Fighting Poverty: The Business Case

[Edstock]

Fighting Poverty: The Business Case

 

An American hero explains why executives must invest in the poor

 

http://gmj.gallup.com/content/124211/Fight...amp;CSTP=html#1

 

A GMJ Q&A with Lieutenant General Russel Honoré (retired), former commander of Joint Task Force – Katrina, who oversaw military relief efforts after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita

 

Looking back, it seems the stuff of which Bruce Willis movies are made. A devastating storm devolves an American city into chaos. People are dying, the government is helpless, and the situation grows more deadly by the minute.

 

Then, when things are at their worst, a "John Wayne dude" rides to the rescue. With a cigar between his teeth, he gets people plucked out of the flood and finds food for the starving, medicine for the sick, and shelter for the homeless. He tells the trigger-happy to put down their guns and averts bloodshed. He barks at the media to stop spreading rumors. He tells politicians to get out of his way. He asserts order, saves lives, and prevents a calamity from becoming an utter catastrophe.

 

That John Wayne dude, as New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin called him, was Lt. General Russel Honoré, who retired in 2008 after serving as the Commanding General, First Army; Commanding General, Standing Joint Force Headquarters, Homeland Security, U.S. Northern Command; Commanding General, 2nd Infantry Division, Korea; Deputy Commanding General/Assistant Commandant, United States Army Infantry Center and School, Fort Benning, Georgia; and, of course, the Commander of Joint Task Force -- Katrina. He is also the author of Survival: How a Culture of Preparedness Can Save You and Your Family From Disasters. So no one would blame him if, in his retirement, he chose to sit back, light up a Cohiba, and bat away importunate screenwriters.

 

Instead, Gen. Honoré still seeks to ride to the rescue. His new mission is to help people avoid the needless waste of disaster -- not only the kind generated by storms and fires but also the kind that results from letting poor neighborhoods rot. In his view, Americans' rapt attention to Wall Street and Main Street, especially during the economic downtown, ignores the people on "Railroad Street," as Honoré calls impoverished neighborhoods.

 

Neglecting the poor, General Honoré says, is bad for people and bad for business, because every kid who grows up believing that his greatest opportunities lie in crime -- or that her mind is sufficiently educated by ninth grade -- is human and financial capital down the drain. As Gen. Honoré discusses below, morality isn't the most compelling reason for business to intervene in poor communities; enlightened self-interest is. The bottom line is that the folks on Railroad Street are potential customers, employees, and business leaders, and organizations overlook them to their detriment.

 

Regardless of your politics, IMHO, the article is worth the read.

[xr7g428]

As long as government is committed to making it more expensive to hire someone, they are going to make life ever harder for those at the bottom.

 

No one is willing to accept the obvious, if you make employees more expensive, you get less employees.

 

If government legislates that every job include $20 per hour in benefits, then businesses simply won't be able to provide services that don't produce more than enough profit to cover that mandate.

[stephenhawkings]

Poverty, and those that suffer from it are the spoiled fruits of capitalism, luckily you can't see them from your yacth in the Caribbean.

[grbeck]

Where is this parallel universe where the United States federal government has ignored poor people?

 

Perhaps a rundown of the various state and federal programs aimed at assisting the poor is in order. The simple fact is that this country spends billions per year on programs that are designed to help the poor (and that doesn't include the federal earned income tax credit that low-income people receive).

 

It may be helpful for people to actually spend time with low-income people. Many of them are poor because they engage in behaviors that are guaranteed to keep them poor. And they know exactly how to work the system. Spend some time with my wife or mother-in-law, who, unlike the people complaining that we aren't doing enough for the poor, have acutally worked directly with low-income people. They don't waste their time blaming Republicans, rich people, George W. Bush or free trade for the condition of the lower classes in our country. They will say that you can't help people who don't want to help themselves.

 

They, of course, actually know what they are talking about, given their firsthand experience. The logical response is to give their views more weight.

 

Newsflash, people - it's not 1929 anymore. It's 2009.

Edited November 13, 2009 by grbeck

[Ford Jellymoulds]

One in every five homes now have nobody working at all in the household in Britain.

 

The number of households in which nobody works for a living rose to more than three million this summer, official figures revealed yesterday.

 

Among them were a growing number of lone parent families - the first increase in the figure for single parent homes entirely dependent on benefits in five years.

 

The statistics point towards a failure for Labour's policy of spending billions on benefits, childcare and incentive schemes intended to persuade those without jobs - and single mothers in particular - into employment.

 

The figure of three million workless homes is particularly bleak because it includes only those where there is someone of working age - defined as between 18 and 65 whether claiming a disability or not, but excluding students.

 

Last month the Whitehall spending watchdog attacked ministers for their failure to reduce workless numbers.

 

The National Audit Office warned that those living in workless households are at risk of permanent joblessness and poverty and face falling into a spiral of ill-health and crime.

 

Growth in the tally of workless single parents comes despite huge government spending on trying to persuade lone mothers to take jobs.

 

Gordon Brown's flagship benefits, tax credits, cost £16billion a year and are tailored towards helping single parents.

 

Further billions have been pumped into subsidised childcare to try to help single parents looking for work.

 

Children's Minister Beverley Hughes disclosed this week that £21billion has been on schemes such as Sure Start and early years education programmes.

 

Only one in five of the homes listed as workless is thought to include anyone who is actively looking for a job.

 

The Tories linked the figures to crime and social breakdown.

LINK

 

 

"The shame of it! We've just achieved fame and you go and get yourself a paper round!"

Edited November 13, 2009 by Ford Jellymoulds

[Edstock]

Love the cartoon! Reminds me of Carl Giles, who was the greatest, with the original old grandma with the umbrella. I miss those yearly collections.

[Ron W.]

One in every five homes now have nobody working at all in the household in Britain.

>snip<

Only one in five of the homes listed as workless is thought to include anyone who is actively looking for a job.

 

From your description it's tougher there than here, and yet finding a job has become a very long drawn out process. I haven't quit looking but it does get somewhat depressing after 8 months and roughly 50 applications.

 

The whole "Fighting Poverty" thing brought to mind

Pink Floyd On The Turning Away

 

Lyrics..........

 

On the turning away

From the pale and downtrodden

And the words they say

Which we won't understand

"Don't accept that what's happening

Is just a case of others' suffering

Or you'll find that you're joining in

The turning away"

 

It's a sin that somehow

Light is changing to shadow

And casting its shroud

Over all we have known

Unaware how the ranks have grown

Driven on by a heart of stone

We could find that we're all alone

In the dream of the proud

 

On the wings of the night

As the daytime is slurring

Where the speechless unite

In a silent accord

Using words you will find are strange

And mesmerized as they light the flame

Feel the new wind of change

On the wings of the night

 

No more turning away

From the weak and the weary

No more turning away

From the coldness inside

Just a world that we all must share

It's not enough just to stand and stare

Is it only a dream that there'll be

No more turning away?

[stephenhawkings]

Where is this parallel universe where the United States federal government has ignored poor people?

 

Perhaps a rundown of the various state and federal programs aimed at assisting the poor is in order. The simple fact is that this country spends billions per year on programs that are designed to help the poor (and that doesn't include the federal earned income tax credit that low-income people receive).

 

It may be helpful for people to actually spend time with low-income people. Many of them are poor because they engage in behaviors that are guaranteed to keep them poor. And they know exactly how to work the system. Spend some time with my wife or mother-in-law, who, unlike the people complaining that we aren't doing enough for the poor, have acutally worked directly with low-income people. They don't waste their time blaming Republicans, rich people, George W. Bush or free trade for the condition of the lower classes in our country. They will say that you can't help people who don't want to help themselves.

 

They, of course, actually know what they are talking about, given their firsthand experience. The logical response is to give their views more weight.

 

Newsflash, people - it's not 1929 anymore. It's 2009.

well I can't agree completely, but partly I will.

One of the major problems is that most of these people don't know how to help them selves.

And then there's many tools used to rob these people with out their knowing.

It is really sad when you think about how many people live close to poverty and don't even know it.

What has really touched me is seeing people who can't even afford a funeral for their loved ones, luckily the socialist GOV steps in a provides.

[joihan777]

I grew up on welfare & government cheese (At times, at least). But my parents were determined to not 'slack off'. They considered it a matter of honor to NOT depend on the government unless truly needed. The difference between the have and have nots isn't government handouts. It is willpower. We call it 'ganas'.... the determination to change your station.

 

We have a saying which translates to roughly this: "Only an idiot can be poor in this country."

 

If the general believes investing in the poor will help, then I hope he doesn't think simple giving would change anything. I believe, the lynchpin to one's survival in this country is education. Education in history, morals, ethics, WORK ethics, American civil education and basic economics are needed. Although in many families these topics are taught throughout life, many poor people never had these lessons because their struggles concentrated on broken families, chemical abuse & violence. (Been there, done that). In some families these lessons are ridiculed, to the hindrance of the children.

 

After these basic lessons are taught, people will be better prepared to tackle further education.

Edited November 14, 2009 by joihan777

[retro-man]

My mother grew up dirt poor. For awhile she, my grandmother, and my great-grandmother lived together in a converted chicken coop (I am not making this up), with newspaper for wallpaper. One of the stories my mother often told me in my childhood was about wash-up time in that little chicken coop, with water brought in from an outside faucet: "My grandmother always said 'You're never too poor to afford soap.'". I interpret this to represent cleanliness of the spirit (by which I mean dignity, attitude, and morals) as well as of the body. It's a very simple saying, but it about covers everything.

 

Still, I wish some people would drop their anti-tax, anti-labor, anti-poor dogma long enough to comprehend the simple truth that, if it is true that 70% of our GDP is from consumer spending, it does not make sense to create a country in which 60% of the people earn minimum wage, another 30% are unemployed because minimum wage is too much for "the shareholders" to bear in "the global economy", and the last 10% are holed up in gated communities. That's pretty much my vision of Anti-Utopia. Unfortunately we have made much progress toward it over the last 30 years.

[mettech]

Where is this parallel universe where the United States federal government has ignored poor people?

 

Perhaps a rundown of the various state and federal programs aimed at assisting the poor is in order. The simple fact is that this country spends billions per year on programs that are designed to help the poor (and that doesn't include the federal earned income tax credit that low-income people receive).

 

It may be helpful for people to actually spend time with low-income people. Many of them are poor because they engage in behaviors that are guaranteed to keep them poor. And they know exactly how to work the system. Spend some time with my wife or mother-in-law, who, unlike the people complaining that we aren't doing enough for the poor, have acutally worked directly with low-income people. They don't waste their time blaming Republicans, rich people, George W. Bush or free trade for the condition of the lower classes in our country. They will say that you can't help people who don't want to help themselves.

 

They, of course, actually know what they are talking about, given their firsthand experience. The logical response is to give their views more weight.

 

Newsflash, people - it's not 1929 anymore. It's 2009.

 

And that is a fact.

[Ron W.]

Still, I wish some people would drop their anti-tax, anti-labor, anti-poor dogma long enough to comprehend the simple truth that, if it is true that 70% of our GDP is from consumer spending, it does not make sense to create a country in which 60% of the people earn minimum wage, another 30% are unemployed because minimum wage is too much for "the shareholders" to bear in "the global economy", and the last 10% are holed up in gated communities. That's pretty much my vision of Anti-Utopia. Unfortunately we have made much progress toward it over the last 30 years.

 

pbs.org link

 

Under income disparity ...

 

According to the Institute for Policy Studies, the pay of the average worker remained almost flat at $27,000 from 1990 to 2004, adjusted for inflation, while average chief executive pay has risen from $2.82 million to $11.8 million. Some economists see this a part of a national, or even global trend — the wealthiest among us — are getting richer and richer.

 

another pbs.org link

 

The fact of the matter is that, as late as 1980, the top 1 percent by income in the United States had about nine percent of total national income. But since then, you’ve had increasing concentration of income and wealth to the point that by 2007 the top 1 percent was taking home 21 percent of total national income. Now, when they’re taking home that much, the middle class doesn’t have enough purchasing power to keep the economy growing.

[mustang84isu]

I believe, the lynchpin to one's survival in this country is education. Education in history, morals, ethics, WORK ethics, American civil education and basic economics are needed. Although in many families these topics are taught throughout life, many poor people never had these lessons because their struggles concentrated on broken families, chemical abuse & violence. (Been there, done that). In some families these lessons are ridiculed, to the hindrance of the children.

 

After these basic lessons are taught, people will be better prepared to tackle further education.

Agreed. I have always thought that a personal finance course in high school should be required. Too few young adults graduate and head off into the world without knowing how to properly manage money. I think it people knew how much money they lose to interest on credit cards and loans, they would think twice before trying to live beyond their means fresh out of school.

[Extreme4x4]

I believe that there is a combination of problems. Much of which comes, from observing things, as we raise our son.

 

First off, the majority of poor people, will always be poor. Much as the majority of addicts are addicts, whether their drugs are illegal or not. Some people just have a leaning toward something. There is a reason why the majority of people who win the lottery, end up bankrupt within 5 years.

 

One of the biggest problems, as I see it, is selfishness, and our education system. We have spent so much money trying to make sure that no child is left behind............. and every school meets certain criteria............. and nobody gets offended.............. and nobodies feelings get hurt............... that we have forgotten how to teach children.

 

Instead of actual meeting individual childrens needs, they are instead bombarded with homework from the time they enter kindergarten. Everyone gets the same homework................... just like everyone has to do the same tedious piles of work, every single day. Why............. because the government mandates it, thats why. The curriculum is dumbed down, so that no child feels like they are not as smart as the one next to them. Thus, truly smart, or gifted children are punished. They get to also do the massive piles of homework................ where quantity is valued, over quality............. and if they do not turn in these piles of paperwork (which are also overwhelming for the teachers), they get a poor grade.

 

Children are pressured, constantly, from kindergarten on, with piles of work.................. constant extra curricular activities............... no naps................ and too little sleep. They are being forced to grow up faster than they should. So, when they do grow up, you have all of these grown up "children." If you are never allowed to truly be a kid, you can never learn how to truly be an adult.

 

What is a major trait of children............... selfishness. This perpetuates society at this point. Pretty much every problem you see, in society, is a byproduct of selfishness. The "me" syndrome. The "I am the only person on earth who matters, so F you."

 

Until that changes, nothing will change................ and until we start allowing our children to be children, with all the messiness that this entails (including learning that not everything is fair, and not everyone is a winner)............... then none of this stupidity can change.

 

This is a very short, and rather convolluted post, but all of the thoughts would be way too long. Lets just say that I work VERY hard, to make sure that our son can be a child. While there is a time for school work, there is also plenty of time for play, and for learning about life. Things so simple as politeness, and giving. All I can do, is try my best, to make sure that he has a well rounded life, and that he can get as much out of this mess of an education system as possible, so that hopefully................ someday.............. he will make a good adult.

 

That way, I won't have to worry about poverty.............. for my child. That is all that a parent can do.

[grbeck]

The fact of the matter is that, as late as 1980, the top 1 percent by income in the United States had about nine percent of total national income. But since then, you’ve had increasing concentration of income and wealth to the point that by 2007 the top 1 percent was taking home 21 percent of total national income. Now, when they’re taking home that much, the middle class doesn’t have enough purchasing power to keep the economy growing.

 

The problem is that this equation leaves out the cost of goods, which is the real limiting factor on the purchasing power of the middle class. Please note that, over time, the cost of food and clothing have FALLEN relative to income for everyone.

 

Also note that the rich and the middle class aren't competing for the same goods...Donald Trump is richer than all of us (I would guess), but he isn't using the extra money to buy 100 Ford Fusions instead of just one.

 

If he and his wealthy cohorts were doing this, it would make Ford Fusions more expensive for the rest of us.

 

He is using his wealth buy a brand-new Rolls Royce or a Maserati, and I would imagine that none of us are in the market for those vehicles today, let alone in 1979 or even 1969.

 

Same with the clothes he buys, along with the houses he owns.

 

The cost of everyday goods are not influenced by what the well-to-do purchase. This cost has a direct bearing on our purchasing power, and it is driven by government regulations, taxation, manufacturing costs and shipping costs, not income distribution.

Edited November 16, 2009 by grbeck