On an individual level you can say “well, if you made XYZ choices maybe you wouldn’t be poor” in a lot of cases, but in aggregate it’s basically guaranteed some people will experience poverty, and that is also a factor for most of those individuals. Some people will always get imprisoned or grow up in unstable households, or not have skills/opportunities for more than minimum wage jobs, or be disabled to the point of not being able to work. There will always be people without savings or who get “broken” by adversity rather than rising above it. If you give people money unconditionally I guarantee you it will always help some people stabilize and lift them up to the point of not needing it, but there will always be at least some people that just spend it all on extra consumption.
That’s what makes poverty a real challenge. Some poverty spending on individuals will be wasted, which no taxpayer wants, but in preventing that we introduce other kinds of waste like bureaucracy and welfare cliffs, and introduce low limits on how much you can receive which then limits how much poverty programs can assist people. And no matter how much we spend, there will be some people who remain “poor” in the sense of being completely reliant on the spending with nothing to fall back on.
Part of me thinks that the "mindset of poor" isn't just in the minds of some poor people. It is in the minds of the wealthier people. I know this sounds strange, but I go back to the block party thought. My neighbors know we have chickens and they've been coming over a lot lately to "borrow" an egg. I'm fine with that. Occasionally I go over and borrow a wrench or something. Neither considers the other poor. Together, we don't lack for much.
Some will call my thinking Polyannish, but it really helps to think this way. My neighbor needs a car for 30 minutes and I don't need to use mine at the moment. Here's the keys. Maybe they kick me $5 for gas and $10 for insurance and $2 for wear and tear. Or maybe they just let me borrow their lawn mower a few times. Or maybe they teach my kid how to play guitar. Maybe we don't keep score. We just know that together we got through the last flood.
If we start getting jealous of each other because she's got a bigger house or I stacked fewer sandbags, we become weaker as a whole. Of course I can't sit around and just mouch. And she can't either. And I'm not trying to justify the rich who exploit the poor. But we can do a lot at the neighbor to neighbor human level that makes life better for us all without government intervention. When it happens in poor neighborhoods we can call it poverty prevention; when it happens in rich neighborhoods we can call it an affluence subsidy. I wish we could just do it a lot more between and across all neighborhoods and call it normal.
Systemically, we do have policies that lead to some guaranteed level of poverty - our economic system requires that there be some optimal level of unemployment, the minimum wage basically determines the minimum standard of living for a fully employed person, and policies like how much SSI/disability pay directly impact the recipients’ standard of living. And then of course there are contributors like cyclical/generational poverty in ghettoes and certain rural areas, the war on drugs (the associated gang/criminal activity, imprisonment affecting careers, children growing up without a parent), an often poorly performing public educational system.
On an individual level you can say “well, if you made XYZ choices maybe you wouldn’t be poor” in a lot of cases, but in aggregate it’s basically guaranteed some people will experience poverty, and that is also a factor for most of those individuals. Some people will always get imprisoned or grow up in unstable households, or not have skills/opportunities for more than minimum wage jobs, or be disabled to the point of not being able to work. There will always be people without savings or who get “broken” by adversity rather than rising above it. If you give people money unconditionally I guarantee you it will always help some people stabilize and lift them up to the point of not needing it, but there will always be at least some people that just spend it all on extra consumption.
That’s what makes poverty a real challenge. Some poverty spending on individuals will be wasted, which no taxpayer wants, but in preventing that we introduce other kinds of waste like bureaucracy and welfare cliffs, and introduce low limits on how much you can receive which then limits how much poverty programs can assist people. And no matter how much we spend, there will be some people who remain “poor” in the sense of being completely reliant on the spending with nothing to fall back on.