don't you ever tire of whining for the poor? On Mar 3, 10:34 am, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > Obama Wants New Poverty Measure“The Obama administration Tuesday embraced an > alternative way of defining what it means to be poor, stepping gingerly into > a long-running debate over whether to revise the method that has been used to > measure poverty for decades.” (Washington Post, Wednesday)We don’t need a > redefinition poverty; we need the removal of government barriers to getting > out of it.Scratching By: How Government Creates Poverty as We Know > ItbyCharles Johnson > December 2007 • Volume: 57 • Issue: 10 > The experience of oppressed people is that the living of one’s life is > confined and shaped by forces and barriers which are not accidental or > occasional and hence avoidable, but are systematically related to each other > in such a way as to catch one between and among them and restrict or penalize > motion in any direction. It is the experience of being caged in: all avenues, > in every direction, are blocked or booby trapped. > -- Marilyn Frye, “Oppression,” in The Politics of Reality > Governmentslocal, state, and federalspend a lot of time wringing their hands > about the plight of the urban poor. Look around any government agency and > you’ll never fail to find some know-it-all with a suit and a nameplate on his > desk who has just the right government program to eliminate or ameliorate, or > at least contain, the worst aspects of grinding poverty in American > citiesespecially as experienced by black people, immigrants, people with > disabilities, and everyone else marked for the special observation and > solicitude of the state bureaucracy. Depending on the bureaucrat’s frame of > mind, his pet programs might focus on doling out conditional charity to > “deserving” poor people, or putting more “at-risk” poor people under the > surveillance of social workers and medical experts, or beating up > recalcitrant poor people and locking them in cages for several years. > But the one thing that the government and its managerial aid workers will > never do is just get out of the way and let poor people do the things that > poor people naturally do, and always have done, to scratch by. > Government anti-poverty programs are a classic case of the therapeutic state > setting out to treat disorders created by the state itself. Urban poverty as > we know it is, in fact, exclusively a creature of state intervention in > consensual economic dealings. This claim may seem bold, even to most > libertarians. But a lot turns on the phrase “as we know it.” Even if absolute > laissez faire reigned beginning tomorrow, there would still be people in big > cities who are living paycheck to paycheck, heavily in debt, homeless, > jobless, or otherwise at the bottom rungs of the socioeconomic ladder. These > conditions may be persistent social problems, and it may be that free people > in a free society will still have to come up with voluntary institutions and > practices for addressing them. But in the state-regimented market that > dominates today, the material predicament that poor people find themselves > inand the arrangements they must make within that predicamentare battered > into their familiar shape, as if by an invisible fist, through the diffuse > effects of pervasive, interlocking interventions. > Consider the commonplace phenomena of urban poverty. Livelihoods in American > inner cities are typically extremely precarious: asSudhir Alladi > Venkateshwrites in Off the Books: “Conditions in neighborhoods of > concentrated poverty can change quickly and in ways that can leave families > unprepared and without much recourse.” Fixed costs of livingrent, food, > clothing, and so onconsume most or all of a family’s income, with little or > no access to credit, savings, or insurance to safeguard them from unexpected > disasters.Dependent on OthersTheir poverty often leaves them dependent on > other people. It pervades the lives of the employed and the unemployed alike: > the jobless fall back on charity or help from family; those who live paycheck > to paycheck, with little chance of finding any work elsewhere, depend on the > good graces of a select few bosses and brokers. One woman quoted by Venkatesh > explained why she continued to work through an exploitative labor shark > rather than leaving for a steady job with a well-to-do family: “And what if > that family gets rid of me? Where am I going next? See, I can’t take that > chance, you know. . . . All I got is Johnnie and it took me the longest just > to get him on my side.” > The daily experience of the urban poor is shaped by geographical > concentration in socially and culturally isolated ghetto neighborhoods within > the larger city, which have their own characteristic features: housing is > concentrated in dilapidated apartments and housing projects, owned by a > select few absentee landlords; many abandoned buildings and vacant lots are > scattered through the neighborhood, which remain unused for years at a time; > the use of outside spaces is affected by large numbers of unemployed or > homeless people. > The favorite solutions of the welfare stategovernment doles and “urban > renewal” projectsmark no real improvement. Rather than freeing poor people > from dependence on benefactors and bosses, they merely transfer the > dependence to the state, leaving the least politically connected people at > the mercy of the political process. > But in a free marketa truly free market, where individual poor people are > just as free as established formal-economy players to use their own property, > their own labor, their own know-how, and the resources that are available to > themthe informal, enterprising actions by poor people themselves would do far > more to systematically undermine, or completely eliminate, each of the > stereotypical conditions that welfare statists deplore. Every day and in > every culture from time out of mind, poor people have repeatedly shown > remarkable intelligence, courage, persistence, and creativity in finding ways > to put food on the table, save money, keep safe, raise families, live full > lives, learn, enjoy themselves, and experience beauty, whenever, wherever, > and to whatever degree they have been free to do so. The fault for > despairing, dilapidated urban ghettoes lies not in the pressures of the > market, nor in the character flaws of individual poor people, nor in the > characteristics of ghetto subcultures. The fault lies in the state and its > persistent interference with poor people’s own efforts to get by through > independent work, clever hustling, scratching together resources, and > voluntary mutual aid.Housing CrisisProgressives routinely deplore the > “affordable housing crisis” in American cities. In cities such as New York > and Los Angeles, about 20 to 25 percent of low-income renters are spending > more than half their incomes just on housing. But it is the very laws that > Progressives favorland-use policies, zoning codes, and building codesthat > ratchet up housing costs, stand in the way of alternative housing options, > and confine poor people to ghetto neighborhoods. Historically, when they have > been free to do so, poor people have happily disregarded the ideals of > political humanitarians and found their own ways to cut housing costs, even > in bustling cities with tight housing markets. > One way was to get other families, or friends, or strangers, to move in and > split the rent. Depending on the number of people sharing a home, this might > mean a less-comfortable living situation; it might even mean one that is > unhealthy. But decisions about health and comfort are best made by the > individual people who bear the costs and reap the benefits. Unfortunately > today the decisions are made ahead of time by city governments through zoning > laws that prohibit or restrict sharing a home among people not related by > blood or marriage, and building codes that limit the number of residents in a > building. > Those who cannot make enough money to cover the rent on their own, and cannot > split the rent enough due to zoning and building codes, are priced out of the > housing market entirely. Once homeless, they are left exposed not only to the > elements, but also to harassment or arrest by the police for “loitering” or > “vagrancy,” even on public property, in efforts to force them into > overcrowded and dangerous institutional shelters. But while government laws > make living on the streets even harder than it already is, government > intervention also blocks homeless people’s efforts to find themselves shelter > outside the conventional housing market. One of the oldest and commonest > survival strategies practiced by the urban poor is to find wild or abandoned > land and build shanties on it out of salvageable scrap materials. Scrap > materials are plentiful, and large portions of land in ghetto neighborhoods > are typically left unused as condemned buildings or vacant lots. Formal title > is very often seized by the city government or by quasi-governmental > “development” corporations through the use of eminent domain. Lots are held > out of use, often for years at a time, while they await government > public-works projects or developers willing to buy up the land for > large-scale building.Urban HomesteadingIn a free market, vacant lots and > abandoned buildings could eventually be homesteaded by anyone willing to do > the work of occupying and using them. Poor people could use abandoned spaces > within their own communities for setting up shop, for gardening, or for > living space. In Miami, in October 2006, a group of community organizers and > about 35 homeless people builtUmoja Village, a shanty town, on an inner-city > lot that the local government had kept vacant for years. They publicly stated > to the local government that “We have only one demand . . . leave us alone.” > That would be the end of the story in a free market: there would be noeminent > domain, no government ownership, and thus also no political process of > seizure and redevelopment; once-homeless people could establish property > rights to abandoned land through their own sweat equitywithout fear of the > government’s demolishing their work and selling their land out from under > them. But back in Miami, the city attorney and city council took about a > month to begin legal efforts to destroy the residents’ homes and force them > off the lot. In April 2007 the city police took advantage of an accidental > fire to enforce its politically fabricated title to the land, clearing the > lot, arresting 11 people, and erecting a fence to safeguard the once-again > vacant lot for professional “affordable housing” developers. > Had the city government not made use of its supposed title to the abandoned > land, it no doubt could have made use of state and federal building codes to > ensure that residents would be forced back into homelessnessfor their own > safety, of course. That is in fact what a county health commission in Indiana > did to a 93-year-old man named Thelmon Green, who lived in his ‘86 Chevrolet > van, which the local towing company allowed him to keep on its lot. Many > people thrown into poverty by a sudden financial catastrophe live out of a > car for weeks or months until they get back on their feet. Living in a car is > cramped, but it beats living on the streets: a car means a place you can have > to yourself, which holds your possessions, with doors you can lock, and > sometimes even air conditioning and heating. But staying in a car over the > long term is much harder to manage without running afoul of the law.Thelmon > Greengot by well enough in his van for ten years, but when the Indianapolis > Star printed a human-interest story on him last December, the county health > commission took notice and promptly ordered Green evicted from his own van, > in the name of the local housing code. > Since government housing codes impose detailed requirements on the size, > architecture, and building materials for new permanent housing, as well as on > specialized and extremely expensive contract work for electricity, plumbing, > and other luxuries, they effectively obstruct or destroy most efforts to > create transitional, intermediate, or informal sorts of shelter that cost > less than rented space in government-approved housing projects, but provide > more safety and comfort than living on the street.Constraints on Making > IncomeTurning from expenses to income, pervasive government regulation, > passed in the so-called “public interest” at the behest of comfortable > middle- and upper-class Progressives, creates endless constraints on poor > people’s ability to earn a living or make needed money on the side. > There are, to start out, the trades that the state has made entirely illegal: > selling drugs outside of a state-authorized pharmacy, prostitution outside of > the occasional state-authorized brothel “ranch,” or running small-time > gambling operations outside of a state-authorized corporate casino. These > trades are often practiced by women and men facing desperate poverty; the > state’s efforts add the danger of fines, forfeitures, and lost years in > prison.Poor Shut OutBeyond the government-created black market, there are > also countless jobs that could be done above-ground, but from which the poor > are systematically shut out by arbitrary regulation and licensure > requirements. In principle, many women in black communities could make money > braiding hair, with only their own craft, word of mouth, and the living room > of an apartment. But in many states, anyone found braiding hair without > having put down hundreds of dollars and days of her life to apply for a > government-fabricated cosmetology or hair-care license will be fined hundreds > or thousands of dollars. > In principle, anyone who knows how to cook can make money by laying out the > cash for ingredients and some insulated containers, and taking the food from > his own kitchen to a stand set up on the sidewalk or, with the landlord’s > permission, in a parking lot. But then there are business licenses to pay for > (often hundreds of dollars) and the costs of complying with health-department > regulations and inspections. The latter make it practically impossible to run > a food-oriented business without buying or leasing property dedicated to > preparing the food, at which point you may as well forget about it unless you > already have a lot of start-up capital sitting around. > Every modern urban center has a tremendous demand for taxi cabs. In > principle, anyone who needed to make some extra money could start a part-time > “gypsy cab” service with a car she already has, a cell phone, and some word > of mouth. She can make good money for honest labor, providing a useful > service to willing customersas a single independent worker, without needing > to please a boss, who can set her own hours and put as much or as little into > it as she wants in order to make the money she needs. > But in the United States, city governments routinely impose massive > constraints and controls on taxi service. The worst offenders are often the > cities with the highest demand for cabs, like New York City, where the > government enforces an arbitrary cap on the number of taxi cabs through a > system of government-created licenses, or “medallions.” The total number of > medallion taxis is capped at about 13,000 cabs for the entire city, with > occasional government auctions for a handful of new medallions. The system > requires anyone who wants to become an independent cab driver to purchase a > medallion at monopoly prices from an existing holder or wait around for the > city to auction off new ones. At the auction last November a total of 63 new > medallions were made available for auction with a minimum bidding price of > $189,000. > Besides the cost of a medallion, cab owners are also legally required to pay > an annual licensing fee of $550 and to pay for three inspections by the city > government each year, at a total annual cost of $150. The city government > enforces a single fare structure, enforces a common paint job, and now is > even forcing all city cabs to upgrade to high-cost, high-tech GPS and payment > systems, whether or not the cabbie or her customer happens to want them. The > primary beneficiary of this politically imposed squeeze on independent > cabbies is VeriFone Holdings, the first firm approved to sell the electronic > systems to a captive market. Doug Bergeron, VeriFone’s CEO, crows that “Every > year, we find a free ride on a new segment of the economy that is going > electronic.” In this case, VeriFone is enjoying a “free ride” indeed. > The practical consequence is that poor people who might otherwise be able to > make easy money on their own are legally forced out of driving a taxi, or > else forced to hire themselves out to an existing medallion-holder on his own > terms. Either way, poor people are shoved out of flexible, independent work, > which many would be willing and able to do using one of the few capital goods > that they already have on hand. Lots of poor people have cars they could use; > not a lot have a couple hundred thousand dollars to spend on a > government-created license. > Government regimentation of land, housing, and labor creates and sustains the > very structure of urban poverty. Government seizures create and reinforce the > dilapidation of ghetto neighborhoods by constricting the housing market to a > few landlords and keeping marginal lands out of use. Government regulations > create homelessness and artificially make it worse for the homeless by > driving up housing costs and by obstructing or destroying any intermediate > informal living solutions between renting an apartment and living on the > street. And having made the ghetto, government prohibitions keep poor people > confined in it, by shutting them out of more affluent neighborhoods where > many might be able to live if only they were able to share > expenses.Ratcheting Costs Up and Opportunities DownArtificially limiting the > alternative options for housing ratchets up the fixed costs of living for the > urban poor. Artificially limiting the alternative options for independent > work ratchets down the opportunities for increasing income. And the squeeze > makes poor people dependent onand thus vulnerable to negligent or > unscrupulous treatment fromboth landlords and bosses by constraining their > ability to find other, better homes, or other, better livelihoods. The same > squeeze puts many more poor people into the position of living “one paycheck > away” from homelessness and makes that position all the more precarious by > harassing and coercing and imposing artificial destitution on those who do > end up on the street. > American state corporatism forcibly reshapes the world of work and business > on the model of a commercial strip mall: sanitized, centralized, regimented, > officious, and dominated by a few powerful proprietors and their short list > of favored partners, to whom everyone else relates as either an employee or a > consumer. A truly free market, without the pervasive control of state > licensure requirements, regulation, inspections, paperwork, taxes, “fees,” > and the rest, has much more to do with the traditional image of a bazaar: > messy, decentralized, diverse, informal, flexible, pervaded by haggling, and > kept together by the spontaneous order of countless small-time independent > operators, who quickly and easily shift between the roles of customer, > merchant, contract laborer, and more. It is precisely because we have the > strip mall rather than the bazaar that people living in poverty find > themselves so often confined to ghettoes, caught in precarious situations, > and dependent on otherseither on the bum or caught in jobs they hate but > cannot leave, while barely keeping a barely tolerable roof over their heads. > The poorer you are, the more you need access to informal and flexible > alternatives, and the more you need opportunities to apply some creative > hustling. When the state shuts that out, it shuts poor people into ghettoized > poverty.http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/scratching-by-how-government-creates-poverty-as-we-know-it/
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
