A debate on a plan

Proponent did not define poverty. I assume it is the category of people in the United States living in households having incomes below the official poverty levels set by the Government. 1. Proponent asserts that "education is the most important tool to escape poverty." He offers no proof of that assertion. India inherited a strong educational system from the British. When India achieved independence, however, high education levels did not of itself bring prosperity. Many highly trained people were grossly underemployed for decades, until relatively recent times. I agree that education is some factor in escaping poverty, but there no proof it is the determining factor. 2. I will stipulate that a voucher system would somewhat improve the education of poor people, however no proof is offered that the improvement would be so significant as to end poverty. The data cited showing a 5%-7% improvement in college admission rates in Colombia, but no data was presented that educational opportunities in Colombia are comparable to the United States. If there are more poor schools, we would expect vouchers to work better than if most schools are adequate to start with. Even if 5-7% improvements in admissions of poor people were achieved in the US, proponent offers no calculation showing it would have a significant impact. Poverty rates in the U.S. run around 12%, so at the very best it might produce a reduction to 11.2%. 3. Having improved educational opportunities does not mean that people will take advantage of them. Current educational opportunities in the U.S. are more than adequate to obtain whatever advantage education provides in escaping poverty. This is demonstrated by immigrants from Southeast Asia and Cuba who arrived in the US with virtually nothing, who could not speak English, and who faced discrimination. They nonetheless successfully took advantage of the educational opportunities here and escaped poverty within one generation. They did so without vouchers. The main reason for success was cultural pressure by their parents and their communities to become educated, not the quality of educational opportunities available. 4. It is not possible to put low income people on every block without amending the Constitution to permit forced relocation. We should not undertake such a dramatic violation of traditional civil rights. 5. The government currently has a program ("Section 8") that provides rent subsidies wherever people choose to live and can get housing at reasonable costs. Thus insofar as reasonable economic incentives can be used to encourage relocation, that has already been in place for decades and poverty has not ended. It would be impractical to relocate people to Beverly Hills. 6. "increasing employment opportunities" is not a plan, it is a goal. Proponent mainly repeats what I covered in (4) and (5). 7. The Welfare Reform Act passed during the Clinton Administration strengthened the requirements that welfare recipients must actively seek work in order to receive welfare benefits. This was successful in substantially reducing welfare rolls. This demonstrates that while there are certainly places where jobs are unavailable, that there is also a segment that is not motivated to get a job. Proponent claims to eliminate poverty, but does not treat the unmotivated segment in any way. 8. The assertion that most poor people do not have cars is false. Just under 75% of poor households own cars and 30% own two cars. http://www.heritage.org... Of those who do not own cars, some live in cities where public transportation is a better way to get around. I grant that there are some poor people who do not have cars who could benefit from having a car, but Proponent has made no argument as to what that number is, or why it would have a substantial effect on eliminating poverty. 9. Proponent ignores the factor of social mobility in creating and removing people from poverty. According to Charles and Hurst: " Age adjusted parental wealth, by itself, explains less than ten percent of the variation in age adjusted child wealth. Furthermore, twenty percent of parents in the lowest quintile of the parent's wealth distribution have children who are able to break away from their parents low wealth status and end up in the top two quintiles of the child's wealth distribution. Similarly, one quarter of the parents in the highest wealth quintile have children whose wealth places them in the lowest two quintiles of the child's wealth distribution." http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu... Proponents arguments assume that people are generally trapped in poverty for generations, so that once they escape the poverty problem is solved. That is not true. There is mobility, and nothing Proponent espouses addresses that. 10. People fall into drug addiction, alcoholism, and plain nasty habits that make them end up in poverty. Supreme Court decisions have eliminated the power of the government to provide mandatory treatment of the mentally ill, so long as the mentally ill persons are not a danger to themselves or others. These people can be helped, but Proponent's plan does nothing to address this entire class of poor people. 11. Proponent ignores cultural factors that affect poverty. High motivation to get an education and work hard is far more important than the minor remedies proposed. This is born out by the success of recent immigrants from Asia and other places, where they came from a highly motivated culture. It's also true to large extent of Hispanic immigrants. Poverty cannot be eliminated unless everyone is highly motivated to succeed. Proponent's plan fails because he has ignored the major causes of poverty, and has made no showing that what he proposes would substantially reduce poverty, let alone eliminate it.