From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:16:16 GMT


>actions. Clearly, babies born to single teenage mothers are not going to grow 
>up amid the social  conditioning which is needed to provide some breaks
>on teenage behavior. Clearly, children who attend overcrowded,
>underfunded schools where the rain pours into the classroom

    Again, none of this explains why the problems here are so much
    worse than in many other nations where the poverty is worse, 
    the physical conditions are more miserable, the school spending
    is lower, etc.  And again, these problems are rampant even in
    places like Boston, which spends TWICE as much per student as
    the wealthy suburbs.  


>>  True and false.  The Senate Judiciary Committee, in a report last
>>  March 13, 1991, found the US to be THE most violent society of
>>  any society on Earth which keeps records (based on rates of murder,
>>  rape, and robbery).  
>>
>>  But many of our problems *are* more true of the poor.  Again, I
>>  cite the 15% rate of crack babies in at BCH.  Or the HUGE rate 
>>  of AIDS among poor.   I mean, I suppose one could argue that 
>>  the unwanted teenage pregnancy rate is just as high in Wellesley
>>  (affluent community in Mass.) as Roxbury (poor coommunity 12 miles
>>  east of Wellesley) but the rich Wellesley girls are just having
>>  lots of abortions, but this would be highly speculative and 
>>  you can't abort or easily hide a case of AIDS.   
>
>The rich are better educated, they make better decisions because of their
>better education. And, having a social/economic cushion enables one to make
>mistakes which are fatal to others without paying such a high price.

   Again, this doesn't account for the data.  The Wall Street Journal
   today ran an article saying that, adjusted for inflation, the 
   average family in 1950 would be *below* todays poverty line.  
   Althougfh the rate of poverty has gone up in recent years, it's
   still below what it was throughout most of this century.  But
   you didn't have frequent incidents of bystanders being killed 
   in shootouts between teenagers over ownership of a jacket as
   you do today.  You didn't have a 60% rate of unwed parenthood,
   etc,  etc.   If you're going to argue that it's economics then
   you have to show that the situation in the inner city is uniquely
   bad either in historical terms or cross-culturally.  Being poor
   does not automatically lead to self-destructive behavior.
   
  
>My sister-in-law, who delivers babies in Appalachia was just telling us
>about the woman who took her 10th baby home to the trailer where she lives,
>shocked at the suggestion of a tubal ligation -- "I just love babies". 
>Is it your contention that there are deep cultural similarities between
>the Appalachian poor and those who live in the South Bronx --- other than
>poverty.

  I'm not sure what the point of this anecdote is.  It seems to
  support my position that the problem is cultural, not economic -- 
  i.e., the woman in the story certainly does not appear to be
  making her decision on an economic basis.


>Let's note a fundamental difference between the current economy and the
>ones which could be found in earlier Americas. That is, the semi-skilled and
>skilled factory work which provided a bridge from poverty into the middle
>class don't exist anymore. The job market for illiterate teenagers did not
>used to be limited to mimimum wage, dead-end jobs. 

  Then why are so many immigrants (legal and otherwise) still eager 
  to come here from places like Mexico and the Phillipines (and Ireland
  in the case of Boston)?    I live right next to Lowell, Mass, which
  has, on a per-capita basis, more immigrants than any place in the 
  US.   There is no city of similar size in the US with as many
  languages spoken in their school system.   They have a lot of
  problems, of course.  But by and large, the immigrants are doing
  better than the home-grown poor, a fact which is causing friction
  between them and the natives in Lowell, just as there is friction
  between blacks and Cuban immigrants in Miami, and blacks and 
  Koreans in other places.  (the home grown poor in Lowell are
  white, BTW  --  it's not a racial issue.)      

  Surprisingly, perhaps, I agree that in general the lack of 
  good jobs for the unskilled is a problem.  All societies will
  have a mix of people will different abilities to compete.
  A society geared ONLY to top performers, which makes no allowance
  or has no place for those who are not as smart, aggressive,
  lucky, or rich will be a society with many troubles.  I think
  that our culture's emphasis on winning and domination is 
  not a good thing.   But our point of disagreement is on 
  the response to this.  I claim the issue is cultural:
  the culture of the poor has broken down -- there is no
  community , no shared values, no shared identity.   These 
  are what maintain the dignity of the poor in other cultures
  and what government cannot provide.  And without it the rest
  is hopeless.

---peter