By nickels and dimes to the American Dream
Here’s a fascinating story. Inspired by Nickel and Dimed, a book by Barbara Ehrenreich that told of her experiment of living a lower-class life and how hard it was to escape poverty and pursue the American Dream, Adam Shepard decided to repeat the experiment. Denouncing his former life as a well-off college graduate, he entered a homeless shelter with $25 and the clothes on his back. His goal was to have a furnished apartment, a car and $2 500 in savings within a year, without calling on his former contacts or education. Ten months later, when he had to quit the experiment, he had a pickup truck, a job, and $5 000 in savings. He wrote a book about the experience.
CSM’s interview with him suggests that the left-wing generalisations about class structures, the accident of birth, and poverty traps don’t always stand up to real-life experience. Shepard’s story suggests that character, responsibility and self-discipline have a great deal to do with how “privileged” you end up being. He not only shows this from his own experience, but also from his characterisation of some of the people with which he shared his poverty and life on the street, some of whom were upwardly mobile, and others not.
It confirms the notion that few people are doomed to poverty by the rigid dictates of a cruel society dominated by uncaring capitalists. In fact, especially in more prosperous countries with a well-established middle class and healthy economy, there’s a lot of churn in the ranks of the poor. Some people rise out of poverty, and others fall into it. The poor of today aren’t the poor of five years ago, nor the poor of five years hence. One estimate I read a while ago said that the small percentage of Americans who earn minimum wage on average do so for only two or three years. The churn is high, yet the percentage remains stable, suggesting that the class of minimum wage earners consists of a combination of first-time employees who soon step up the ladder, and people who fall into low-wage jobs, but soon work their way back out of their relative poverty.
Shepard’s story offers yet more support for a society in which individual freedom trumps social engineering. Not only is such a society able to build higher average prosperity and quality of life, but it offers a better chance to its poor and unemployed, too.
(Hat tip: GeekPress)
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” ~ Winston Churchill
And with that I depart today for America… Adios.
I look forward to your reports from the front lines of capitalist imperialism. Do pop in now and again and let us know where you are and what you’re up to. Have a good trip.
“His goal was to have a furnished apartment, a car and $2 500 in savings within a year, without calling on his former contacts or education.”
Ivo, how does one stop “calling on your education”? Do you pretend you can’t read or write decent English anymore? Do you forget all those lessons in entrepreneurship you learned at Business School?
It probably makes for interesting reading, but until the experiment is run from birth into a lower class environment and a flawed education, the results will remain meaningless.
Hey, I’m just quoting him. If you’d read the article, you would have heard him explain what he meant by it. In particular not citing his qualifications in job applications.
Nobody claims it’s a quantitative study, or a definitive qualitative one for that matter. There’s a reason I described it as “support”, not “proof”. But does that make the insights his experiment offers any less worthy of consideration?
I’d have thought those who claim concern for the poor (or are poor) would celebrate a case study that suggests they are not necessarily doomed to poverty eternal, rather than disputing its validity without so much as a glance at the article about the book.
A bit defensive and presumptuous today, aren’t we, Ivo? ;-)
I did read the article, and I do understand what he meant. My point was slightly different, viz: The benefits of a proper education are far more than simply being able to cite your qualifications, or, as he says in the interview, knowing how to stick to a budget.
A proper education delivers self confidence, an innate sense of self worth and a positive attitude… hardly something you can leave behind for a ten-month tourism stint amongst the dregs of society with a book deal and a get-out-of-jail VISA card in your back sky!
But pray tell, in your Nozickian fantasy world of “individual freedom over social engineering,” what would YOU do to, or with, the poor? Throw them a free copy of “Anarchy, State & Utopia” and tell them to get off their lazy asses and go look for a job?
I wouldn’t “do” anything “with them”. Since economic freedom correlates well with both lower poverty levels and better real quality of life for the poor, economic freedom is exactly what I’d advocate, yes. I would encourage the sort of (private) charity work an uncle of mine has been involved in, namely offering practical advice, counselling, training and support to find work, manage finances, and so on, too. But no, since it’s clear that in a successful economy many of the poor don’t stay poor, an economy that’s as successful as possible would be top of my wishlist.
What exactly do you understand and advocate under “economic freedom”? Lower taxes? Less regulation? Fewer laws? Reduced social spending?
It’s hard to see how any of these would (or could) result in lower poverty levels, but maybe you have something else in mind. Any particular countries you’re thinking of? Surely not the US?
Also, what is your measure of a “successful economy”, so that we can understand what you would try to maximise?
All of those, yes. The aim being to maximise investment and economic growth, instead of disincentivising it. Let the market match demand for employment with supply. Set tax rates at the Laffer curve optimum, or lower, and set them only to produce revenue, not to impose policy, other than maybe to make charitable giving tax-deductible. The US isn’t a great example, no, but it’s probably the best of the large, rich economies. I’m watching some emerging markets formerly behind the iron curtain with great interest. Estonia, for example. The point being that motivated, self-disciplined people can and do work their way out of poverty, provided that there is enough demand for jobs, and that proviso is best met in an unburdened, dynamic and responsive economy, rather than by the smothering, inefficient intervention of the state.