Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

[Immanuel Can]

It's not like parents with two jobs and no time is all that rare is it?

If you have two parents in the home and two jobs, and can't put food on the table, then how many children do you have?

Let's assume a single mother, let he be a nurse for this example, with, hmm, just one kid, school age...She isn't able to be there for her child in the evenings, which is something she would like to be able to do. Time with her family has an economic utility that she is unable to afford. So what determines whether this is poverty or not is whether you believe that parents who cannot afford to spend quality time with their children are missing out, and more importantly whether this lac of affordability places the child into a state of poverty too.

I see that there are still more unknowns. Why did she choose the man she chose? Why did she decide to have a child? How is "quality time" to be defined, and why doesn't she have what she needs? Where are her relatives? Where is her local community? Why has she not educated herself (assuming she hasn't)? Why are her jobs not sufficient for basic food and clothing?

But assuming all these questions have answers that make her ONLY a victim here, and there really is NOTHING more she could do for her child, she might be a case of real poverty, and worthy of the support of others. It's just very hard to know if that's her situation, since you're only imagining it.

So what happened to this....?

Well, that's true: in the Developing World, we might say that "poverty is a lack of options." That's one good way to put it.

Now poverty is selling your children as slaves?

Nothing "happened" to it. That's why I said, "one good way to put it." There are certainly other ways.

Poverty is a lack of basic nutrition. Poverty is a lack of money. Poverty is forced ignorance. Poverty is a lack of social status and dignity...these are some of the other ways to put it.

But if you have to sell your child into slavery (and I'm thinking of a real situation here, not an imaginary one) then that's a thing you'll never do until you have a complete lack of options. People do get to that, in the Developing World. Trust me.

[FlashDangerpants]

So if somebody is poor today, and that is a result of bad choices they made in the past such as marrying an abusive man, or, God forbid, some ill advised fucking, does that disqualify a person from being in poverty? Does it mean their child isn't poor? Does it mean they don't deserve help to escape that situation?

[Immanuel Can]

So if somebody is poor today, and that is a result of bad choices they made in the past such as marrying an abusive man, or, God forbid, some ill advised fucking, does that disqualify a person from being in poverty?

No.

But it means both the problem and any remedy to that problem are quite different. Not all poverty situations are the same.

An honest man who is poor because he has no education or prospects is one thing. A man who squanders his money on gambling and drugs is quite a different one, even if the two men end up with the same amount of money.

You don't blame the former, or reward the latter.

[FlashDangerpants]

So, can children be among the undeserving poor who should not be helped?

[Immanuel Can]

So, can children be among the undeserving poor who should not be helped?

Of course not. Children have few choices, and none that concern their basic living situations. So that's a legitimate concern of local government.

[FlashDangerpants]

So in answer to the question of whether her child is in a state of poverty, you no longer need to know why she chose to have a child at all to answer that. and we are past the question of whether someone is ONLY a victim I assume?

Perhaps that gives us time to look at what we can actually do about the poverty beyond issuing unhelpful judgment.

[Immanuel Can]

So in answer to the question of whether her child is in a state of poverty, you no longer need to know why she chose to have a child at all to answer that.

Actually, I do.

Because one thing we ought to do for children -- and it's the greatest possible thing we could do for any of them -- is to encourage their parents to be together and responsible in their conduct.

One of the most shameful phenomena, and by far the most hurtful to the most children, is the phenomenon of the unnecessary single parent. This has become so horribly common, and so "mainline" that there are concepts like "baby mama" (for irresponsible unwed mother, who has availed herself of government support by behaving reprehensibly) and "baby daddy" (for her irresponsible partner in crime in bilking the system).

If you read the relevant studies, you'll find that NOTHING harms children so much as this sort of irresponsible, broken home. And nothing the State can do, after the fact, is equivalent to reversing or even mitigating the damage this does to children.

There are, in fact, only three things the studies show that a parent needs to do in order not to be in poverty at all. And they are:

1. Complete education to end of high school.
2. Be in a committed two-parent relationship.
3. Get a job -- any job -- and work at it consistently.

With these three things in play, at least in North America, you can be guaranteed not to be in poverty, and not to put your kids in poverty. That's what the studies all show. It's also the very best thing you can do for any kids you produce.

So in point of fact, helping children means placing serious social behavioural expectations on those who produce them.

[FlashDangerpants]

Wow, I've never encountered widespread social shaming as a Utopian ideal before, but whatever. Neoliberals are more interested in actual possibilities than whatever that fantasy is, so it's beyond the scope of anything I'm looking at here.

In the developed world, where people live real lives that involve a lot of mess, and some mistakes that need fixing, what works for child poverty reduction is negative income taxes (family credit, EITC and so on). So that's what a neolib would recommend.

It seems we're agreed that child poverty is a real thing, it would be far too much to ask for you and I to agree on what to do about it really.

[henry quirk]

"Did you watch the 2020 Democrat presidential candidate debates that took place recently?"

Oh hell no...no point...I know their positions and they're all opposite of what I favor.

#

"your Democrat Party has gone right off the rails and transformed itself into a pack of frothing-at-the-mouth, lunatic socialists (Marxists).

None of this is surprising or unexpected. I became aware of this sphere (politics) around age ten, so for about 46 years I've watched bad (commie dupes & sympathizers) move steadily to today's worse (full-blown card carriers).

Uncle Joe may be the only one of the bunch who's actually a 'democrat', and you how it's goin' south for him.

Hillary Clinton's soul sister (Harris) is a mercenary thug (just like Clinton).

The rest: just commies.

[henry quirk]

"It's actually Trump who has the most 'socialist' policies."

How so?

[henry quirk]

"child poverty"

You ain't gonna like this, but...

if you wanna curb it: promote self-reliance & -responsibility; encourage charities


Teaching folks, from childhood, to self-control (impulses, and appetites) always works. Anyone who sez otherwise is ignorant.

Shame has it's place. The stockade in the public square might net more 'correction' than the cell.


Charity, from folks who actually give a damn rather than grey civil servants, tends to be 'hands on', not assembly line; tends toward innovation and tailored response and flexibility rather than one-size-fits-all; runs leans and is budget conscious. And (this is important) the needy are held responsible with chariities; sumthin' is expected from them (even if just a sincere 'thank you').

[Immanuel Can]

Wow, I've never encountered widespread social shaming

Get used to it. Sometimes shame is exactly what we're lacking. Unnecessary single parenthood is just that -- shameful. But it's also selfish, venial and socially massively destructive. But not because I say so...because every credible study on the impact of single parenting on children has shown just that, and because I've seen it in case after case in real life.

what works for child poverty reduction is negative income taxes

Nope.

As strange as it sounds, in North America, poverty isn't a financial problem. You can get enough money. The social safety net is sufficient to keep a sane and balanced person from sinking. But can you stay afloat? Can you stop making horrible life-choices? Can you stop drinking, using drugs, gambling, having unprotected sex, buying stupid things on credit, trashing all your relationships, alienating from your community, having low moral expectations for yourself, buying cigarettes and cell phone plans instead of food, and ignoring your children? Because if you can't, we can't fix you by giving you more money...we just increase your scope and opportunity for self-destructive (and child-destructive) choices.

So what that means is that the problems are not in the social safety net, and the giving of more money won't fix things: the problems are behavioural. And until the decisions being made by individuals change, there will be no solution to poverty in the Developed West.

[Immanuel Can]

"child poverty"

You ain't gonna like this, but...

Why do I even talk, when you're going to say it with more style?

[FlashDangerpants]

Well we aren't going to agree on any of that because you two are fundamentally illiberal. It's part of any liberal creed to maximise the space for personal conscience and give people space to live their lives. A secondary corollary is that we don't subscribe to myths of human perfectibility, so we aren't going to buy into the idea that a little more religion or a slice of self sufficiency makes for better people. It is liberal to aknowledge that sometimes a person will make a really bad decision, and sometimes a really good decision won't work out anyway, so we provide chances to remediate the effects with the minimum of judgment.

Stigmatising people for not living their life how you would, and not making the choices in it that you approve of, is I'm sure very nice for conformist little villages where everyone is the same religion and anyone who doesn't go to Church on Sunday is a slattern, but that's the sort of society that the socially excluded flee, so I'm not really interested in building a bigger or more efficient social aparatus along those lines.

The real world is where we make policy choices, and it is better to pursue policies that work towards their objectives than those which set themselves up to fail. A return to middle ages morality plays may be a wonderful fantasy for some, but it isn't workable, so it isn't an avenue to pursue.

If you are intent on analysing poverty as a moral failing instead of an inability to afford goods and services, you are in a state of denial that I can't really assist with. Nobody is going to be persuaded, the analysis helps with no real life issues, so it is just another reason to sideline your out of touch concerns.

[Sculptor]

You two are such morons. It's actually Trump who has the most 'socialist' policies.

ROTFLMFHO