As Americans, we're all concerned with lifting people out of poverty. Since the '60s and LBJs war on poverty, we have spent untold billions of dollars on trying to help people who are struggling with poverty. While these programs have helped some people get a leg up and avoid long-term poverty, the simple fact is that too many people become dependent on the assistance and fail to take the steps necessary to become independent.
The Brookings Institute has published a study on the point of breaking the cycle of poverty in the United States, and they find that it is pretty simple. Even redneck like me can understand it. The findings are fairly simple. If a disadvantaged youth wants to break out of poverty and join the middle class.
They are:
1. Finish high school.
2. Get a full-time job
3. Delay child-bearing until you are 21 and married.
That's it! Do those three things and you are statistically almost certain to join the middle class, avoid jail, and become a productive member of society. Don't do those things and your chances of joining the middle class decline precipitously.
Is it possible to break the cycle of poverty without those three things. Yes, anything is possible, and rags to riches stories can be found anywhere, but long-term success for the teeming masses basically depends on these three things.
The most interesting theing about this is that these choices are made in the early teen years. Choices made early in life do affect you for the long tern. Every parent, teacher, pastor, and administrator should be preaching this message to every teen they see.
Finish High School
Get a full-time job.
Don't have children until you are 21 and married.
3 comments:
I agree. Contrary to what many Liberals claim, it IS possible to leave poverty behind. All it takes is a little self restraint and work - given schools these days, I won't even call it Hard work to do enough to graduate.
My folks preached, "What you do between 14 and 18 affects how you will live at 50." It's still just as true today as was back in the dark ages of the '60s.
Sometimes research is intentionally skewed to make a point. For example an often cited (and very similar to this) Heritage Foundation study failed to count a mans income, even if they lived together and he supported them, unless he was married to the child’s mother. So for couples like some friends of mine if he makes a good living and supports them, even having momma stay home with the kids, by their definition the kids live in poverty due to a lack of a marriage license.
I’m not saying the core concepts are bad, just that intentionally skewing results is dishonest.
Post a Comment