Cyle of Achievement
We hear often about the cycle of poverty, but maybe instead we should focus on a cycle of achievement. Consider, for example, Guy, a second generation immigrant to this country:
Guy’s father, Sebastiano, died in 1904. Because [his widow] Carmelinda was unskilled and now had a family to rear single-handedly, the awesome responsibility of breadwinner fell on her oldest son.
At twelve, Guy was too young to work at the Smelter, the only employment in Black Eagle that had the potential for supporting a family of five. Knowing he was big for his age, Guy applied for work at the Anaconda Company and stated on his application that he was fifteen years old. Mr. E.A. Wheeler, the supervisor who interviewed Guy, knew of the family’s situation and hired him. Guy never made Mr. Wheeler regret his decision. He was a loyal, hardworking dependable employee.
Guy struggled at his starting wage to feed the family and would go to work without a lunch. The other men took notice and asked him why he wasn’t eating. He would reply that he had forgotten his lunch at home. After a week of “forgetfulness,” the men accurately evaluated the real problem-Guy would not take food that his mother and siblings needed. Knowing that the boy would not accept charity, the men would utter pseudo criticisms like, “My wife knows I can’t eat more than one sandwich-why did she pack two? Guy, will you eat one for me?” and “Six cookies? I don’t want that many. Guy, will you eat a couple?” and “Here, Guy, eat this apple, will you? I only want one.” This remained the lunchroom scene until Guy was making enough money to bring his own lunch. Guy never forgot the men’s sensitive generosity.
From: “In the Shadow of the Big Stack: Black Eagle, Montana”
Guy went on to father 7 children, and 22 grandchildren. Of these 22 grandchildren all are employed and self-sufficient with their families.
My question is this. Did these generations descended from Guy avoid poverty despite his hardships, or because of them? In other words, did the work ethic he learned inspire him to teach his own children to survive which, in turn, helped them teach their children?
Guy was not an anomaly. Many Americans suffered through extreme deprivation in the early 20th century, yet the country went on to prosper.
Would we suggest that those who find themselves in poverty today are in situations direr than that in which a 12-year old immigrant’s son found himself? We hear near constant complaints about the sufficiency and funding of the modern ’safety net,’ but one cannot truly assert that it pales when compared to the government support system in 1904. Today we would worry about Guy’s obesity, not his ability to eat. Today, Guy would have a cell phone, a television, and at the very minimum, access to public transportation.
Then there was Marvin. He grew up on the Lower South Side of Great Falls, Montana. He was 12 years old at the height of the Great Depression. His dad worked long hours at the smelter and his mom tried to raise him and his siblings the best she could. He ran with a group of small-town ruffians, but managed to stay in school without government prodding. Ultimately, when WWII began, he enlisted in the Marines. Surviving the war, he attended law school on the GI Bill.
Marvin and his wife had 5 kids. None have ever been on public assistance, nor has their father.
Again, did Marvin succeed in life in spite of his difficulties, or because of them? Did his legacy convince his children to work hard and obtain an education, or was it pure happenstance?
Guy’s story and Marvin’s story are not unusual. Call it the Cycle of Achievement. Whether we call it ‘pulling yourself up by your bootstraps’ or something else, our history is replete with generation after generation who made the decisions necessary to get ahead. I would submit, too, that in doing so our forebears acquired values that they passed on to their offspring that made it much more likely that the following generations would get ahead as well.
As a board member of our local United Way, I have been involved in the process of allocating the dollars raised in our community. The sheer number of charitable programs available in a small Montana town is mind boggling, to say nothing of the many government programs they compliment. In total, the resources our society directs toward improving lives is significant. We can argue all day whether a greater or lesser percentage should be directed, but the fact is that given the amount we already spend, our results are desultory.
Let’s come at this another way. In 1904 there was very little public assistance. Yet those generations came through poverty and excelled. Now, with billions and trillions directed toward fighting poverty, we find families mired for generations. What is it, then, about our modern system that fails us?
Those of you who know me, know that I am not indifferent to the plight of people less well off. I am fortunate to be involved with the United Way during an exciting time when we are re-directing our efforts to effecting positive, lasting change in our community. I do not know if it will work, but I will not concede that our goal is not the correct one.
As a society, our goal should be the same. We will never “end” poverty, but we should be able to create a system where those who are willing to work and make the ‘correct’ choices are able to lead comfortable lives. Some might argue that we have already achieved this; regardless of whether you agree, with the resources we commit we should be doing better.
What we are doing now is failing us. It is not working, and it is unsustainable.
In recent weeks, I have had several discussions with individuals involved in human services. While admittedly anecdotal, all stressed a need for a societal expectation. In other words, just giving people food and money and shelter and clothing does not do it. There must be a commitment on the part of the recipient to ‘earn his keep,’ and it is this commitment that drives the self-respect to continue forward on the ‘right’ path.
We have approached strategic problems with tactical ’solutions,’ which appear not to have been solutions at all. Do we ever stop to wonder if the services we provide today make things better, or worse, ten years from now? Rather than ending poverty in the last 40 years, our grandiose policies have rendered poverty repeating and seemingly endless.
At what level of failure do we change our approach? How can we change our culture back to one of achievement? Wouldn’t Cycles of Achievement help end the cycle of poverty? Is that not a better, and strategic, goal?
Excellent post Gregg.
Hear, hear!
Thanks Gregg for the post. The story of Guy very much resembles that of my father, and probably that of many other people of their generation. Isn’t it odd that their stories aren’t as celebrated (mostly ignored) as those that choose the route of victimhood.
In 2009, “Guy” dropped out of school at 16 and works at Taco Bell if he works at all. He spends his money on tatoos and getting high.
At one time the smelter employed 1200. I think the malting plant employs about 50 and I am guessing most of their positions require either a college education or formal training in one of the trades. The smelter is gone, the brewery is gone, the iron works is closed, Buttrey’s warehouse is gone. The railroad employs few in Great Falls.
A couple of observations:
= Guy provided the courage, gumption, inner resolve and focused dedication.
= Others provided opportunity and a helping hand
It takes both for all the Guy’s to succeed.
Craig, great point. Which are we missing now?
My mom often uses the southern saying “chicken today, feathers tomorrow”, to describe people who absolutely refuse to live within their means.
I know at least 5 people off the top of my head who would probably be considered to live in “poverty” to an outsider/charitable organization. But when you get to know them and find out that they go to the bars 5 nights a week, are having to replace their car’s engine because they refused to do even minor maintenance on it for 3 years, and go to the hospital repeatedly because they have “just been feeling so tired”, you realize that they CHOOSE to be broke all the time. If they won the lottery, they would be right back in the same spot they are in now in about a year. And it doesn’t matter if they are broke as hell or farmers who inherited 3000 acres. They are chicken today and feathers tomorrow, no matter how many chickens they have!
Until programs designed to end poverty include provisions for people who are just plain shiftless (another southern term, I believe), they will end up wasting entirely too much.
Personally, I think that requiring strenuous physical labor would do a lot to fix this. Just imagine how many fewer welfare/United Way applicants there would be if they were required to dig ditches, pick rock, or stack lumber for 4 hours before they could get their checks. I bet working at McDonalds would quickly be considered good enough for a lot more people.
I know a cook who is drunk for two months straight every February after his EIC/tax refund check comes in. Good luck getting him to work full time during that same period. When the money runs out he’s sober, spends time with his kids and good for forty hours work again. Some people just can’t handle easy money and giving it to them does no good.
I think the point that Von Won was trying to make (at least one of them anyway) has been lost and I would like to “find” it again.
When I first entered the work force, there were lots of oppurtunities for entry level positions. Companys were willing to hire people with drive and ambition and those companies (on the whole) treated thier employees with a certain amount of respect and reward for the dedication the employees showed. You could work for a company your entire life and expect to recieve a decent retirement. Layoffs occured but they were rare.
That situation no longer exists. Companies hire and fire employees like a revolving door with little to no consideration for an employees dedication. Company loyalty (on either side) counts for nothing and employment oppurtunities for entry level workers have dried up.
Further, the work environment has radically changed. Manufacturing and Industry jobs used to be plentiful. Those jobs have been replaced with lower paying service industry jobs – again with little to no benefits and little to no oppurtunity for advancement. The tools to get into the higher paying jobs (College, Industry Training etc) are farther out of reach than they have ever been before and On the Job Training has all but disappeared. Outsourcing, jobs leaving to overseas workers, the exponencial rise in tuition for schools.. all these things have played a role in changing the work environment, and all these things effect the “Guy”’s and “Marvins” of today. Today’s children have less oppurtinuities for entering the workforce (at least in a role that has any chance for advancement) without a college education.
The Work Environment today is not what it was when “Guy” or “Marvin” pulled themselves up by thier bootstraps and there are millions of people struggling (and yes, working hard) just to maintain a home for thier families and put food on the table. Poverty is not just a function of “laziness” and anyone that says that is selling something. Our society has radically changed from the times of “Guy” and “Marvin” and unless you take all the factors into consideration, you will never come to a solution.
Moorcat
Gregg, it’s both. People like Guy seem fewer than years ago. Also, I don’t sense the community awareness of people to people involvement. Seems like far tooooo much emphasis on a filter agency, be it private, non-profit or govt, separating the needy from neighbors.
Guy’s story brought back a memory from more than 55 years ago. When I was in grade school there was a boy who was taking food from other kids’ lunch boxes, including mine. I remember being quite mad at having half of my sandwich taken. It turned out to be a friend of mine. The teacher explained that the boy did not have much food at home and often came to school without having supper and breakfast. After learning that I felt ashamed for my anger as the boy was deeply ashamed for having taken food from others. I had my mom pack and extra sandwich for my friend. He stayed my friend.
I’ve got one for you Gee Guy.
My Grandfather was an Irish Immigrant. He came through Ellis Island and secured a job on the east coast so that he could save enough money to make his way west. In Time-he made his way to Montana.
The Homestead Act of 1862 originally was designed to open the west to settlement. By the time my grandfather made his way to Montana in the early 1900’s, the final homesteaded parcels were being granted. My Grandfather and his brother secured homesteads on contiguous tracts of land in northeastern Montana.
Homesteads were not a gift-but rather an opportunity. In return for the homestead deed-the homesteader had to prove up his property by placing it into production. If, after five years, the homesteader had placed the land into production and improved the property-it was conveyed to him.
The Montana prairies are littered with homestead shacks. Some were left by prospective homesteaders who couldn’t scratch out a living on the land. Others persevered. My grandfather was one of those.
When he died in the early 1950’s, my grandfather had built a farm. The land was paid for. He had taken that early opportunity and turned it into a life. He raised his four children. They went to school, attended church, took piano lessons. He sent all of them to college. He was a gold star father-having sent his oldest son off to war and never saw him alive again. He was on the school board and was secretary of the local co-op that delivered fuel and oil to the farms. He was a good neighbor. In those days-neighbors helped neighbors.
When he died, he still lived in that homestead that he had built with his own hands. He had only added on to make room for his family. It still had no electricity or indoor plumbing. He never had a safety net. He never expected anything to be given to him. He took an opportunity and made good on it. He felt an obligation to make good on the opportunity that he had been given-but didn’t expect that he could take something without earning it.
I have no problem with offering opportunity. I just don’t get people who think that we have to provide for people that won’t even try to earn the opportunities and grants that they are given. My personal history lesson-offered by my grandfather –is just is part of me.
Old Dog, your grandfather sounds like one of my great-grandfathers. His family came from Germany to the New World and were awarded land with a King’s Land Grant from the English king. This was in New Jersey. During the Depression my great- Grandfather farmed. He kept many families going with his bounty of pigs, chickens, cattle, corn, etc. He did it because of his sense of community. I got to meet him and fish at his farm. He was a kind and gently giant.
Read the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. This whole process is analyzed with incredible insight.
Try also “Life at the Bottom” by Theodore Dalrymple
I don’t know if the old models will work anymore. Moorcat is right that the employment situation has changed for starting workers, but the people have changed as well. During the Depression, many people who were eligible for public aid refused it, because their pride prevented them from going “on the dole.” We don’t have that problem anymore. There is no stigma for failing to provide for your family. In fact, many of the poverty programs require that there be no male head of the household to be eligible for aid.
I don’t think that we can ever go back, but I do know that we don’t have a clue where we are going.
“I don’t know if the old models will work anymore. Moorcat is right that the employment situation has changed for starting workers”
Nobody who hires workers would agree with this. Hard workers are just as valuable as they ever were at all experience levels. The difficulty for starting workers is that generally their work ethic is far behind older applicants. Young workers are more likely to show up late, ask to leave early, call in sick and take cell phone calls at work. Guy and Marvin would do just as well today as they did in their own time. Also, the idea that college is needed for a good job and guarantees a good job is a dirty trick on many of our average students. A good living can still be made in the trades with opportunities to move up. There are college educated service industry workers all over the state, working to pay off student loans for their unused degrees.
Both sides of my scandie families came through Ellis Island. They were poor. The only thing they possessed was a suitcase and a address of some shirt tail relatives.
Those relatives clothed, fed, provided work and self esteem to these newcomers, the local community church provided nourishment for the soul, education for the young.
Could this departure of family and church community have started the cycle?
Moorcat, this is an interesting topic and I wish I had more time to research your comments. You said many things that I am not sure I think are true. I don’t know they aren’t true, but it seems to me that you might have some false assumptions.
“You could work for a company your entire life and expect to recieve a decent retirement. Layoffs occured but they were rare.” I think that has been true at times in the past, but I would submit that workers suffered through plenty of job security issues in the 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s. Yet people survived and prospered.
“The tools to get into the higher paying jobs (College, Industry Training etc) are farther out of reach than they have ever been before and On the Job Training has all but disappeared.” This sounds like you are saying that it is harder to obtain assistance for secondary education today than it has ever been. I just don’t believe that to be true (admittedly not based on any research of the subject). Today we have federally guaranteed student loans, grants and scholarships. I am guessing those things did not exist to any large extent in the early 1900’s, yet people still managed to get educated and succeed.
You have made a point that I alluded to in my post. Do we really want to posit that the typical person mired in poverty today has a more difficult time than the typical person in 1904? Those people were fighting for their basic needs: food, shelter and clothing. Now there is assistance to help pay for all three. Are you really asserting that someone born in 1890 to a poor family had a greater likelihood of a modestly comfortable life than someone born in 1990? I struggle with that.
Regardless, though, what I was asking was how do we improve things.
While you are correct that there are more “assistance” programs now for secondary education then there were in the first half of the 20th century, are missing some key facts in your analysis.
1) yes, there is more assistance available, but the cost of secondary education has skyrocketed to the point that even those assistance packages fail to cover the education and the student loans that most students have to get to complete college can often amount to tens of thousands of dollars.
2) prior to the last couple of decades, there were lots of oppurtunities to get decent employment without having a secondary education and many companies were more interested in what you could do rather than whether you had a piece of paper. That has radically changed.
3) again, the change in the employment landscape from a manufacturing society to a service society and radically altered the chances of those success stories you quote. This type of employment landscape tend to lead to stratification (a service class, and educated class and a royal class) with advancement oppurtunities limited by which class you are in.
I am not saying that advancement is not possible. I am simply saying that the ability to advance (and the probability to advance) is not just a function of determination or desire. Times have changed and while we can use the stories of “Guy” and “Marvin” as inspiration, we cannot and should not use those stories to try to say that the people who are poor are “lazy”.
As far as fixing the problem, I think it is far too complex to list all the things that will have to change in a single (or even multiple) blog entries. Movements have a sort of entropy and this change in the work environment has been going on for quite a while. I agree that our society is far to dependant on welfare and public assistance, but I think that it is a symptom of the problem, not a cause in and of itself. I see the loss of jobs (specifically the middle income manufacturing and industry jobs) to oversees markets and the switch to a service economy as serious factors in this situation. I see issues with how unions and companies work together today – and how the unions, in some ways are at fault for the current situation. While I understand that companies today are struggling, I also see that companies (in general) no longer value their employees and jobs that have benefits such as health care and retirement are fewer and farther between. For every company you can name that does show it’s commitment to thier employees, I can name five that don’t – and the ones I name will have far more employees…
A large factor, (in my opinion) in our current situation is that our government has got to stop being a jobs program for government. It is the government regulations and our taxing structure that has – at least in some part – resulted in the change from a manufactoring society to a service society. Our government spending has increased to the point that we tax individuals and businesses to support that level of spending and as companies look for ways to meet those taxes, they usually start by reducing employee benefits and incentives – like OJT, health care and retirement.
At the same time, the companies themselves have to shoulder at least some of the blame for this situation. If companies like Intel stopped sending the middle income jobs to countries like India and China, there would be more of those jobs in America. Unfortunately, it is companies like Intel that can afford to lobby our congress critters to ensure that they can continue to send American jobs oversees without suffering any kind of downside.
To get back to your original question.. yes, I believe that our current “welfare state” is a part of the problem and while I certainly won’t agree that the current generation of entry level workers are “all lazy” as some of your commentors have assurted, I will agree that it is a contributing factor. I recognise the need for some kind of public assistance (I was in a couple of situations where I could probably have used it – but was too proud to accept it – in the 12 or so years I spent as a single parent) but our implimentation of welfare is badly broken It has produced entire generations who don’t know how to live without it. I will not accept that all those in poverty are “lazy” but will state catagorically that the jobs available to those people have less advancement potential than the ones that were available to those in the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, 70’s and 80’s – certainly less available to people like me when I entered the job force in the 70’s.
Here is one suggestion.. take just half the money currently being dumped into welfare and use that money to set up a number of state trade schools – with little to no tuition required. Teach skill sets aimed at getting people real jobs – preferably in the middle income fields – and include job search aid as part of the tuition.
Since we spent over 500 Billion dollars on welfare payments in the us last year, 250 billion dollars would pay for a hell of a lot of trade skill education and at least that would give a leg up for those that do want to better themselves and thier family’s situation.
Moorcat
Here is another small example of how that 250 billion can be spent…
Say I have live in Urboncity USA and I want to better my situation for my family. I apply for a job training and relocation program that will give me 8 weeks of training (say in Heavy Equipment Operation) and will move me and my family to an area that has an abundance of jobs in that field.
Cost of 8 weeks of training – $8,000
Cost of relocating a family of four – $6,000
Three months of “welfare” to last until first paycheck and to cover moving fees – $6,000
Total cost – $20,000
The 250 billion dollars (again, half of what we currently spend of welfare each year) would support 12.5 MILLION people being retrained in this fashion – each year.
This could work for a variety of middle income jobs – welders, heavy equipment operators, construction workers, apprentice level plumbers/electricians, millwrights, entry level nursing staff, receptionist/secretarial, medical office worker… the list is endless and only limited by your imagination. Yes, this will not solve the problem of those people who choose to support themselves on the welfare system, but it would certainly work toward helping those that WANT to better themselves and thier family’s situation.
The idea is pretty basic – teach a person a skill that will allow them to support thier family, give them a chance to enter the workforce in an area that has jobs in the field they trained in and give them at least a basic chance to get thier feet under them. This would go a LONG way to not only reducing the amount of poverty in the nation but provide a skilled workforce for something other than service jobs.
And before anyone says it, I will say it myself…. This idea assumes that the government is capable of actually utilizing money wisely and administering a program with some degree of forethought and execution…. But ask yourself, can it be any worse than the deplorable way that welfare is handled now?
The problem will be that the welfare system employees several thousands of people and has become a jobs program – for government employees. What happens to those employees when the welfare system is halved and how much resistance will there be from the Government itself to reducing government jobs?
Moorcat
moorcat, on July 29th, 2009 at 12:04 pm, says:
“yes, there is more assistance available, but the cost of secondary education has skyrocketed to the point that even those assistance packages fail to cover the education and the student loans that most students have to get to complete college can often amount to tens of thousands of dollars.”
Interesting, isn’t it, that the more money the gov’t throws at the cost of a secondary education, the more expensive the secondary education becomes?
Interesting… yes. But the government money being thrown at secondary education isn’t keeping up with the rising costs of secondary education. Is this the fault of government spending or a more complex situation involving rising costs, greater demand for secondary education and more “for profit” institutions? Don’t even get me started on my views of government spending. I maintain that the Government of the US has become a jobs program for Government employees.
Guy probably lived a middle class life.
Tomorrow night walk through a few bars in Great Falls on 10th avenue south and Central avenue and ask the patrons if they think they are middle class. I am guessing most will say they are. In reality most of them are upper low class.