Writing in the Boston Globe (online), Drake Bennett has some fresh thinking about poverty (maybe already voiced by Ruby Payne). People in poverty exhibit what would be an “irrational” approach to money, work, and wealth for those in middle or upper income brackets:
In the community of people dedicated to analyzing poverty, one of the sharpest debates is over why some poor people act in ways that ensure their continued indigence. Compared with the middle class or the wealthy, the poor are disproportionately likely to drop out of school, to have children while in their teens, to abuse drugs, to commit crimes, to not save when extra money comes their way, to not work.
To an economist, this is irrational behavior. It might make sense for a wealthy person to quit his job, or to eschew education or develop a costly drug habit. But a poor person, having little money, would seem to have the strongest incentive to subscribe to the Puritan work ethic, since each dollar earned would be worth more to him than to someone higher on the income scale. Social conservatives have tended to argue that poor people lack the smarts or willpower to make the right choices. Social liberals have countered by blaming racial prejudice and the crippling conditions of the ghetto for denying the poor any choice in their fate. Neoconservatives have argued that antipoverty programs themselves are to blame for essentially bribing people to stay poor.
Karelis, a professor at George Washington University, has a simpler but far more radical argument to make: traditional economics just doesn’t apply to the poor. When we’re poor, Karelis argues, our economic worldview is shaped by deprivation, and we see the world around us not in terms of goods to be consumed but as problems to be alleviated. This is where the bee stings come in: A person with one bee sting is highly motivated to get it treated. But a person with multiple bee stings does not have much incentive to get one sting treated, because the others will still throb. The more of a painful or undesirable thing one has (i.e. the poorer one is) the less likely one is to do anything about any one problem. Poverty is less a matter of having few goods than having lots of problems.
Poverty and wealth, by this logic, don’t just fall along a continuum the way hot and cold or short and tall do. They are instead fundamentally different experiences, each working on the human psyche in its own way. At some point between the two, people stop thinking in terms of goods and start thinking in terms of problems, and that shift has enormous consequences. Perhaps because economists, by and large, are well-off, he suggests, they’ve failed to see the shift at all.
So…
We must ask the poor (and ourselves) whether or not the alleviation of or the avoidance of the problems that beset the poor will result in a “change” of mind or “new thinking” wherein the poor will be able to think in “goods” and stop thinking in terms of problems. Are these the problems to be alleviated?
- Criminal Behavior (including underage tobacco and alcohol use)?
- Lack of Employment?
- Teen-age Pregnancy before marriage?
- Dropping Out of School?
- Divorce Once Married?
To those “looking in” at poverty, these “problems”would seem to be subject to choosing well and engaging in right behavior; but–however rational such choices may be–to the poor these “problems” are irrational but normal.
“It is vital that young families move back here,” says Steve Holen, McKenzie County Public School District #1 Superintendent at Watford City. “And we see evidence that a number of families want to move back, for some already have. The attitude here is positive and proactive, which is uncommon to most rural North Dakota small town communities.”
