Yes, anti-poverty programs do keep some people poorer than they should be
Kudos to the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof for not only daring to question whether anti-poverty programs might actually harm some people more than they help them, but for doing some on-the-ground reporting about how that happens in specific individuals’ lives. His entire piece from Sunday is well worth reading, but here’s the crux of it:
This is painful for a liberal to admit, but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.
Some young people here don’t join the military (a traditional escape route for poor, rural Americans) because it’s easier to rely on food stamps and disability payments.
Antipoverty programs also discourage marriage: In a means-tested program like S.S.I., a woman raising a child may receive a bigger check if she refrains from marrying that hard-working guy she likes. Yet marriage is one of the best forces to blunt poverty. In married couple households only one child in 10 grows up in poverty, while almost half do in single-mother households.
Most wrenching of all are the parents who think it’s best if a child stays illiterate, because then the family may be able to claim a disability check each month.
Charles Murray, about whose book “Coming Apart” I wrote earlier this year (I’ve also previously noted the importance of marriage to ending child poverty, as Kristof did), argues the problems Kristof identifies are due to three laws of social programs, which he describes as:
1. The Law of Imperfect Selection. Any objective rule that defines eligibility for a social transfer program will irrationally exclude some persons [leading them to expand constantly]. …
2. The Law of Unintended Rewards. Any social transfer increases the net value of being in the condition that prompted the transfer. …
3. The Law of Net Harm. The less likely it is that the unwanted behavior will change voluntarily, the more likely it is that a program to induce change will cause net harm [by encouraging more people to engage in the bad behavior in the first place, so that they can profit from making the desired change]. …
Read Murray’s entire comment for a fuller explanation of these three laws. And, yes, the proper emphasis here should be on some people being worse off sometimes — the argument made by most conservatives is not that government should provide no safety net, but that it should not catch and even ensnare people who can and should be responsible for their own well-being. Even marginal increases in dependency have long-term consequences because they accumulate over time — most often as generation after generation within particular families grow up seeing nothing but dependency. Kristof is right to focus on the effects of dependency on children.
Taken together, Murray’s post and Kristof’s column give us an important understanding about the fallibility of even well-intentioned government programs for the poor, and some ways that we ought to think about these programs as we try to end unnecessary dependency and get our nation’s finances under control.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
217 comments Add your comment
Georgia , The "New Mississippi"
December 11th, 2012
9:06 am
Kyle ,
As a Democrat I agree anti-poverty programs do keep some people poorer than they should be. They also help people that are down and out for what ever reason. The problem a voter is always faced with is for every social program handout you have that benefits the poor , you have a corporate welfare program that benefits a handful of guys that contribute to a politicians re-election campaign. Pick your side and I will see you at the polling booth.
Del
December 11th, 2012
9:25 am
A recent Forbes study identified 11 states in what Forbes calls the death spiral. These states have their majority population depending on Social Security, state and local government pension programs, government jobs or on some kind of federal government financial assistance. Their minority population are employed in private sector jobs. Their trajectory toward bankruptcy is the same as the nation only they’re getting there faster. Those states are Maine, New York, Ohio, Illinois, New Mexico, California, Hawaii, Kentucky, South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi. The largest states with the greatest percentage of people on government assistance are the blue states of New York, Ohio, Illinois and California none of which have an Appalachian population.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 11th, 2012
9:28 am
Readers Digest abridged version of column. If you want more of something (poverty) subsidize it, and if you want less of something (wealth) tax it. So simple, but Liberals never believe any simple bromide, to them everything in this world is some shade of grey. There are simple truths in life.
The reason companies hire contractors and no longer are willing to do training and spend money on education for their employees is intrusive government regulations. Another simple answer.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 11th, 2012
9:32 am
you have a corporate welfare program that benefits a handful of guys that contribute to a politicians re-election campaign.
You are correct, Solyndra is the perfect example, those execs all contributed to Barry’s campaign.
Glen Beck
December 11th, 2012
9:32 am
Knowing the average times frames of how long people are receiving which entitlements would have made a decent article more insightful. Otherwise we are just speculating as to the amount of those who never break the cycle.
________
See Barry is on his step stool and flailing away again this morning. Guess his mommy made him eat oatmeal as opposed to his the “fruit loops” he loves to eat and act like.
King of Planet Kolob
December 11th, 2012
9:33 am
While this article make Cons “feel better” in their alternate world, the facts are 1. this is not an epidemic 2. people has always been gaming the system since its inception and will continue to find ways to do so 3. this is not all black people in inner cities doing this.
Aquagirl
December 11th, 2012
9:33 am
Ah, the hillsides of Kentucky….Bright red in a bright red state. Mr. Romney didn’t have a problem carrying those 47%’ers even after all his backslapping banter with fatcat buddies.
Maybe we could expand pre-K to those kids. But that would be gub’mint daycare and we must teach those welfare mamas a lesson. Oh well.
Glen Beck
December 11th, 2012
9:41 am
Del
Why no mention of the GDP of the blue states you mentioned vs the red states?
Or avg wage comparision?
md
December 11th, 2012
9:43 am
There are two kinds of help, short term and long term. Sometimes, the former turns into enabling, which is a long term problem, not a cure. The long term version requires tougher decisions and conditions, but does away with the enabling.
At the moment, we tend to lump everyone into the short term program and then wash our hands of the situation proclaiming the moral high ground as we pat ourselves on the back because we voted for others to take care of the poor.
HDB
December 11th, 2012
9:45 am
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 11th, 2012
9:28 am
“The reason companies hire contractors and no longer are willing to do training and spend money on education for their employees is intrusive government regulations. ”
Not true….companies don’t want to pay for employee benefits and desire to maximize profit!! The problem is, though, they’re actually paying MORE for contractors and LOSING their knowledge base!!
Don't Tread
December 11th, 2012
9:52 am
“the argument made by most conservatives is not that government should provide no safety net, but that it should not catch and even ensnare people who can and should be responsible for their own well-being”
The safety net should be a safety net, not a hammock. Those who perpetually abuse the system should be kicked out. Of course the Democrats are adamantly against anything that affects their ability to buy votes using someone else’s money.
John
December 11th, 2012
9:55 am
Mr. Kristof doesn’t mention poverty within the inner cities. No need to wonder why.
md
December 11th, 2012
9:56 am
“companies don’t want to pay for employee benefits and desire to maximize profit!!”
Which is what we want them to do, as those profits drive the economy and fund our retirements. Folks best hope they maximize profits considering most of us are relying on our 401k’s for retirement. Any of you planning on retiring on SS are in for a rude awakening.
Progressive Humanist
December 11th, 2012
10:00 am
There was a work/welfare program in Milwaukee a few years ago that would provide credits for child care, food, health care, and a little extra spending money for recipients for every week that they could show verification that they worked at least 35 hours. For some people it made no change- they didn’t work the 35-hour weeks and passed on the benefits. Those people seemed destined to a multi-generational cycle of poverty. They were essentially addicted to welfare as a way of life. For many others it helped exponentially, and not only did their families flourish from the extra support that they would not have had otherwise, but they actually rose into the middle class. Except for the elderly and disabled, welfare should come with stipulations as a requirement for receiving aid.
clem
December 11th, 2012
10:10 am
wealth/income disparity is a cancer. the upper crust think their sh$t don’t stink and average joes should be happy with job. truth of matter is most upper crust could be replaced in heartbeat by just as talented joes. why isn’t supply/demand in play for them. and when they fail they get the golden chute. doesn’t happen for joe sixpack. seems like we are in a race to the bottom. can you say bob nardelli. watching all the talking heads on all channels confirms what i just stated.
md
December 11th, 2012
10:18 am
” truth of matter is most upper crust could be replaced in heartbeat by just as talented joes.”
Then do it vs complain about it. We choose everything we do, what’s stopping you?
breckenridge
December 11th, 2012
10:19 am
The answer to poverty, and ending the welfare culture, is population control. Americans fall into one of two classes – assets (taxpayers) or liabilities. Now is the time to start prohibiting liabilities from reproducing.
Progressive Humanist
December 11th, 2012
10:23 am
According to breckenridge @ 10:19, more Republicans are liabilities and more liberals are assets: http://taxfoundation.org/article/states-vary-widely-number-tax-filers-no-income-tax-liability
clem
December 11th, 2012
10:23 am
i’m doing/did ok. it is what i observed lo these many years. your telling me ceo’s who used to make double digit multiples of their workers are now exponentially higher is justified given the productivity of many average workers. i say what is good for the goose is good for the gander and team morale.
Kyle Wingfield
December 11th, 2012
10:24 am
md @ 9:50: We need to see some attribution for the NYC story, which you obviously copied and pasted from elsewhere.
MarkV
December 11th, 2012
10:28 am
As a reminder that programs that the government institutes with best intentions are not perfect anfd should be improved, Nicholas Kristof’s article has definite merits. As a political argument from a conservative, Kyle’s article sounds ridiculous:
“Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.”
What a revelation! Many people are helped, but some are not. Why don’t we start listing government programs, instituted by any party, that work perfectly? It will be a very short list.
Progressive Humanist
December 11th, 2012
10:31 am
Our military endeavors do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.
Banderson
December 11th, 2012
10:34 am
I remember a time when, if a pro football team owner wanted a new stadium, he’d (yes, it was always a “he”) would just build it and not wait for a gub’ment handout. If a movie maker wanted to make a movie, he didn’t wait to see which state would give him the most tax credits (which he could sell for 90 cents on the dollar to people who actually owe taxes), he’d just make his movie where and when he wanted it, with his own money. Back in the day, when you put your money in a bank that made stupid loans or had shady business practices, you lost your money and the bank’s owners either went to jail or got out of town. A Donald Trump, who lost tons of money in business, couldn’t just declare bankruptcy and get to “work it out” by not paying all his debts, he’d go to debtor’s prison with the other deadbeats. Ah, those were the days.
md
December 11th, 2012
10:36 am
Yes I did Kyle, and I put it in quotation marks as a quote, but I like to do it that way so folks will go out and do their own research in an attempt to educate themselves. Giving the link is sometimes counterproductive, but that is the daddy in me.
It’s a Stossel story.
kimmer
December 11th, 2012
10:37 am
It’s sad that a poor young person has a choice to either join the military, with the potential to die in battle, or go on a government giveaway program.
Have you noticed what goes on in the poor inner cities of this country? I would think the chances of meeting with a violent death are much greater in south chicago than in the armed forces.
MANGLER
December 11th, 2012
10:38 am
I see a whole lot of blame, but I haven’t read many proposed solutions.
It amazes me the amount of vitriol expressed against our elected leaders. If the populace is that unhappy with them, why aren’t there hundreds of people running for these offices? Why isn’t the ballot 200 names long for Council members, Mayors, and other representatives? That would seem to make sense wouldn’t it? You dislike who you get to chose from so much, get up there and run for office yourself.
I’ll listen to your proposals when you do that. Until then, you’re just yelling into the wind.
Reality
December 11th, 2012
10:57 am
Kyle -
You are so off of the mark and so out on the limb it is pitiful. However, you do properly represent the conservatives well….
Heart surgery is known to be the cause of death to 2% of its patients. Does this mean that heart surgery is bad and needs to stop?
A plane crashes somewhere in the world at least once every week. Does this mean that all planes should be permanently grounded?
Nothing is perfect. There are unintended consequences to everything. However, this certainly is no justification for NOT doing it.
Heck, CEOs and CFOs embezzle money all of the time. Does this mean that we should never have CEOs or CFOs?
At least these programs do help many many people. These are the good, honest, hardworking people that deserve help. Many of these people had some horrible life accident (health issue for example) or maybe some financial disaster. In fact, one day YOU might be one of these people.
There is a reason social safety nets are in place. Are they perfect? No. But even though I have never used any of them, I am glad that they are there!
JamVet
December 11th, 2012
10:58 am
To Rafe’s point, end the gargantuan and needless welfare for the super-wealthy and only then reign it in for the destitute, elderly, infirm and women and children.
It is the conservative thing to do.
Occupy that.
saywhat?
December 11th, 2012
11:05 am
Since the U.S. military sometimes fails in its missions, I expect to hear calls from the right for deep cuts. I won’t hold my breath.
Reality
December 11th, 2012
11:07 am
For those discussing corporations and their hiring practices…. I would have a simple explanation:
The ‘people in charge’, the decision makers, the CEOs, etc. are rewarded on short term results. Heck, even the President is only looking for 4 years. When our leaders are only looking short term, we get the results that we now have.
Let’s look to sports as an example. The football coach at an U is looking to win the season. Rarely do they care about the team 3 or 4 years down the road. Mostly (especially at smaller schools) they are looking to make their mark in one or two years and then get a “promotion” to a bigger and better school or maybe even to the Pro ranks.
The same is for the management of companys. They are looking to maximize the profits for this year. Rarely do they look 3 or 4 years down the road. The CEO of a small company can make a record profit one year and then move one to a bigger company. The CEO of a bigger company wants record profits in one year to get that “big payout” of bonus, stocks, whatever. Do they really care about the company in 5 years? Rarely.
The same with them looking out for employees. The leaders couldn’t care less about losing the employee with knowledge. The employee is simple another widget that can easily be replaced. And, it is better to not “buy” the widget but “rent” the widget because then they don’t have to pay for or maintain records for benefits. When that “rented” widget is used up, dispose of it and rent another widget.
This is what is wrong with corporate America. The leaders look only to short term and also they are too involved with politics (another blog).
saywhat?
December 11th, 2012
11:12 am
Conservatives would rather not help anybody, if there is the possibility that even one non-deserving person may benefit from it.
Liberals would rather allow the non-deserving to receive assistance, if doing so means fewer of the deserving are left out.
Aquagirl
December 11th, 2012
11:16 am
Taken together, Murray’s post and Kristof’s column give us an important understanding about the fallibility of even well-intentioned government programs for the poor
The plural of anecdote is not data.
saywhat?
December 11th, 2012
11:18 am
Aquagirl @11:16- Where is that statement from? I like it.
md
December 11th, 2012
11:20 am
“”There are no jobs!” That is what people told me outside a government “jobs center” in New York City.
To check this out, I sent four researchers around the area. They quickly found 40 job openings. Twenty-four were entry-level positions. One restaurant owner told me he would hire 12 people if workers would just apply.
It made me wonder what my government does in buildings called “job centers.” So I asked a college intern, Zoelle Mallenbaum, to find out. Here’s what she found:
“First I went to the Manhattan Jobs Center and asked, “Can I get help finding a job?” They told me they don’t do that. ‘We sign people up for food stamps.’ I tried another jobs center. They told me to enroll for unemployment benefits.”
So the “jobs” centers help people get handouts. Neither center suggested people try the 40 job openings in the neighborhood. “”
Jon Stossel
saywhat?
December 11th, 2012
11:21 am
I forget where i heard this, but the difference between Republicans and Den=mocrats is this:
Democrats are like a nice Aunt, who promises to take you to Disneyworld but never seems to find the time. Republicans are like a mean Uncle who says he can’t afford to take you to Disneyworld, but you find out he took somebody else.
md
December 11th, 2012
11:27 am
More like the nice Aunt that takes you to Disneyland but uses the mean Uncle’s credit card. The mean uncle gets to pay the bill and the nice aunt gets to continue looking like the nice aunt.
Ronald Reagan
December 11th, 2012
11:29 am
Second & third generation welfare is the real problem here. One of the generations needs to get a decent education & apply themselves with a CAREER or a JOB! It’s not that complicated!
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 11th, 2012
11:32 am
Here is the key line in Kyle’s post:
“…can sometimes…”
Exactly
But the Neo Cons, Kyle, and people of that ilk will gladly throw the baby out with the bathwater
With a big smile on their face.
Aquagirl
December 11th, 2012
11:35 am
Where is that statement from? I like it.
I heard it on the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe podcast. Who said it first is unknown but it’s most often attributed to Roger Brinner, an economist with the Parthenon Group.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 11th, 2012
11:36 am
Meanwhile the economy is looking better and better.
DOW up over 100 points again today.
It took 4 years but we finally may have corrected the damage done by Dubya.
Obama has certainly got this thing turned around.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 11th, 2012
11:37 am
I’ve been trying to find any news items saying Republicans were proposing eliminating any of the major handout programs.
Any of you progs care to back up your claims to that effect?
Yeah, didn’t think so.
yuzeyurbrane
December 11th, 2012
11:39 am
“Give a man a fish and he will be not be hungry for a day; give a man a fishhook and teach him how to fish and he will not be hungry again.” I don’t recall who said that but it is a logic with which I basically agree. And my own personal observation has been that many welfare bureaucrats encourage dependency for whatever personal reasons they may have and view welfare recipients with disdain. Hardly an uplifting experience to visit one of those offices. Just read some of the descriptions used by poster td, who is a former DFACS employee, and views he has attributed to his wife, who is current DFACS employee, re this point. I would hope that Kyle and other conservatives could subscribe to my views as well. However, my own experience has been that extreme conservatives have also been opposed to programs that would teach someone how to fish. And where poor folks become too uppity they are the first to use the leverage of the dependency enhancing traditional welfare programs to put those poor folks back in their place. So, do they really oppose traditional welfare programs?
Living With Open Eyes
December 11th, 2012
11:41 am
Hey md. Why don”t YOU go out there and take one of those entry level jobs and try to live on your pay without any help from anyone. Minimum wage is a joke that isn’t funny.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 11th, 2012
11:41 am
Aquagirl: The plural of anecdote is not data.
———
Are the thousands of new SSI recipients in the recent, rapid surge in applicant “anecdotes”?
No, they’re moochers being signed up for transfer payments as fast as Obozo can sign them up.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 11th, 2012
11:43 am
md was probably smart enough and ambitious enough to not put herself in that position.
Just a guess.
Living With Open Eyes
December 11th, 2012
11:47 am
No md was probably like me and the rest of you that have time to blog. We were lucky enough to start our careers before the cheap labor illegal immigrant wave and trickle down economics got here.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 11th, 2012
11:48 am
yuze: conservatives have also been opposed to programs that would teach someone how to fish.
———–
Bull. Ever heard of public schools, charter schools, the military, the GI bill?
md
December 11th, 2012
11:49 am
“Hey md. Why don”t YOU go out there and take one of those entry level jobs and try to live on your pay without any help from anyone. Minimum wage is a joke that isn’t funny.”
Been there done that. Actually had to take THREE of those crappy low paying jobs just to survive. And made the sacrifices to put myself on the forever college plan that took me about 4 times as long as a normal person.
You see, we choose everything we do, including making excuses for why we didn’t do something.
I did it, how about you?
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 11th, 2012
11:50 am
People who stay in school, don’t do drugs, don’t have babies they can’t support, and know how to show up on time don’t have any trouble finding good paying jobs.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 11th, 2012
11:51 am
Well, until four years ago, anyway.