Either way, I personally feel three generations is too long to wait, and I think that there must be something we can do to change the attitudes of young parents and their children caught, as you say, in a cycle of generational poverty.

Mere charity will not be enough.

Yes, it has. And it is going to take a long, long time for the results to come in. They have had the financial equality of schools on the books for what, 12 years now? The students that started receiving the increased funding haven’t even graduated high school yet. Their test scores might not have improved very much in relation to the wealthier students, but their overall attitudes might have done so. If even some of them now value education more than they might have otherwise, then their children will be raised in an environment in which education is more important. This slow, gradual progression may, in two or three generations, show results. This is not an overnight transition, as I have said before. This is changing the mindset of an entire segment of the population. This may take 50 or 100 years, but people’s attitudes can be changed. And I believe they will.

Yes there are. I work as a director of a homeless shelter in Aurora, IL, one of the poorer communities in the Chicagoland area. I see the desperate poverty that drives people to homelessness. I see many of the causes of poverty. The include, but (of course) are not limited to: substance abuse, alcohol abuse, lack of education, criminal history, domestic violence, improperly diagnosed mental health situations, poor physical health, and more. But the far and away number one cause of homelessness: generational poverty.

Generational poverty can be defined as follows: “The cycle(s) of poverty has been defined as a phenomenon where poor families become trapped in poverty for at least three generations. These families have either limited or no resources. There are many disadvantages that collectively work in a circular process making it virtually impossible for individuals to break the cycle. This occurs when poor people do not have the resources necessary to get out of poverty, such as financial capital, education, or connections. In other words, poverty-stricken individuals experience disadvantages as a result of their poverty, which in turn increases their poverty. This would mean that the poor remain poor throughout their lives. This cycle has also been referred to as a “pattern” of behaviors and situations which cannot easily be changed.”

I see this every day. Most of my guests are from long lines of people in poverty. Their parents were poor, their grandparents were poor, and so on. Most of my guests are not in the different reality of “situational poverty”: poverty caused by one or more unexpected factors (job loss, medical bills, car accident, etc.). These folks generally have lower-middle-class backgrounds, including education, employment history, and connections, and, with a little help, can find their way back to where they came from.

Those who are in generational poverty are far, far harder to raise up. I attended a conference recently that discussed the differences in mentality between the poor, middle, and upper classes. It was absolutely fascinating, and incredibly illuminating. I can’t recount all of the details here, but, suffice it to say, the attitudes of the poor are fundamentally different from those of the middle (and upper) class. It is these attitudes that must be retaught in order for people to move up to middle class. They literally have to be taught the social norms expected of them so that they might fit into middle class jobs, schools, and social environments. This it what is so hard. This is what needs to be taught to people. This is PRECISELY what is not being taught to them, either by their families, teachers, or other authority figures.

Do I have an answer? Of course not. But I strive day-by-day to make a small difference in people’s lives. I can only hope that if my efforts result in even one person rising out of generational poverty, then my day will have been a success. That is what drives me, each and every day, to do my absolute best at my career.

By the way, when I talk about poverty, I agree with Mike. Even my guests that do receive some sort of SSI or SSDI income generally receive no more than $1000 per month per person. And you know what? You can get by on that. You can find a $300 apartment, use public transportation, do without some “necessities” as mentioned by Mike — cell phone, television, etc. — and do okay. And that’s on $12,000 a year. Of course, if you had a wife and two kids, your expenses would go up. But not that much. And not to $42,000. And this, of course, is in a suburb of a major city. If you went further out, into more rural areas, you can find housing for much less than that. Is it a great life? No — why do you think we’re all wringing our hands about poverty? But you can certainly survive on it.

I agree, that the attitudes toward education need to be addressed at home. My question: if you don’t start by educating the youth of the importance of school, how do you start? I merely posit that young, malleable minds are more likely to be receptive of a paradigm shift as regards education than their parents, grandparents, and other older relatives. I firmly believe that at least attempting to level the educational playing field is essential in providing equal human rights to children. No, Sam, I’m not talking about college: I’m talking about finishing high school. I hope you would at least agree that a high school diploma (or GED) is important in the workforce.

“Just because the dom­i­nance of a coun­try declines rel­a­tive to the rest of the world does not mean that it must decline in nom­i­nal terms. Hun­dreds of years ago — pri­mar­ily before the rise of a mer­chant middle-class — the rich were very rich, and the poor were very poor. But as eco­nomic dis­par­ity declined, the rich became richer at a decreas­ing rate while the poor became richer at an accel­er­ated rate.”

I agree. Unquestionably, the vast majority of the world’s population is far, far better off than it was a mere century ago. But, and this is the key, the US still enjoys a position of wealth relative to other nations. Using the measure of purchasing power parity per capita (basically, the GDP of country adjusted for cost of living), you can see this clearly. USA PPP (as of 2008 — figures provided courtesy World Bank): $46,716. Worldwide PPP: $10,415. The US, in other words, has, ON AVERAGE, 4.5 times the wealth per person as the average person worldwide.

“This is not to say that those who are advan­taged will not use every means nec­es­sary to main­tain that advan­tage. But it is nat­ural.”

I agree with this as well. And this is the key to my point above (way, way above): the US will fight like hell to maintain their relative wealth vis-a-vis the rest of the world. It’s only natural, as you agree, to use every means necessary to maintain that advantage. This, of course, is why the US won’t help out third world countries. This, of course, is why the wealthy won’t help out the poor. Why should they? It goes against human nature.

Indeed, statistics can lie. But, let’s face it, a family of four living on $21,000/year is poor.

Mike, I’ll admit the error, but it hardly changes my point. It’s hard enough for two people to get by on $42,000/year, let alone four.

All, I see a trend in this conversation towards talking about class. I want to clarify: I’m not talking about class, I’m talking about poverty.

Indeed, the U.S. – any country – needs garbagemen, postal workers, janitors, hotel maids, etc. These are “lower class” jobs. The problem is that while a janitor in the 1950s could have a house, a car, and a family, today he can barely afford the necessities of life. The cost of living has outpaced wages for decades now, and that means more abject poverty. Still, he has a job.

It’s those without jobs and with no hope of finding jobs that are the “poor.” As Sam notes, there are many reasons for this poverty. I personally think it has a lot to do with greed and discrimination, but I won’t force that down people’s throats.

Dan, Vermont actually has done what you suggest. We still have pockets of poverty in the same places you’d expect: rural areas and run-down cities. Further, Kenya instituted universal education long ago. Where did it get them?

Although I do believe every child has a right to a basic education, throwing money at the problem, as Mike says, isn’t going to solve it. Good teachers in decent facilities make a difference, and many if not most good teachers don’t want to teach in poor areas – no matter how much you are willing to pay them.

writes that 100 mil­lion peo­ple in Amer­ica are at or below the offi­cial poverty line, which itself is an absurd, unre­al­is­tic measure.

I recall a “West Wing” episode in which someone asks the president, “Do you want more or fewer poor people?” He says, “Fewer.”

So the aides reject a proposal that would reclassify the poverty line to make it more realistic (and also increase the number defined as “poor”).

It’s not quite the same thing, but it communicates the point that statistics are, well, statistics.

Look at our own high school — I don’t think any­one is going to claim that it is any­where close to a top school, but for those of us who actu­ally showed up to learn and lis­ten to what was being taught, we could get a very good edu­ca­tion that pre­pared us for col­lege and beyond.

Exactly. I don’t really know how good our high-school was compared to others in general nationwide (especially since we were essentially sequestered in honors classes with the same group of people), but the fact remains that we were studying physics, writing Model U.N. position papers, and editing the school newspaper while others were getting drunk and pregnant at parties in cornfields, smashing the luxury cars they received from their parents, or killing their erstwhile-smart brains with drugs.

If parents, friends, and society do not instill the right values in a student, an open checkbook will do nothing.

cap­i­tal­ism can­not work with­out an upper class and a lower class.

The unfortunate reality is that society will always have an upper, middle, and lower class. There will always be smart people; there will always been dumb people. There will always been strong people; there will always be weak people. There will always be people who make choices that make them rich; there will always be people who make choices that keep them poor. There will always be people who will be rich through no effort of their own; there will always be people who will be poor through bad luck no matter how much they try. This is the human condition — just like there will always be smaller cattle in fields that are more likely to fall prey to predators.

This is not to say that those who are advantaged will not use every means necessary to maintain that advantage. But it is natural. Nature is neutral; it is neither bad nor good. The duty of a moral society is to mitigate this difference as much as possible without harming society as a whole.

Because we know damn well that if we truly helped raise up the rest of our world, the rel­a­tive posi­tion of dom­i­nance that the US cur­rently enjoys would decline, and we don’t want that. We NEED to have the major­ity of the nations poor, just as the upper class NEEDS to have the major­ity of the peo­ple (rel­a­tively) poor.

There is a lim­ited amount of wealth avail­able in the world

Just because the dominance of a country declines relative to the rest of the world does not mean that it must decline in nominal terms. Hundreds of years ago — primarily before the rise of a merchant middle-class — the rich were very rich, and the poor were very poor. But as economic disparity declined, the rich became richer at a decreasing rate while the poor became richer at an accelerated rate.

Wealth is not necessarily a zero-sum game. Today, it is not like there are only a million pieces of gold (or a million acres of land or a million dollars) in a society and everyone fights over a limited supply of assets. A positive aspect of a fiat currency is that everyone can gain when the money supply increases (as long as inflation is kept under control).

(But just for the record, I predict that the United States will, indeed, decline in both relative and nominal terms in the coming years.)

Stu­dents that receive a bet­ter edu­ca­tion are more likely to attend col­lege, be pre­pared for col­lege, and suc­ceed once at col­lege, lead­ing to higher rates of col­lege grad­u­a­tion.

We should be encouraging fewer — not more — teenagers to go to college. The increased demand or a college education is one of the factors leading to its high cost that is now saddling young people with debt that they may never erase.

Picture the job market in a given community. To function, the community needs two doctors, two waitresses, and two garbage-men.

If everyone goes to college, the demand for labor will not change. The demand for waitresses and garbage-men will not disappear. What will happen is that you’ll merely have two waitresses and two garbage men with college degrees and student-loan debt.

Rather, we should encourage more students to acquire technical, practical educations if they are not naturally suited to studying Plato. And there would be nothing wrong with that. Part of the problem is that society views cubical-dwellers as “better” than mechanics. And that’s a shame.

Take all the munic­i­pal taxes for the entire state, and redis­trib­ute the funds equally across all school dis­tricts. This would elim­i­nate the inequal­ity present in school dis­tricts based entirely on local eco­nom­ics.

This is a philosophical issue: What is more important for a society: ensuring that gifted students succeed (and benefit society) or that lower-potential students do not fail (and be a drain on society)? Funding for education is a zero-sum game with one allocates a scarce budget. I don’t really have an answer; I’m just posing the question.

This comment and the one following might not make sense. I’m writing on a stream-of-consciousness level at 7:30 a.m. after hours of working and watching the Olympics…

One step in the right direction would be for congress to pass laws to begin taxing accumulated wealth in ways that shift the tax burden from the productive younger generation and those actually producing things to those who have amassed fortunes. This should encourage additional consumption by the those with money to spend, raising demand for labor, increasing wages, and lifting many out of poverty while reducing the need for the poor to become further in debt to those with wealth.

So what can be done? How about this. Take all the municipal taxes for the entire state, and redistribute the funds equally across all school districts. This would eliminate the inequality present in school districts based entirely on local economics. Students from poor areas would end up with better schools, and students from wealthy areas would end up with worse schools. At least it would give students a better chance at a fair beginning. Is this a perfect solution? Of course not. But in order to begin eradicating generational poverty, it has to begin with education. It has to. There is no other way for it to begin.

I welcome other thoughts as well. If you care about human rights, even a little bit, you must realize that giving children an equal opportunity is the absolutely least we can do for them. Children are our most precious resource. To have them begin their lives at a virtually unconquerable disadvantage is a tragedy.

In my opinion, this is the natural human condition. For as long as there have been people, a majority of the people have been poor. In ancient times, most people were poor farmers, living a hardscrabble, day-to-day existence. In the Middle Ages, a majority of the people were peasants, and still farming. During the Industrial Revolution, most of the people were the poor laborers in the factories. Throughout the twentieth century as well, the majority of people were still laborers, service people, and other low-wage earners. This continues today, and will continue for the future.

There is a limited amount of wealth available in the world, and those who have a majority of it will fight like hell to keep it. It’s human nature, one of Sam’s favorite straw men, after all, to keep what’s yours at the expense of others. Those who do not have the wealth are constantly fighting like hell to get it. This, again, is human nature. I don’t think it’s ever going to change. And that’s just the way it is.