[mike777]

kenberg, on 2015-May-02, 20:10, said:

Colbert King also takes a look at the past, in this case 1967. An excerpt:




No one wants this to be the case, no one. But it is.

While I agree that abandoned buildings are a symptom, sometimes dealing with a symptom can be of some help. We cannot fix this overnight, perhaps we can't fix it ever. But we can, perhaps, up the chances of someone who is caught up in it to make good choices.

Long ago I suggested, only partly in jest, that every kid should be issued a bicycle and it should be a capitol offense to steal it. Ok, not exactly this. But what we can hope for is that a young person can look around beyond his immediate environment and say "I think I can do better".

Ken in this case dealing with the symptoms or whatever have been a failure.

the issue govt will not allow for failure.

the solution is more vast more.

if you fail, you are destroyed...but if govt you gain money much more money
If you fail you lose jobs..all jobs...if govt if you fail you gain jobs,more jobs

------\-------
------------


of course even better If you fail you gain and demand more....if socialism or capitalism.

[barmar]

PassedOut, on 2015-May-02, 16:40, said:

My view is that, barring some extreme disability, most everyone could become a productive member of society. But some folks encounter such disastrous experiences growing up, and make such unfortunate decisions along the way, that they simply won't achieve their original potential. Given other circumstances, I believe they could.

It's not just disastrous experiences and unfortunate decisions.

In many cases, it's just that they're starting from a situation where they have to overcome more hurdles than more privileged people. For instance, if you grow up in an inner city, the quality of your school probably won't be very good, and you almost certainly can't afford to go to a private school. So while you [i]could[i/] achieve their inherent potential, it might be so difficult that it's hard to blame them if they can't see it as a realistic possibility.

And this is what often leads to those unfortunate decisions, as they seem like the only feasible options.

[kenberg]

Still another article on the failure of good intentions.


James Rouse, referred to in the story, was an idealist and a hard headed businessman. He "built", meaning he tightly controlled the building of, Columbia MD. I bought a townhouse there in 1970 and later a house. I moved when I got a divorce but as planned cities go I think it works. He built Cross Keys, an office park that is showing its age but I travel half an hour to the optician who is there because they do good work. Rouse was responsible for the very successful Inner Harbor development in Baltimore.

And so, working some years with an ex-mayor, they set out to restore this neighborhood.

An excerpt from the article:

Quote

"It's frustrating," said Stefanie DeLuca, a Johns Hopkins University sociologist who has studied the neighborhood. "How much money would it take? It certainly seems on an instinctual level that $100 million should have made some difference."

And she could have noted that having Rouse involved was certainly a plus. One can fret that if Rouse and 130 million can't do it, maybe it can't be done.

Actually, it wasn't all bad. Later in the article we see comments from a resident living in one of the re-developed units:

Quote

She came because of incentives, she said: "They gave us $25,000 grants. A grant you don't have to pay back."

She raised three of her four children in Sandtown. "I love living here," she said. "I mingle with my neighbors as I go to and from work. I plant my flowers. It's like an oasis."

She said the community is close-knit. "People take care of their property" and take pride in ownership, she said. They try to maintain their yards, despite the trash that blows in from the abandoned buildings not far away.

"Black plastic bags tumble down the street," she said, "but we pick them up."

So after the spending of 130 million bucks there are some people, but not many, whose lives have improved. It's something.




It seems to me, and again I stress my own lack of knowledge, that our efforts should focus on the children. The adults, many of them, may simply be beyond the reach of rescue efforts.Sometimes, with luck, with help, and with good choices, the young can overcome their horrific start.

[Winstonm]

For a better understanding of inner city life, I suggest the book: Gang Leader for a Day. by Sudhir Venkatesh.

Quote

The story of the young sociologist who studied a Chicago crack-dealing gang from the inside captured the world's attention when it was first described in Freakonomics. Gang Leader for a Day is the fascinating full story of how Sudhir Venkatesh managed to gain entrance into the gang, what he learned, and how his method revolutionized the academic establishment.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2015-May-03, 07:05, said:

Still another article on the failure of good intentions.

Good article. Naturally, I suppose, I picked up on this:

Quote

The most significant problem, according to community organizers and the Enterprise report, was that new businesses and jobs never materialized. And as Baltimore’s decent-paying manufacturing jobs vanished — a problem shared by Detroit, Cleveland and other Rust Belt cities — there were fewer and fewer opportunities for Sandtown residents to find meaningful work.

In the absence of jobs, the drug trade flourished.

It seems to me that until we make sure that there are good paying jobs available again, nothing will help.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2015-May-03, 08:38, said:

Good article. Naturally, I suppose, I picked up on this:


It seems to me that until we make sure that there are good paying jobs available again, nothing will help.

Agreed, certainly, but will it be enough? Directly after this quote we see

Quote

"A lot of people around here got caught up," said Harlee, noting that his addiction to crack cost him his family and a series of good jobs — as a corrections officer, a firearms instructor and a long-haul truck driver. Harlee went to prison for five years for slamming his truck into a car and killing the driver after an all-night crack binge.

Assuming that this account is correct in its timeline, the man had a good job, he got into crack and he lost a good job, all in that order. Along the way he also lost his marriage, presumably he lost his self-respect, and he lost his freedom.

So in his case it did not go lost his job and turned to crack, but rather turned to crack and lost his job.


Still, I certainly don't see how there can be progress without the availability of decent jobs. What I get from the above, as well as much else, is that it is more complicated than that Rouse was not a head in the clouds idealist, so he no doubt realized that there had to be jobs. Why did they not materialize? And for that matter, in what sense did they not materialize? Sometimes there really are no jobs but that's a bit rare. Often it is not quite a yes or no matter.

The young need to be introduced to possibilities. In my case I never had any trouble finding work and I fully understood that I was to grow up to be self-supporting. My lack of knowledge was at a more advanced level, for example a friend was applying to Stanford and I asked "Where's Stanford?". But some young people have no experience with what is out there. Hence my bicycle idea, which is more like a metaphor than a serious plan. I want young people to get up close to something that is not at all like what they see when they get up in the morning and say "I like that, I want to live that way".

Added: In fact I grew up on Wellesley Ave, a block from Stanford Ave and two blocks from Berkeley Ave. I was an adult before I realized these were colleges. Not that it matters. But i often astounded people with my ignorance.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2015-May-03, 09:34, said:

Agreed, certainly, but will it be enough? Directly after this quote we see



Assuming that this account is correct in its timeline, the man had a good job, he got into crack and he lost a good job, all in that order. Along the way he also lost his marriage, presumably he lost his self-respect, and he lost his freedom.

So in his case it did not go lost his job and turned to crack, but rather turned to crack and lost his job.

Too simplistic, maybe? From what I understand, long-haul trucking is not all that great a job and many drivers turn to speed-type drugs, i.e., crack, methamphetamine, etc., to help them drive longer and earn more money. Perhaps if the drivers had better wages and conditions the drugs we be less rampant within that industry.

[y66]

The $12+ billion, shrink-wrapped "pallettes of cash" that we sent to Iraq didn't help much either. I don't think that tells us Iraq is f****d for eternity. It tells us that throwing money at problems doesn't work.

I see that Manna, Inc received the James Rouse Award last year which recognizes "the most outstanding urban non-profit organization that best promotes fair and equal access to credit & capital and/or contributes the most in its community toward promoting wealth building in traditionally underserved populations".

My wife lived in a group house with a bunch of Manna people. They were all pretty savvy ex-Peace Corps types who understood construction, project management, financing and the wisdom of changing the world one house, one family and one block at a time. They are a small but important part of DC's thriving comeback from the 1968 riots. Not saying Baltimore is the same as DC. For one thing, DC has a strong economy. But what works in DC can also work in Baltimore.

The idea that West Baltimore and the people who live there are doomed is absurd. F****d for decades, yes, self inflicted, mos' def, but down for the count? Not even close. Okay, maybe close.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2015-May-03, 10:02, said:

Too simplistic, maybe? From what I understand, long-haul trucking is not all that great a job and many drivers turn to speed-type drugs, i.e., crack, methamphetamine, etc., to help them drive longer and earn more money. Perhaps if the drivers had better wages and conditions the drugs we be less rampant within that industry.

Well, I was addressing the issue of no jobs. This could be an unending discussion.
The problem is that there are no jobs.
There are jobs
The problem is that being a tuick driver is a hard job
OK, but he is the one that was interviewed.


Becky was tutoring a truck driver. He was hoping to read well enough so that he could participate in the readings at church but he became seriously ill (He is in his 60s at least). He is married, put two girls through college, has grandchildren, and took in a couple of young boys in foster care with some success. Of course one case proves nothing or doesn't prove very much, but at some point we really have to hope that maybe the person can cope with what admittedly might be a tough life. Being a mathematician is great but my understanding is that some people would much rather drive a truck if those are the only two options. Actually I am pretty sure that this would have been my father's view.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2015-May-03, 10:11, said:

The $12+ billion, shrink-wrapped "pallettes of cash" that we sent to Iraq didn't help much either. I don't think that tells us Iraq is f****d for eternity. It tells us that throwing money at problems doesn't work.

I see that Manna, Inc received the James Rouse Award last year which recognizes "the most outstanding urban non-profit organization that best promotes fair and equal access to credit & capital and/or contributes the most in its community toward promoting wealth building in traditionally underserved populations".

My wife lived in a group house with a bunch of Manna people. They were all pretty savvy ex-Peace Corps types who understood construction, project management, financing and the wisdom of changing the world one house, one family and one block at a time. They are a small but important part of DC's thriving comeback from the 1968 riots. Not saying Baltimore is the same as DC. For one thing, DC has a strong economy. But what works in DC can also work in Baltimore.

The idea that West Baltimore and the people who live there are doomed is absurd. F****d for decades, yes, self inflicted, mos' def, but down for the count? Not even close. Okay, maybe close.

I am not just happy but delighted to defer to someone with on the ground experience in this matter. If anything is to be done, it will be by those who get fully into it.

[y66]

And by those who provide financial support to those who fully get into it. It doesn't have to be $12+ billion or even $130 million.

[kenberg]

Recapping a bit.

Winston asked whether anything can be done. I think, at the very least, the Rouse experience leads to an answer that it won't be easy.

Inevitably, some of this comes down to social philosophy. Most of us probably favor helping those whose lives are a mess, if we can. Take that as a given. Now what? My thoughts are that it is almost impossible to help people unless they actively wish for change. I would not let anyone take over my choices, no matter how well-intentioned they may be, and I see no reason to think anyone else would let me make their choices. What this means to me is that a lot of the push has to be homegrown.

That being said, it seems some things are clearly in need, and they are not being done. Education is the obvious example. Some sort of decent nutrition is another. And then there is this inexcusable lead paint stuff. Gray was 25. I am pretty sure that 25 years ago everyone understood that lead in paint was toxic. The level at which it becomes toxic may be better understood now, but surely it was known then to be seriously bad. Well, that part is past but it would not surprise me if there are some 2015 equivalents.

Even these issues are not easy. I cannot imagine myself going into that area to teach school. I just wouldn't do it. Hooray for those who would, I wouldn't and many wouldn't. And a nutritious breakfast at the elementary school works only if the kids shows up to eat it.

So there is much to be done.

I just want to say a word about blame and responsibility . I have never found it profitable to spend effort on saying who is to blame. But who ultimately bears responsibility is, to my mind, a little different. We all bear the responsibility for our own choices.Of course some people's lives are a wreck and it is not hard to see how they fail. But if a choice is put in front of them, no one else really can make that choice for them. They must choose. It's tough, but they must. Our mission, if we choose to accept it, is to improve the available choices.

[hrothgar]

This is (obviously) an extremely complicated subject.

I often wonder whether it is possible to do anything at the margin for the "worst of the worst" geographies.
Some locations may be so pathological that almost any attempt to deal with them are doomed to failure.
It may well be better to triage the funds and use what moneys we have to deal with locales that aren't quite so screwed up.

Couple quick observations:

1. I think that Moynihan confused cause and effect. There has been a lot of additional work on family formation over the past 50 years. The breakdown in the African American family that Moynihan commented on prestaged what is currently happening in white, working class American. Both seemed to be driven by loss of economic opportunity.

Brookings has a good article on this http://www.brookings...e-class-sawhill

2. Currently, the cycles of gentrification seem to have rich people moving into the cities and displacing the poor out into the suburbs. Not sure how long this will stay true, but I wouldn't be at surprised to see some of these areas in Baltimore fall to successive waves of artists/gays/hipsters/yuppies. (None of which will improve the lot of the folks currently living their, mind you, but you might see some urban renew)

[kenberg]

The situation is indeed complex.
Marriage, family, finances: Surely he relattion between single motherhood and lost economic opportunity needs further work. Picture a 22 year old pregnant woman with a 24 year old boyfriend. perhaps he is such a parasite that marrying him would worsen her financial situation, but usually not. Or at least so I would hope. Most of us aren't quite that bad.

Even in this day, being a mother and having a career is challenging, or so women tell me. Having a husband makes it worse instead of better? IN some cases maybe so, again not usually.

I can, sort of, understand wanting a child and not wanting a husband. But it seems to me this is tough on the finances, most especially for tose with limited finances.

No doubt economics plays a role, but there have been some real cultural shifts as well.

I suppose the financial part is that guys just figure they do not want the financial responsibility, somehow our culture is ok with that, and so the woman raises the child.

Otherwise pout, the economics of this work out good for the man, not so good for the woman, not so good for the child.


Added: I have been thinking more about this. When I was young, if an unmarried woman got pregnant it was almost always unintended. Although I have not had deep conversations with young unmarried mothers, I gather that this it is now often an intended pregnancy, even when it is clear that no marriage will take place. To me, this seems to put the woman at a great economic disadvantage. Perhaps I am wrong about the intentions, I really don't know. But to whatever extent I am right, I find it difficult to understand. Is it more "I want a child and I can't get a husband so I'll have a child without marriage" or is is it "I want a child and I don't want a husband so I'll have a child without marriage" ?

I am at a loss as to how he decision is made. Or perhaps, just as it was fifty years ago, it's just "oops, we have a problem".

As the coffee perks this morning, I am still trying to wrap my brain around the economic explanation for single motherhood. A woman says to herself: "The economy is bad, i can't seem to get a decent job, so I think I will have a child and raise him/her on my own" . This seems unlikely to me. I suppose sociologists have made a study of how the decision is made.

[billw55]

kenberg, on 2015-May-03, 17:38, said:

The situation is indeed complex.
Marriage, family, finances: Surely he relattion between single motherhood and lost economic opportunity needs further work. Picture a 22 year old pregnant woman with a 24 year old boyfriend. perhaps he is such a parasite that marrying him would worsen her financial situation, but usually not. Or at least so I would hope. Most of us aren't quite that bad.

Even in this day, being a mother and having a career is challenging, or so women tell me. Having a husband makes it worse instead of better? IN some cases maybe so, again not usually.

I can, sort of, understand wanting a child and not wanting a husband. But it seems to me this is tough on the finances, most especially for tose with limited finances.

No doubt economics plays a role, but there have been some real cultural shifts as well.

I suppose the financial part is that guys just figure they do not want the financial responsibility, somehow our culture is ok with that, and so the woman raises the child.

Otherwise pout, the economics of this work out good for the man, not so good for the woman, not so good for the child.


Added: I have been thinking more about this. When I was young, if an unmarried woman got pregnant it was almost always unintended. Although I have not had deep conversations with young unmarried mothers, I gather that this it is now often an intended pregnancy, even when it is clear that no marriage will take place. To me, this seems to put the woman at a great economic disadvantage. Perhaps I am wrong about the intentions, I really don't know. But to whatever extent I am right, I find it difficult to understand. Is it more "I want a child and I can't get a husband so I'll have a child without marriage" or is is it "I want a child and I don't want a husband so I'll have a child without marriage" ?

I am at a loss as to how he decision is made. Or perhaps, just as it was fifty years ago, it's just "oops, we have a problem".

As the coffee perks this morning, I am still trying to wrap my brain around the economic explanation for single motherhood. A woman says to herself: "The economy is bad, i can't seem to get a decent job, so I think I will have a child and raise him/her on my own" . This seems unlikely to me. I suppose sociologists have made a study of how the decision is made.

I suspect that very rarely does anyone make an active decision to go into single motherhood. Sometimes a father goes absent later on, but probably most often the young woman (and man) just doesn't give it any forethought at all.

If we could find a way to motivate them to avoid pregnancy, to make that avoidance something they really want to do, we might make some progress. The simplest motivator is cash. So how about payments for not having children? I know this is an oversimplification and likely unworkable, but it might be the right starting point for similar ideas that do work.

[mikeh]

billw55, on 2015-May-06, 14:58, said:

I suspect that very rarely does anyone make an active decision to go into single motherhood. Sometimes a father goes absent later on, but probably most often the young woman (and man) just doesn't give it any forethought at all.

If we could find a way to motivate them to avoid pregnancy, to make that avoidance something they really want to do, we might make some progress. The simplest motivator is cash. So how about payments for not having children? I know this is an oversimplification and likely unworkable, but it might be the right starting point for similar ideas that do work.

I think the most important change that can happen in the US in that regard is proper sex-education...and I am not talking about abstinence programmes. Combine that with ready and cheap access to contraceptives, abortificants (morning after drugs) and abortion, and single motherhood will drop enormously.

Of course that would require actually separating church from state, and requiring that education be reality-based, not scripture-based, and in large parts of the US that would be, literally, sacrilege. We have friends who had to move to the bible belt and the stories they tell would be funny if they didn't reflect how people really think...as it is they are terrifying.

[nige1]

The Parenting in Scotland website has relevant information on crime, poverty, single-parent families

Parenting in Scotland said:

Of the 614,000 families with dependent children in Scotland, 54% (333,000) were married couple families, 15% (91,000) were cohabiting couple families and 31% (190,000) were lone parent families.
One in five of Scotland's children is living in relative poverty, a level significantly higher than in many other European countries. In 2012/13 the proportion of children in Scotland experiencing poverty increased from 19% to 22%. This increase is in-keeping with independent modelling by the Institute for Fiscal studies (IFS) which forecasts a massive increase in child poverty with up to 100,000 more children living in poverty in Scotland by 2020.
Around 27,000 children a year in Scotland experience a parent's imprisonment. 7% of children live through the imprisonment of a parent during their time at school. There are 2½ times as many children of prisoners as there are children in care. More children in Scotland each year experience a parent's imprisonment than a parent's divorce. 60% of all women in prison have children.
Teenage pregnancy rates in the older age groups have continued to decline. The rate per 1,000 population for under-18s has dropped from 30.0 in 2011 to 27.9 in 2012 and from 43.8 to 41.5 for under-20s. The rate for under-16s in 2012 is the same as 2011 at 5.6 per 1,000 population.
There is a strong correlation between deprivation and teenage pregnancy. In the under-20 age group the most deprived areas have nearly 12 times the rate of delivery compared to the least deprived areas (53.8 compared to 4.6 per 1,000 population).

[blackshoe]

I thought perhaps this post might be of interest to some here.

[PassedOut]

I see that Elizabeth Warren and Bill de Blasio collaborated on explaining How to revive the American Dream. As clear and obvious as the steps they outline are, it's sobering to reflect upon how unlikely it is that they will be taken.

[barmar]

While I don't expect to see federal government policies move in the right direction, there have been a few actions by some major employers that give me optimism. Walmart is raising their minimum wage well above the federal minimum (and so have a number of states). And I heard yesterday that Starbucks is going to pay for a college education for any employee working at least 20 hours/week (it's an online enrollment at ASU -- not Ivy League, but far better than nothing).

So there are some CEOs who understand that what's good for the country is good for them in the long run.