Pead the following op-ed by Nicholas Kristof. Please do the following:
1)Identify the claim
2)Agree or disagree by proving relevant examples to support your claim
Thanks!
March 25, 2010
Op-Ed Columnist
Escaping From Poverty
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Before I ask for a drumroll and reveal “the secrets” of fighting poverty, a bit of background:
For a quarter-century after World War II, the United States made great progress against poverty. Then in the 1970s, we fumbled. Over the last 35 years, our economy has almost tripled in size, but, according to the United States Census Bureau, the number of Americans living below the poverty line has been stuck at roughly 1 in 8.
One reason is that wages for blue-collar and other ordinary workers peaked in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A second is the breakdown in the family and the explosion in single-parent households. A third is the quintupling of incarceration rates beginning in 1970, making it harder for impoverished young men to play a role in families or get decent jobs.
When those factors converge — a young woman with a 10th-grade education trying to raise a couple of kids as a single parent — poverty proves almost inescapable. Often the cycle is transmitted from generation to generation.
Still, there’s a reason for hope: We’re getting a much better handle on what policies can overcome poverty. We’re now seeing more experiments, modeled after randomized drug trials, that measure carefully whether an approach works and how cost-effective it is. Partly this reflects the rise of economists (at the expense of political scientists and do-gooders) and the rigor they pack in their briefcases.
“To make a difference, we have to do things that actually work,” said Gordon Berlin, the president of MDRC, a research organization that pioneered the use of randomized trials to evaluate poverty-fighting strategies. “In the last 15 to 20 years, we’ve begun to build a compelling body of evidence that policy makers and program operators can act on.”
Here’s a peek at some of the interventions that seem to make a difference (and there are many more):
• High-quality early childhood programs, before kids get behind. Much-studied examples include the Perry Preschool program in Michigan in the 1960s and the Abecedarian Project in North Carolina in the 1970s. Both worked with impoverished children who had much better outcomes than control groups. For example, those who had been through the Perry program were — as adults, decades later — only half as likely to go on welfare and much less likely to be arrested.
• Intensive efforts in the ninth grade (which is well known as education’s Bermuda triangle, swallowing up poor students). A program called Talent Development in Philadelphia gave ninth graders a double dose of math and English and reduced absenteeism and significantly improved performance for at least the next couple of years. Tentative results suggest it is also improving high school graduation rates.
• Career academies. These keep students engaged in high school by teaching around career themes and partnering with local employers to give kids work experience. Eight years of follow-up research suggests that graduates are more likely to hold jobs and earn more money.
• Jobs programs. One of the most successful is the “jobs-plus” demonstration, which trains people living in public housing to get jobs and gives them extra incentives to keep them. Participants thrive — and the gains continue even years later, after the program ends.
The two most important interventions seem to be education and jobs. Schooling programs pay off from early childhood all the way through community college. And jobs programs lift entire families: even though one might worry about children getting less supervision with parents working, studies suggest that children then do better at school.
All this underscores a long-term cost of this recession: there are cuts in both education and jobs, harming the two most effective stairways out of poverty. That’s tragic, and I hope we consider schooling and jobs every bit as important as our multibillion-dollar surge in Afghanistan.
In effect, what’s needed to overcome poverty in part seems to be a change of culture, to break self-destructive behaviors — resignation to unemployment, self-doubt, alcohol and drug abuse, disintegrating families, lack of engagement in children’s education — that create self-replicating cycles of poverty. The Harlem Children’s Zone Promise Academy, a charter school where third graders from a disadvantaged neighborhood outperform their peers around New York City and New York State, offers a shining example of what is possible.
This wave of research suggests that there’s no magic bullet, that helping people is hard, and that even when pilot programs succeed they can be difficult to scale up. But evidence also suggests that we increasingly have the tools to chip away at poverty. We know what to do if we just can summon the political will.
•
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wholeheartedly agree with the author's assertion that the way to reduce poverty is a change in culture. We often want to point to changes in policy and spending, however those mean nothing, are less likely to happen, and are less likely to be effective if there is no change in mindset. Changes in policy and spending may follow, but should not be the focus.
ReplyDeleteThis can be likened to giving a poor person money and expecting them to stay wealthy, as well as any others that follow them. This is not realistic. Instead, the impoverished must be taught the skills of the wealthy, and descendants or people that follow are to be given the same skills. A cycle then begins and poverty is more easily avoided.
-Talayne
Nicholas Kristof declares that it is neccessary to eradicate certain types of cultural behavior in order to end poverty. When people have the state of mind where they are constantly in self-doubt, depression, and abusing alcoholic beverages, it demonstrates the need to change the current poverty levels.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nicholas Kristof in his declaritive statement that it is neccessary to change the current cycle of poverty, by giving people new hopes and giving them some of the same characteristics that wealthier and more successful people have. Because pregnant 16 year olds, drinking, and poverty go hand in hand. Most of these behaviors are results of people's background.
-Lorina Kegler
Nicholas Kristof makes the assertion that in order to end poverty, our culture must change. It is evident that this problem is urgent due to the self destructive behavior that people are indulging in. There are many people that have become so stressed out that they abuse drugs, alcohol, and even become suicidal. I see many people living on the streets who don't seem to know what to do in order to get out of their current situation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mr. Kristof and believe that change must come. Teaching the poverty stricken the skills of the wealthy will be one step further in eliminating this problem. This will surely decrease the amount of starving and hopeless souls by giving them another chance at living a comfortable life.
Kristof simply claims eliminating poverty is the opposite from easy but a change in culture along with those interventions proven can begin the gradual decrease of poverty.
ReplyDeleteHow could I disagree with Nicholas D. Kristof? The two most effective stairways out of poverty are both being harmed: education and jobs. I agree with Kristof, and his use of the word tragic. Why is it tragic? Because if people can not get education, they can't get jobs, which will then leave them poor and apart of the 1 in 8. But it does not have to be a tragity. With all four interventions (High-quality early childhood programs, Intensive efforts in the ninth grade, Career academies, and Jobs programs) helping there is more of a chance that each generation's impoverished will decrease. There's still reason for hope if we keep the hopefulness in our hearts and have the fiery desire to break such self-destructive behaviors such as self-doubt, alcohol and drug abuse, lack of engagement in children's education which all replicate cycles of poverty. Since I'm basically saying what Kristof says it's obvious I'm agreeing with his claim that the elimination of poverty can be done!
I agree with Nicholas Kristof’s assertion that a change of culture is needed in order to put an end to poverty. Poverty is a state of having little or no money, goods, or means of support. People that drop out of school and do not get a job make it difficult for there to be a change of culture because they contribute to the poverty.
ReplyDeleteIn order for the culture to change so that an end may be put to poverty, our people must be educated and find good jobs. It is hard to get a well paying job if you do not have a college education, therefore one without a college education will make small amounts of money and fall deeper into poverty. It is very possible that there can be an end put to poverty, it is just up to us to make this change happen.
-Adia Brady
I agree with Kristof's notion that the American culture is the creator and eliminator of poverty. In order for us to take the first step in eliminating poverty we must change our culture first, which consist of self distructing behaviors and selfishness.
ReplyDeleteHowever I agree poverty can be changed by the ideas that Kristof puts forth, but I feel based on an economic stand point there has to be those who are finacially at the bottom in order for there to be people at the top. I can morally say it is wrong to see those live in poverty while people others have an excessive amount of luxuries and never help, but if I put morals aside, our country was founded on Darwin's idea of Survival of the Fittest. I believe that is why we are one of the wealthiest countries now, even tho were hav experienced the recession. It may sound wrong but poverty is necessary.
Nicolas Kristoff puts forth the notion that in order for poverty levels to be reduced the culture must change. He also states that the poor should be taught the skills of the wealthy so they can achieve and maintain financial stability. The only thing that is holding us back from achieving such wonderful pleasures is ourselves because we rely heavily on alcohol and have self doubt among other factors.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kristof's claim and strongly believe that this action will be extremely beneficial for the people that are poor and less fortunate. These skills that the poor are being taught will not only help them, but if they have children or other family members in the same situation then they'll be able to teach them and deliver them from their unfortunate circumstances.
- Jay Carter
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNicholas Kristof puts forth the notion that in order to escape poverty,the culture of our society should be changed.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Nicholas Kristof in his claim that in order to help escape from poverty, the culture must be changed. If we were able to change the culture of poverty stricken communities, we must help improve and also support the use of education.With education, the young children who grow up in poverty can use their education to not only achieve success, but also in the future create a culture in which emotional, mental and material wealth is achievable due to having a good education.
In order to change a culture to escape poverty, we must also give experience in the work force for young adults or teenagers and also give more employment to the adults who are already in poverty conditions and can't afford a way to get out. With giving the young adults experience in the work force, it can motivate a young adult living in poverty to achieve greater and want the wealth that is given to people who achieve employment success in the US. With the increase of employment for people who are already in poverty, it can also decrease the rate of poverty due to the many people having employment and able to live their daily lives.
Nicholas Kristof makes the assertion that in order to eliminate poverty, we much changed the self-destructive behaviors of our culture. Kristof lists these behaviors that are self-destructive as, “…resignation to unemployment, self-doubt, alcohol and drug abuse, disintegrating families, lack of engagement in children’s education.”
ReplyDeleteI agree with the assertion that Nicholas Kristof makes that people must be educated and have jobs in order to end the harmful cycle that keeps them in poverty. Statistics prove that people with a Bachelors degree earn 1.5 times more than people with only a high school diploma, and even more then that compared to people who didn’t receive a high school diploma. The level of education directly correlates to the amount of money a person makes, so the less education, the less money a person makes and the deeper into poverty they are thrust. In order to end this cycle of poverty if people earn the proper education, the will earn more money in the workplace and be more financially stable.
I agree with the claim Kristof puts forth in his article. Kristofs claim is that Americans selfish and self detrimental qualities are what results in poverty. He believes that if we have a culture shift we will be taking the steps that are necessary to eliminating poverty. He believes the poor should be taught the skills that are needed to be financially stable, and that the only reason they are not prospering is because of their lack of these skills coupled with their self doubt and hatred.
ReplyDeleteIn order for the culture to change we must begin to take the initiative to take full advantage of our educational opportunities to find good jobs. It is not impossible to find a well paying job without a college education, but it does put you at a handicap. More people need to be made aware of the pros of continuing their education, and be helped and mentored along the way so that they could succeed.
The author, Nicholas Kristof, states his claim that in order to chip away at the rates of poverty, there needs to be a change in culture. He describes self-destructive behaviors that induce cycles of poverty, and explains that in order to reverse this chain of events, the problems should be solved at the very core.
ReplyDeleteTo an extent, the argument that Kristof presents in his article has potential, but simply not pragmatic. In order to achieve these goals, a number of things need to happen. One, any improved government program requires money. In order to get that money, they would probably have to increase taxes for the wealthy. Good luck with trying to get the Republicans on board with that. I do believe, however, that Kristof means well, he just has to find a way to pitch it to the public in such a way that everyone feels sympathetic to his cause. You know, sort of like those poor and starving children commercials? He'll figure it out.
I agree with the Nicholas D. Kristof's assertion that a change in culture is needed in order to 'fight poverty'. The argument surronding poverty and it's causes and effects cannot be classified into a simple either-or issue. Poverty is too complex of an issue to conclude that either poverty exists, or poverty does not exist.It may be saddening but true that, unless there is an equal distribution of resources and not simply equality of oppurtunity but equality of results, there will always be individuals who are better off than others, and some who are less of than others; such as the 'a young woman with a 10th-grade education trying to raise a couple of kids as a single parent — poverty proves almost inescapable'.Therefore, the definition of poverty should not be limited to homeless people, because poverty can affect anyone such as the 'young woman' referenced.
ReplyDeleteSo, a change in culture is needed in order to end poverty.I concurr with the author's assertion also that schooling and jobs should be held at a position of utmost importance just as the war in Afghanistan. Furthermore, I agree that one of the the first steps in ending proverty is with interventionist programs that begin with the youth to express to them the benefit of an education and equip them with tools and skills that will be beneficial in the working world.
Nicholas kristof puts for the notion that in order to end poverty, we must have a change in culture. We must set higher standards for ourselves to help better the world and end poverty.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mr. Kristof, and that a change needs to come because too many people are unable to gain a education and get a decent job which leaves them poor and unable to support themselves. No person should be unable to take care of themselves but if our people continue to do drugs, become alcoholics and drop out of school then how will poverty end? There definitely need to be a change, but this will only occur if others are willing to make a change.
- Tara Harris
I agree with the notion put forth by Kristoff that in order to stop poverty, there needs to be a change within the culture. In other words, the American culture needs to make a turn around in their behavior. He goes on to say that he does in fact believe that a change will come but because this issue was created by the American culture, there must be an effort to fix it by a change in onself, therefore the selfishness and self destructing ways must come to an end.
ReplyDeleteFirst off I must say that this country was founded upon lies, hate, greed and a lot more negative things and to add insult to unjury Darwins theory, the survival of the fittest, doesnt help fix the issue at all. This theory created the mindset to better oneself despite any circumstances. Everyone is determined to get to the top and above one another, there has to be someone at the bottom, there has to be a loser because there is only one winner. Winning is the ideal of this culture, is Kristoff asking that people should accept losing? When one is self-centered it makes it impossible to choose between morals and reality It is extremely difficult to choose between the two because many have been taught to do what is morally correct, but it also comes a time when one is forced to be realistic. Is it possible to be morally correct and realistic at the same time? No, I dont think it is impossible but it hasnt been proven to be possible. Although poverty is morally wrong and people should not have to live that way it is realistc. Take a look at our culture, it is an implication that poverty is everywhere. It is wrong but in a way, poverty is necessary.
Mr. Kristoff puts forth the notion that in order to change poverty, we need to have a change in culture and break self-destructive behaviors.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this argument that in order to change the cycle of poverty we need to change the culture in which we live in. In America, we have this mentality of every man for himself. And with this mentality comes poverty as well as other thing considering that when everyone is competing to be the top dog, there will always be someone that is on the bottom and may not be able to help themselves to the top. In these instances is where poverty arises. And when people don't help others and don't care about how people are treated, poverty seems to increase more than usual. But seeing as this is the mentality that most Americans have, it looks as poverty will never come to an end.
In his op-ed, “Escaping From Poverty” Nicholas Kristof claims education and employment to be the two keys means of elevating individuals from poverty. However, he also acknowledges that there are a variety of programs that claim to achieve these means, thus in actuality, the one of the most important facets of relieving poverty is accurate research concerning what strategies will work best.
ReplyDeleteThough there are various methods touted in the effort to escape poverty, I agree with Kristof that proper research regarding which strategies actually work is key. A lot of programs and policies aimed at relieving poverty are government funded and broadly implemented, thus funneling resources into an ineffective strategy not only impedes the escape of poverty, it is a gross waste of money.
Nicholas Kristof implies that the best way to fight poverty is to change the culture behavior. Many Americans has instilled failure into their lives because they can't move forward or figure out a way to "fight" poverty. In result ot leads to drug abuse, incarceration, uneducated parents that later just repeats itself as a "cycle" in generation after generation.
ReplyDeleteI fully argue with Mr. Kristof that a cultural changes is what is needed in order to move away from the poverty line. We as Americans should feel obligated to want to help each other as well as ourselves but the trend seems to be is receive government help then later give up and start relying on government help such as unemployment checks and food stamps to get by instead of taking the steps necessary to become self reliant they settle for the life they have been given and with this motive poverty will only worsen.
-Asia G.
Nicholas D. Kristof puts forth the notion that in order to reduce poverty there needs to be a change in culture. By doing this there definitely needs to be a change in the self destructing manner that many people tend to behave in. More people need to be aware of the people around them rather than just themselves. I agree with this claim because if you provide people with a different setting and background then they are less likely to turn out the way they would if there were constantly around a negative environment. Also people need to learn how to help others and stop being so self absorbed because that is the first step to eliminating poverty.
ReplyDelete-Re’Nada Smith