[Hat tip to Matt Yglesias]
I haven’t read Charles Karelis’ recent book (nor had I heard of him for that matter) but what struck me about his argument that poverty traps people because they have too many “problems to be alleviated” was that it sounds reasonable, compelling and not that surprising. The first thing I thought of was Ted Gurr’s argument about “relative deprivation” in Why Men Rebel – and his finding that what people think they’re capable of getting is key to their (in this case violent) reaction. Even people oppressed to the point of starving to death will not necessarily get violent (or “rebel”) if they see no hope in alleviating their starvation. To the extent that poverty seems to overwhelm possibility then, small assistance to the poor does not necessarily make a big impact. More recently the possibility of moving out of poverty in the United States has probably become harder because of the loss of opportunity.
The other example I thought of pretty quickly from popular culture is the Dan Ackroyd and Eddie Murphy movie Trading Places, which explored similar themes of economic success and failure relative to opportunity (and perceived opportunity).
Comments 3
Karelis’ argument is nonsense. He’s unwittingly made the case that quitters don’t do well.
Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 8:18 am ¶You’re right that my point in the book doesn’t defy common sense. The trouble is that common sense is sometimes clouded by textbook theory, in this case Econ 101, which says that the benefit of dollars is always greater when you have fewer of them. This implies that everything else being equal, the poorest people should work the hardest. When that doesn’t happen, poverty reformers overgeneralize from legitimate cases of restricted opportunity and apathy, blaming one or the other (depending on their politics) for nonwork. This leads them to look for big fixes in the wrong places, and to underestimate the beneficial effect of programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit. Charles Karelis
Posted 06 Apr 2008 at 9:22 am ¶Hi K T Cat and Charles Karelis,
Thank you both for your comments.
K T, I’m not familiar with Dave Ramsey, who you cite in your link, but there is a difference between suggesting that some people may be successful at various ways to tackle debt (you mention “Katie” and yourself) and suggesting that most (or even all) can do so. For one thing Katie (and I assume you) have been able to hold jobs that pay enough to pay off debt, however challenging it may have been to do so. For people with childcare, transportation, education, safety, prison record and/or other barriers to employment (such as living in economically depressed areas) – getting employed and staying employed can be incredibly difficult, if not impossible (not to mention being employed at a living wage). That said, there is no doubt that structure and access to resources (sound financial advice, help from neighbors/family with childcare, etc.) can help at least some people.
Charles, I’m embarrassed to have you commenting on my post when I haven’t even read your book! I’ll try to rectify that soon and revisit your argument armed with a better understanding of it.
Take care.
Posted 06 Apr 2008 at 10:21 pm ¶