Determining The Issues for Welfare Dependency

                                   

                                       Determining The Issues For Welfare Dependency

                William Julius Wilson explains many problems within the society. One of the biggest issues he talks about is welfare. Wilson explains that in the 1980s there was 25,000 families with children are receiving AFDC. The increase in the number of female headed families in the United States was extremely dramatic in the 1970s. Many problems that turn to welfare dependency is out of wedlock births, teen pregnancy and poverty. A study by the Urban institute pointed out that more than half of all AFDC assistance in 1975 was paid to women who were or had been teenage mothers. The proportion of black teenage births that were out of wedlock increased 42-60 in the 1970s. 7 percent of the white teenage births were out of wedlock in 1960s and increased to 17% in 1970. Although welfare is extremely beneficial for families struggling to provide for their children. There is also people who completely abuse the system and take advantage of “free” money. If you are given all this money every month and you can find a way to make it your means of income, why would someone get off the couch and find a job. For example, I work at a retail store and I have so many customers that come through my register and purchase alcohol with the “cash” benefits on their link card because they get food and cash benefits. My question is, why would anyone get a job if they are given all these benefits and being able to use them on things such as alcohol. I strongly feel that the system needs to make it stricter so that they are using the money they are given every month on things that are necessities. However, there are definitely a huge population that works really hard to make ends meet but they just can’t and need the help.

                In chapter 1, William says that experiences of inequality were closely tied to the discussion of the structure of inequality when he explains the economic and social situations where blacks create norms and patterns of behavior that take the form of a “self-perpetuating pathology”(William, p7). William justifies the symptoms of lower class society and how they affect the ghetto of America. He states they have low aspirations, poor addiction, family instability, unemployment, crime, drug addiction and alcoholism. Which leads me to this movie.

                

This movie comes to my mind in relation to this topic due to the movie content. Although it’s not spot on identical to what we are talking about. Homeless to Harvard is about a girl that was born into a drug addict household who are struggling to survive. William identifies poverty in many scenarios of his book. This girl lives in a rundown apartment building in a bad neighborhood where her mother can walk less than a mile down the road and pick up drugs. Both parents do nothing to try and better themselves and are both unemployed.

Links:

https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472068319-ch8.pdf

http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=38464

The second link gives a little insight of requirements for welfare. It was pretty interesting to me!

Life at the Bottom

William Julius Wilson speaks of the Truly Disadvantage in his novel he addresses the numerous issue that all play a definitive role in identifying those who are indeed disadvantage. The Census definition, or rate, determines poverty by comparing pretax cash income against a poverty threshold dollar amount that is adjusted for family size and composition.

From a Wilsons prospective if you continuously clump individuals with a lack of resources in one concentrated area at one time without providing them with a means to progress it will end in poverty. So I’m going to use Detroit as an example, Two-thirds of Detroiters can't afford basic needs like housing and health care, even when family members who are employed, according to a new reports form article “Most Detroit Families Can't Afford Their Basic Needs: Report”. Detroit's poverty rate is 38 percent, but the United Way study but when you factor in housing, child care, food, transportation and health care compared to income by county to identify families that are above the federal poverty line people are struggling. The question is why this is, and what shifts caused this poverty line to increase so dramatically?

Here’s the answer from my prospective Detroit as a state was best known for its motor industry success! Here is a timeline of major events in the motor industry over the past millennium according to article, “ Raise and fall of Detroit”  In, 1899 Ransom E. Olds opens Detroit's first auto manufacturing plant. Ford opens his second car company, Henry Ford Co. Ford leaves the company in August 1902, and it becomes the Cadillac Motor Co. Detroit is America's 13th biggest city, with a population of about 286,000. Sept. 16, 1908 William Durant and Charles Stewart Mott found General Motors in Flint, Mich., as a holding company for Buick. (Today, GM is now the only one of the major U.S. automakers headquartered in Detroit proper.) June 6, 1925 Walter Chrysler starts the Chrysler Corp. in Detroit. It is now headquartered in Auburn Hills, a Detroit suburb. 1950, Detroit's population hits 1.85 million, making it America's fourth-largest city, with 296,000 manufacturing jobs. 1973-74 The gasoline crises help give smaller, more fuel-efficient foreign-made cars a toehold in the U.S., signaling a long period of crisis for Detroit's Big Three automakers. December 2008 President Bush gives a provisional $17.4 billion bailout to GM and Chrysler. May-July 2009 Chrysler and GM declare bankruptcy, and the Obama administration provides financing and guides the automakers through expedited bankruptcy proceedings.

https://youtu.be/KNYfVPWP4mY

 Detroit was a once thriving city that collapsed when the motor industry crashed it effected the entire dynamics of the city.  Now that motor industries are closed let’s look at what’s left. First, poverty filled community, because there are a lack of jobs in the market. Second, a lack of resource within the city those with resources leave to follow weave of industrial growth. Lastly, those who are immobile become boxed in by the pressures and lack or resource surrounding them. The fact is that this reality could have happened anywhere. Even if someone one was to pump millions of dollars into restructuring of homes in Detroit nothing would change until a new system of revenue on a city level is created. Let’s not forget that industrial crisis also effected state budgeting which includes school funding, governmental assistance, grant mobility, and healthcare if any city is lacking in all these areas the city will surly die.

I will also like to point out that those who are most disadvantage in cases like Detroit are minorities who were at a disadvantaged even when cities thrived.  The people with resources who was able to following moving industrial careers were typically upper and middle cases Caucasian families. That didn’t have to suffer against add disadvantaging factors such as blockbusting, racial discrimination, and employment biases. All of these things combined together answers the question of why Detroit is in its current state.     

http://theweek.com/articles/461968/rise-fall-detroit-timeline

http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/michigan/detroit/demographic.html

h http://www.poverties.org/poverty-in-the-united-states.htmlttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/04/detroit-poverty-alice-report_n_5760602.html

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/

https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf

The Way of Poverty

“The way of Poverty”

            Poverty has its own culture, its own way of functioning and existing in today’s society as well as in the past. It is very much so prevalent in the world in which we live in. From, the rise in the role of welfare, to the long unemployment lines, and those that are left homeless and have disabilities. These roles all engage to a larger problem in our society today and that’s what leads to high crime rates.

            All the factors that are listed contribute to a lot of Chicago’s problems that existed during the 60’s, 80’s, and to the present time of today. There is social dislocation, Unemployment, Drug Addiction, Out of Wedlock Births, Gangs, Welfare and tons of Female Headed Households. If we look at the numbers for those that are unemployed alone meaning no source of income the numbers are scary. This contributes heavily to those that are out committing the robberies and mugging because they don’t have so in order to get the take, not that its justified but it’s the reality.

            These same communities have drug addiction problems as part of being socially dislocated because of the high unemployment rates as well. Those that are unemployed find other outlets for forms of income whether that leads to gang affiliation and or selling drugs that in turn causes drug addiction in the community. These boundaries that put up by the way of poverty create larger issues in the urban community. These boundaries literally turn the urban community into the jungle.

            Moreover, in the urban community we have women who primarily receive government assistance or welfare due to the fact that they out of wedlock babies and are considered females that our single and head of household. Women that live in the urban community tend to have multiple kids before marriage and live off the system which was set before them because of the culture of poverty. These areas become saturated with same proto types or similar background stories and then turn into these areas that urban communities. These areas become some of the most violent areas in the city of Chicago due to a combination of these factors. These homes are also known as some of the largest housing projects known during their time.

            Regardless of how we want to look at it from any view point when you take an overly populated area and toss in the mix poverty the poor of poor, social isolation, struggle unemployment and or under employment with a hint of gangs and drugs, you have your recipe for disaster as well as the culture of poverty. You can take this and apply it to any urbanize neighborhood and it fits the puzzle. Whether the views of a liberal and the structural arguments or that of the conservative and the cultural arguments really defines how the way of poverty plays a role in the urban community is right or wrong only shows that there is a problem and exist. Let’s open our eyes to the way of poverty.   

 http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/a-different-approach-to-breaking-the-cycle-of-poverty/384029/

http://www.eschooltoday.com/poverty-in-the-world/the-vicious-cycle-of-poverty.html

Is it really about being lazy?

What causes poverty? Most people assume people are in poverty because they are too lazy to work or don’t put forth effort to advance at their current low paying position. Despite popular stereotypes, there are a few other contributing factors that can introduce poverty into a household. The cultural and behavioral explanations on why people are in poverty are explained by individuals making bad decisions that result in poverty. These decisions can sometimes be because of family expectations (need to work young to help support the household), no interest in working, a culture of welfare dependence, lack of future orientation or planning ahead, etc. There are also structural explanations that enable poverty among families. People can inherit wealth from family members, but one might also obtain a lump sum of debt on the contrary. An example of this would be an immediate family member catching a disease like cancer which requires extensive and very expensive procedures. The result of this treatment can become quite an expensive hospital bill over the duration of the recovery. Depending on how you identify yourself or characteristics you have (such as race, gender, and sex) may also affect your income. According to an article written by Inequality.org, “Black household income stood at only 55 percent of white household income in 2011.” This data can be a result of statistical discrimination where employers will choose employees based on group characteristics rather than individual accomplishments or achievements. An example would be an employer picking a resume with the name “Joe” over another that says “Jose” even though there is just one letter difference.

Poverty can also present itself given the structural differences in a household. Single female households lead the path in poverty. Being a full time single parent limits the free time you have to find a job or to work when a job is acquired. If you can find work at all, it is most-likely going to be part time due to the needs of being a parent which also affects the amount of income being brought in. Women in the workforce have been known to make significantly less compared to their male counterparts. This ultimately differs the rate of poverty within the single parent category causing single female households to be more prone to endure severe poverty.

With this “hook-up” culture we live in, women are having babies at a younger age forcing them to make big decisions. So why aren’t these young adults that are having kids getting married to bring together income? Why do some women choose to live as a single parent when so many live in poverty? The change in social norms regarding marriage and the increasing divorce rates have to play a role in this statistic, but there is one that seems to stand out. The standards that women seek in a man is someone who is financially stable and can bring a good environment to their future children. If a young man is working a minimum wage job, he is not bringing in enough income which might make him unmarriageable in a woman’s eyes. The idea that women are possibly holding out for a “better” man, supports this argument. In today’s society we are more accepting of peoples choices compared to the past, which might influence a mother to become independent and care for a child on their own.

http://www.sociology.org.uk/AS_poverty_welfare.pdf

http://inequality.org/poverty-matter-black-white/

Is the "Culture of Poverty" a real culture?

The culture of poverty theory really caught my attention during lecture this week. It was interesting to me because I really do not believe that people really want to live in poverty. So it angers me when others say that they just want to live that life instead of making a better living for themselves. I know many people who live with low incomes, but they are always constantly trying to better their lives so they can feed their family. I believe that this theory only exists due to the greedy keeping labor and opportunities away from them.

 The first article I would like to go over is an article by Paul Gorski titled "The Myth of the culture of Poverty" (http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr08/vol65/num07/The-Myth-of-the-Culture-of-Poverty.aspx). In this article Paul goes over myths that are believed to be part of the culture of poverty. The first myth he goes over is the myth that poor people are supposedly unmotivated and have weak work ethics. Then he ties to state how this myth is false because there is 83 percent of low income children have at least one parent who woks and out of those 60 percent they have at least one parent working full time and year round. I also believe that this myth is false because as a minority I know many people who work full time, but still cannot manage to get out of poverty. As a Latino in Chicago most people I know work in restaurants as servers, bartenders, and cooks. This is a low paying job in which they are not guaranteed a salary so they are not able to know how much money they will actually make due to them just depending heavily on tips. This is how I can see why they stay under the poverty line. They work 10 plus hour shifts so this shows me that they are not lazy. It really depends on the education you have in order to better yourself which turns into something this people could only dream about as they might not be able to afford an education in turn leaving them to stick to these types of jobs that have inconsistent pay. 

The second myth that Paul mentioned was that poor people are not involved in their children's education because they do not value education. I agree with everything he had to say about this myth. He says that some parents do not have time to participate in PTA meetings due to most lower income parents having to work multiple jobs. I have seen this myself within my own family. My dad and mom used to work while I was in school, but they still forced me to participate inn school activities and they always wanted to know what was going on in the school that they should know about. They also always talked to me about going to college in order to have a good career. And once my dad got a promotion my mom was able to stop working and now she attends all of my younger siblings school meetings and she also attends a community college as she is trying to get her associates degree in hospitality. I also see this in the Little Village neighborhood where i used to live as most of my friends are now attending school instead of just accepting that they cannot better their lives.

The second article I want to go over that speak about poverty is how poverty is really a cause of capitalism. This article was written by Christine Horner and it is titled "Why Capitalism Is The #1 Cause Of Poverty" (http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/06/09/why-capitalism-is-the-1-cause-of-poverty/). This article shows us how capitalism has three central elements: capital accumulation, competition and price system. She mentions how the most flawed component is competition. She says that capitalism always has to have a winner and a loser. And yes the loser will most likely always end up being those whom earn lower wages and the winners end up being the owners and those in higher positions such as CEOs, managers, etc...  I have seen this many times in previous jobs where my manager makes the employees do something and if they end up doing something that does not benefit the company they may get suspended or even fired while the manage who told the person to do such task does not get any form of discipline. Overall capitalism has created great things, but at the costs of those who have a lower education or getting paid less as they always end up being the scapegoat of those that are better off.

Structure or Culture?

During class the past couple of weeks we have been discussing the underclass.  We have established that this is a term that refers to those below the lower class.  Some people refuse to even use this term, finding other ways in which to explain the poverty levels in which some people are living that typically minimize the issue.  One of the better equivalents I found in an article from October of 2015 describes the same population we are talking about as those in “deep poverty.”  This better explains the serious ghetto underclass crisis in which many people are experiencing.

According to William Julius Wilson, there are two different ways to explain the ghetto underclass crisis.  He believes that the Liberal argument of the underclass can be explained through a structural (individual) lens and that the Conservative argument of the underclass can be explained through a cultural lens.  Liberals tend to relate disadvantage to problems of society such as discrimination, while Conservatives tend to relate disadvantage to differences in group values and competitive resources.  While we cannot be sure that either of these outlooks are “correct,” both views can certainly be viewed with an aspect of truth.

When poverty is viewed with a Conservative outlook, people are in poverty because they are lazy, uneducated, ignorant, or inferior in some way.  According to one of the websites I found on this topic, “If this theory were true, it would follow that impoverished people are basically the same people every year.  And if that were true, we could whip poverty by helping that particular 15% of the population to figure things out and climb out of poverty.”  This is a very logical argument that I never thought of until I found the article.  Another argument supporting the Conservative side is that a child will follow what he or she sees growing up and reproduce similar actions.  This is saying that if a child sees his or her parent(s) unemployed and receiving welfare, that child is more than likely to produce the same outcome.

When viewing poverty and the underclass with a Liberal outlook, people are in poverty because of persistent issues within the economic system.  Liberal critics argue that poverty is due to segregation, limited opportunities, and external obstacles against advancement.  Mainly, the structural argument is about restricted opportunities.  So which one is it?  The Demos website states that the easiest thing to do in order to figure out which theory is “true” is to answer the following question: are impoverished people the same people every year or different ones?  If the answer is yes, you could argue that the Conservative argument holds more weight, whereas if the answer is no, you could argue that the Liberal argument takes the win.  No matter which side is more correct, this is still a very large and pressing issue that needs to be addressed.

http://www.demos.org/blog/7/28/14/two-theories-poverty

http://chicagoreporter.com/black-chicagoans-most-likely-to-live-in-deep-poverty/

True Disadvantage

In The Truly Disadvantaged, William Julius Wilson talks about the ghetto underclass and the ideas behind the disadvantage that blacks and minorities face. In the second chapter, Wilson introduces us to the idea of social dislocation within the inner city communities. He talks about how when we look at things like out of wedlock births and welfare dependency, there’s a significant difference in the numbers between the races. The problem is that many policy makers and people in power will not accept the fact that there is a discrepancy, or do anything to explain it. Wilson references the work of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who depicted black liberal families in an unflattering light in his writing The Negro Family, also known as the Moynihan Report. Moynihan argued that “ as antidiscrimination laws break down barriers to black liberty, issues of equality will draw attention away from issues of liberty” (Wilson 20). In other words, people will always tend to focus more on the equality side than on the actual issue of liberty and freedom when it comes to social issues. I think that this point is illustrated in the next section of the book, where Wilson talks about the “tangle of pathology in the inner city”.

 Wilson talks about the reinforcement of stereotypes through figures and statistics on black on black crime. While reading this part of the chapter, I thought back to a discussion I had in a previous criminology class. The discussion was about how crime statistics can be misleading and even have false information. In the discussion we also talked about the myth of black on black crime; how some people are more likely than others to be victims of crimes, and how those numbers can also be manipulated to reflect any statistic. For example, black people make up about 12.3% of the US population. However, black men make up 37% of the prison population. In 2013, almost 3% of black males of all ages were imprisoned, compared to 0.5% of white males of all ages. So the question is; why are young black males being imprisoned at such high rates?

News coverage of so-called “black on black” crime helps to reinforce the idea that the real problem isn’t the judicial system and law enforcement disproportionately targeting black people with initiatives like Stop and Frisk, but that the problem is black people killing each other. The reality is, most crimes occur between people of the same race. Wilson also talks about the effects of historic discrimination as well as contemporary discrimination. So essentially, at a time where they should have been prospering, poor blacks ended up in a worse economic position than before. Although there were antidiscrimination laws and programs being put in place, poor blacks were not able to benefit greatly from them. Today, many poor blacks are still in the same situation, and media and statistic distortion affects the community and its people.

When reading this section, I began to think about some of the things I learned in my black studies class last semester. In The Social Philosophy of Hip Hop, we talked about how hip hop music has always been a reflection of the state of the black community. This happens because the artists who make the music are usually speaking on the things that they have seen around them. The quality of the music, can sometimes reflect the quality of life in the community. For example, in the past there have been anthems that were a voice of the people. Stevie Wonder’s song “Superstitious” is actually about Nixon and the Watergate scandal in the 1960’s. Lil’Wayne’s song “Tie My Hands” is about the destruction of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and the state the community was in after the storm. Songs like “Formation” by Beyonce reflect a need in the black community for women to stick together and encourage one another and the community. Likewise, Kendrick Lamar’s

performance of "We Gon’ Be Alright"
at the 2016 grammy’s reflected the disproportionate amount of black men in prison and the need for black men to support one another. Despite the negative media surrounding things like black on black crime, the music reflects a community that is working to overcome contemporary discrimination and focus on issues of liberty and equality.


More on black on black crime as a myth: http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/distorted-exaggeration-black-black-crime-ignores-much-americas-criminality

Stats on Prison Populations: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf 

Searching Through the Index Pool

The idea that captured my attention the most in chapter 3 of William Julius Wilsons’, The Truly Disadvantaged, was the male marriageable pool index which is essentially the proportion of men in stable economic situations. Wilson says that since there isn’t a high proportion of men with a decent job, it is creating female headed families instead of two headed households where both the man and woman are bringing in income to support each other and their children.

We had talked somewhat on this in class as Professor Weffer had ask the women of the class whether they wanted to date a man without a job compared to a man with a job and unsurprisingly they all wanted to date a man with a job. It seems that women in Chicago are waiting for man with a job before getting married as the first article I found mentions that 30 year old Willie Jean-Nash is a mother five children and has never been married. According to Wilson, the male marriageable pool index has a low proportion whether from mortality, incarceration, or unemployment. The article continues to say that very few women believe it to be a good idea to marry a jobless man which is understandable since there could be very few job opportunities in Chicago with many seeking to fill the few positions. This brings me to my next article as it talks about how about 47% of 20 to 24 year old black men are unemployed and not in school. So the reason for female headed households being on the rise at least in Chicago, as Wilson points out, is the relationship of joblessness and marital instability (83). We had even discussed in class about how those in poverty do not exactly have the same connections as a middle class individual meaning that the middle class person might know a guy who could get the individual a job or an economically stable family to lean on until they can find a job on their own. Someone in poverty who doesn’t have those connections because they are living in an area with people who are in the same position as them looking for a job.

These men Chicago actually want a job but there isn’t one out there for them get without any hassle.  We also talked about how a man could work his whole life and have nothing to show for it and so some people instead turn to crime such as drug dealing when there is a lack of jobs to provide for a family. The third article I have, is slightly different than the second, quotes Jonathan Allens saying “I see people in my community who want to do better for themselves, but the only way they can do something better is that they have to make something happen” to which he is referring about illegal activities. It is clear that people want to do better but the only way that they see as possible is to do criminal activities to achieve that goal. This leads them to being arrested and incarcerated thus shrinking the male marriageable pool index further and increasing the amount of female headed families who are waiting for the man with a decent job almost like a continuous cycle.

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-07-17/news/mn-91_1_young-black-men

http://abc7chicago.com/careers/report-finds-high-unemployment-rates-among-minority-youth/1173504/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-youth-unemployment-urban-league-0126-biz-20160124-story.html

Welfare: Who's to Blame?

Our discussion in class on welfare really made me think and inspired me to write this post. The thing that perhaps most inspired to write this was the talk of the “marriageable men index” and the plight of women and there “choice” to be on welfare because, in many cases, it seemed like a more feasible and enlightened choice to make. Though that is what inspired me to write this article, I will not be focusing on those topics specifically.

The first topic of discussion is the idea that welfare will actually corrupt poor people, or, at least erode their ambition pull themselves up by their bootstraps, get a job, and move up the socio-economic ladder through their own hard work. This is an argument that we hear time and time again when the topic of welfare comes up. I would go as far as to say that this argument ALWAYS comes up when talking about welfare in order to defame and refute its legitimacy as a form of social and government assistance to those in need. The first article link I included in this post is a link to a New York Times article that was written recently and discusses the notion that welfare actually harms its recipients more than benefits them. Many statements from former Presidents of the United States, mostly Ronald Reagan, and others with some level of expertise in this matter are quoted and discussed throughout the article. What I took from this article was the fact that the age-old notion that welfare harms its recipients more than helps them is not that clear-cut and dry, nor should it be accepted so willfully and without question.

The next article link I included in this blog post is one about actual cash-transfers being given out as a form of welfare. This article basically focuses on the issue of how welfare should be dispersed to its recipients and different methods of doing this across the globe are mentioned. One of the main arguments against welfare is that its recipients will just go and spend their money on drugs, tobacco, alcohol, etc. i.e. they will not spend the money the way it is intended to be spent. What this article shows is that across the world who receive physical cash transfers don’t spend their money on those things a majority of the time. Many of the recipients of welfare in the form of cash transfers actually benefit from that assistance medically, nutritionally, with household items, educationally, and with food. Cash transfers actually seemed to helped recipients more than any other kind of welfare. I point these things out not to say that I am necessarily completely convinced of their validity, but to point out that issues are deeper than just surface-level issues and must be approached and dealt with in an informed and balanced manner.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/business/the-myth-of-welfares-corrupting-influence-on-the-poor.html?_r=0

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/welfare-reform-direct-cash-poor/407236/

Single Parent Synonymous with Blackness.

In the Third chapter of "The Truly Disadvantaged," by William Julius Wilson he talks about poverty and how it has affected the family structure. He talked about how there was a disproportionate increase in single parent households between white families and black families from 1960 until the end of the 1980's. One of the theories that became popular to try to understand why this was happening was that the increase in government assistance, through programs such as Medicaid and welfare, lead to the increase in female led households, with the rate of black mother led households increasing faster than white mother led households. This popular theory was embraced for a while, but eventually fell out of favor due to the lack of evidence that could support the argument. Instead, there were a few other factors that contributed to the increase in single parent household’s disparity between black families and white families: the rate of “marriageable males,” for white women decreased slightly between 1960 and 1980, whereas that number for black women decreased significantly. One of the key points in the book that I thought was interesting was the fact that black women who run a single parent household are more likely to remain in poverty for a long period of time as opposed to white women who don’t come out of poverty quicker and more often. “Most white women can maintain their families above poverty with a combination of earnings and income from other sources such as alimony, child support, public-income transfers, personal wealth, and assistance from families… in addition, many white single mothers remarry,” (Wilson 77). I found the fact that white women remarry at larger rates than black men to be interesting, coming from a single parent household I was surrounded by that environment but thinking about it from that perspective never occurred to me. You see this portrayed in a lot of films. One of the first films that came to mind when I thought of how common it was for white families to remarry was the film Parent Trap. It’s a film a lot of kids raised in the 90’s grew up with, the film is about a set of twins that got separated at birth by their parents after they decide to get a divorce. The father of the twins gets a new finance and when the twins find out that they were separated at birth, they set a plan in motion to get their parents back together.

 The importance of “marriageable father,” in a family structure as it relates to poverty reminded me of the film the Pursuit of Happyness. In this film, the father is barely making ends meet and is pretty much homeless with his 5 year old son, he banks his entire livelihood on an unpaid competitive internship that would get him a well-paying job should he succeed. The father is sort of with the mother in the movie, but their relationship is clearly strained and she barely takes part in raising her child. There’s a scene in the movie where the father and son sleep inside of a men’s bathroom and when someone tries to come in, the father has to hold the door shut with his foot. To me this represented the epitome of living in poverty. Another thing I found interesting is how single parent households have become socially accepted to the point where it is uncommon to see a black family with both the mother and father actively present. There is a hip hop artist by the name of Childish Gambino who said “This one kid said something that was really bad. He said I wasn't really black because I had a dad. I think that's kind of sad. Mostly cause a lot of black kids think they should agree with that,” in his song Hold You Down, which goes to show that blacks being raised in a single parent household has become so accepted in our society, it has become synonymous with blackness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv_d2RUDMag

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89Kq8SDyvfg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32WeiH4TrIY

Capitalism in Poor Urban Communities

The "Ghetto" in Chicago,IL

Capitalism is an economic system that is controlled by private owners to make a profit rather being controlled by the state. Capitalism in the urban community is essentially a monopoly that dictates where certain commodities and resources go. For example, if you live in a nice urban area, chances are the infrastructure of your community is strong due to the financial gain that capitalism makes from you. As for the poor urban communities that contribute little to capitalism, you see this area as the "Ghetto" or "Slums." These parts of the city contribute little to the capitalistic owner that controls most of the wealth within the city. This is a major issue in urban communities and the reason why poor areas in the urban community remain in the dumps and are not entitled to any future improvements. 

 During the agricultural times this was never problem due to the small towns that had a small population. People within these small towns or village worked together, if the farmer who harvested apples fell from the tree and broke his arm, everyone in the community helped that farmer pick apples. After the industrial revolution you can see how people were becoming socialized to fend for themselves rather than sharing and caring for others. Capitalism was the reason for this sudden change in the way people starting acting in communities. Especially in cities today with high population and little to space up for grab, people are choosing themselves before they choose others. This is why we see certain commodities and resources going to the wealthy who contribute to the capitalistic owners of big companies instead of the poor who can’t contribute at all. Capitalism contributes to why there is a “ghetto” in the city, with factory jobs going over sea to China, Indonesia, and Mexico. That leaves millions of Americans jobless raising the poverty rate and poor communities. Capitalism used correctly is a very nice system to build our economy and get us out of high poverty rates and unemployment rates, but with the system having too many loopholes and upper class people controlling the manufactures overseas, the poor communities in urban areas will continue to remain in a poor and unsafe environment.

Unsafe because of the gang violence that is created due to capitalistic owner created more jobs oversea than in American. Little amount of job opportunities force people in these poor communities to development a criminal way of life not by choice, but to survive. This is were gang life starts at such a young age and continues to grow in in these poor areas because it’s the only way these people know how to put on the table. The effect that capitalism has in our modern society is substantial, with people abusing the system it creates a ripple effect on the middle and lower class.

In order for poor communities to get help that they deserve, something needs to be done so that they get the same resources and commodities that the upper class get. They need more jobs in order to get out of the gang life so the have other opportunities to provide for their family. Jobs also allow them to contribute to this capitalistic economy where they can contribute and build their infrastructure stronger within their community. Capitalism is bad for the poor urban communities.

Resources:

http://www.city-data.com/poverty/poverty-Chicago-Illinois.html

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Bloody_ThePoorUnderCapitalism.html

http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/what-capitalism

This is REALITY

I have to say to begin, that this book is absolutely amazing. It focuses on the hardships that I see everyday being a young African American woman and even gets into depth of the hardships of being a young, black, African American man. One thing that this book focuses on that I just had to be sure to discuss is the police brutality. Police brutality has been around for so many years and even in today's society is not letting up in any kind of way. Police brutality is the use of any force exceeding that reasonably necessary to accomplish a lawful police purpose. Although no reliable measure of its incidence exists—let alone one charting change chronologically—its history is undeniably long. One thing that was amazing but expected to see, was that in class, when the speakers asked the classroom have they known anyone or have them, their-selves been victims of police brutality, the majority of the people that raised their hands were minorities. The sad truth about police brutality according to the research that I did was that a African American person is twice more likely to suffer from police brutality. 

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2csnv6_house-party-1-1990-dvdrip_shortfilms

The example that I chose to use for police brutality may be a little on the funny side but it does set a very realistic reality to police brutality. In the movie, House Party there are two white police officers who constantly racially profile the young black men in the community. There is even one point in the movie that once the police officers have arrested three young black males, instead of taking them to the police station like they should and let the law prevail, they instead say they rather take them to a secluded street where they can beat them up and they laugh and say "no one will be able to hear them scream".  The link provided to the movie is provided at the bottom. There are multiple scenes of police racial profiling along with police brutality. At 23:55 they are pulling 'Kid' over from walking because they claim they need to know where he is going. At 45:55, 'Pops' is pulled over by the police because they claim they want to know where he is going and because they had a phone call from a disturbance and he may be coming from that very disturbance. At 55:00 this is the example of the police thinking its funny and can save on the paper work if they just beat the three boys up instead. This kind of reality is very sickening yet extremely true. This movie was a popular movie in the 1990s and police brutality has only gotten worse. Now people are not only being beaten and suffering from excessive roughness, these people are being killed. 

I named the title of the this blog, "This is REALITY", because this is our reality. There are so many people who have suffered from police brutality and the book showcases another person who is the victim of the wrongdoings in the black community. The scary thing about the  book is that when we were little we read books and then were told by our parents that this book is not a real story, or that the book is only make believe. In today's society, this is the reality. Its not make believe. Its real, and we have to do something about it before it gets even worse than it is now. 

 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2csnv6_house-party-1-1990-dvdrip_shortfilms

 http://mic.com/articles/119970/25-actual-facts-about-police-brutality-in-america#.IVOP5zhL2

 

 

 When will it stop?  

              Reading the book There Are No Children Here really opens your eyes to issues that are still happening here, in the United States, today. In the book we saw how a mid-sized family was affected by everyday violence, never ending poverty, inhumane living conditions and continuous acts of crime. The title of the book is powerful as it speaks for itself on an issue that affects millions of children and families around our country today.

            Poverty leads to violence. Violence leads to death. During the presentation someone asked, “Where are the programs that are suppose to help people who are living in conditions like these”? That was a very good question, unfortunately to that question we had a very unfortunate answer: Funding is simply becoming non-existent. There is no funding for those type of programs. A lot of the time those programs are the first to go in cities where the budget is tight. Where is the aid to help support families in need, families that didn’t choose for their life to be this way?

 As we read in the book, Pharaoh and Lafayette’s mother had been raised in the Horner Homes as well but her living situation, childhood experiences, and memories had been quite different. The Horner Homes slowly began to deteriorate. The children played a very important role in the book; they up more than half of the population at the Horner Homes. The children were overpopulated but underrepresented as they had no support from the local or state government in order to be able to live a healthy lifestyle. That is sad, as they witnessed things many of us will never experience and with those tragic experiences come consequences. As we read in the book, Pharoah had a stuttering problem; many children today are diagnosed with mental issues due to their past experiences with crime and violence. In Pharaoh’s and Lafayette’s situation there wasn’t much they could do, they were young and were simply trying to make it through. When there is no ambition or motivation to succeed in the community in which you live, not much can be done. What saddens me is that we are a country that has cutting edge technology, that has always been there for other countries in times of need, but, surprisingly, we can’t seem to do more for those in need.  

I found an article where it talked about a shooting that happened here in Chicago. Below I have summarized some of the article, it is a good read as it puts all of these violence issues into perspective. This ties into the book as well as the lives of the children consisted of constant fear of being shot. There were also thousands of innocent lives that were lost and innocent children petrified by these violent acts.

When will it stop?

The three officers involved in Mr. Cross’s shooting were cleared of wrongdoing in Mr. Cross’s death, and returned to duty. The city of Chicago this year paid Mr. Cross’s family $2 million after relatives filed a wrongful-death suit. “One officer reloaded and another one shot at him with two different guns,” Dana Cross said of her son’s shooting, which she heard from inside her house. “I want to know why those officers are still working (Davey 2015).

                                             Mr. Cross, 19, was killed in 2011.

 Related Articles:

Davey, Monica, and Timothy Williams. "Chicago Pays Millions but Punishes Few in Killings by Police."The New York Times. The New York Times, 2015. Web. 20 Feb. 2016.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/us/chicago-pays-millions-but-punishes-few-in-police-killings.html

Kirp, David L. "What Do the Poor Need? Try Asking Them." The New York Times. The New York Times, 2015. Web. 19 Feb. 2016.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/opinion/sunday/david-l-kirp-what-do-the-poor-need-try-asking-them.html