Also grew up poor, shiftless dad, moved all the time. Like economics, being poor isn't one-sided.
Middle-class and up usually DO have lots of advantages. They generally get to go to better schools, have their parents fund their college education, probably have their first car bought for them, good chance of grandparents chipping in big time on that first house. Through no effort on their part, middle-class (and higher) children get more capital, espescially human capital (marketable skills, confidence in their ability to achieve financial goals, investing practices modeled for them, and so on). Some of these advantaged kids lose those advantages, either from bad luck, or not absorbing the qualities that would help them perpetuate their economic class.
Working poor and down often DO have behaviors that contribute to remaining in their situation. Like the middle-class kids, they were born into their disadvantaged situation to no credit or fault of their own. Their options are more limited, they have less access to any kind of capital (especially including a comparable education), the behaviors they're exposed to are not usually conducive to moving up the economic ladder, but some of them manage to do it anyway, due to genetics or different experiences or good parenting in a bad situation, a mentor, or whatever.
I don't conclude from this that it's pointless to assist the poor. It's pointless to expect assistance aimed at keeping their heads above water to be effective in remedying their situation; not so pointless to expect results-based programs aimed at getting them the skills and behavioral tools to achieve more economically to help more than just food stamps and Medicaid alone.
A harsh reality seems to be that it's not very effective to aim such efforts at adults, except to help them be more effectively supportive of the success of the children. Train the adults to be parents of children who will make it out of poverty and properly educate those children, and you can see real improvement.
I would think a conservative could recognize that spending more now in ways that will make more people less dependent on government assistance in the future is simply a good investment.
Middle-class and up usually DO have lots of advantages. They generally get to go to better schools, have their parents fund their college education, probably have their first car bought for them, good chance of grandparents chipping in big time on that first house. Through no effort on their part, middle-class (and higher) children get more capital, espescially human capital (marketable skills, confidence in their ability to achieve financial goals, investing practices modeled for them, and so on). Some of these advantaged kids lose those advantages, either from bad luck, or not absorbing the qualities that would help them perpetuate their economic class.
Working poor and down often DO have behaviors that contribute to remaining in their situation. Like the middle-class kids, they were born into their disadvantaged situation to no credit or fault of their own. Their options are more limited, they have less access to any kind of capital (especially including a comparable education), the behaviors they're exposed to are not usually conducive to moving up the economic ladder, but some of them manage to do it anyway, due to genetics or different experiences or good parenting in a bad situation, a mentor, or whatever.
I don't conclude from this that it's pointless to assist the poor. It's pointless to expect assistance aimed at keeping their heads above water to be effective in remedying their situation; not so pointless to expect results-based programs aimed at getting them the skills and behavioral tools to achieve more economically to help more than just food stamps and Medicaid alone.
A harsh reality seems to be that it's not very effective to aim such efforts at adults, except to help them be more effectively supportive of the success of the children. Train the adults to be parents of children who will make it out of poverty and properly educate those children, and you can see real improvement.
I would think a conservative could recognize that spending more now in ways that will make more people less dependent on government assistance in the future is simply a good investment.
