Is this surprising to anyone? I think this issue also has to do with the lack of universal, quality social services - or at least services that actually do what they aim to do. The article mentions mental health, but it really encompasses much more than that: access to quality education, particularly in poor areas; access to quality healthcare (including mental health), particularly in poor areas; access to safe and quality housing; and access to quality, healthy food. Without these things, it becomes extremely difficult to be successful in our society. How can you go to school and do well when you don't have adequate shelter or food or if you're chronically sick? Just making it through high school is a challenge. College is an unachievable dream. When you're unable to get quality education, your job prospects are poor, making it difficult to earn enough to support yourself and possibly your family while living a fulfilling and meaningful life. Thus begins the cycle of poverty and crime. Politically I just don't think this kind of reform is possible. The segment of the US population that believes in zero social safety nets and limited government-provided services is too large for that to happen.
Even on the 'left' the current trend in America is Libertarian hence Marriage Equality and Legalized Pot making traction but poverty issues being ignored. Hopefully it swings back before more generations are lost. Although we should keep the Marriage Equality and Legalized Pot.
I personally think it's a problem of self-interest and lack of care for the community. Most people have little to no exposure to the type of poverty that develops in urban centers, so why would they have any interest in it? It's a population that is easily marginalized and relatively "hidden" such that the average American - the white, middle class, suburban-dwelling family - has no exposure to the problem and, consequently, has no reason to care about it. As a society, I think we need to become more focused on the status of the average person and ensuring that those people have what is necessary to be independent, self-sustaining people.
The problem of America's ghettos is a complicated one, indeed. I think it's a fool's errand to try, as so many people do, to find a root cause of why inner cities have degraded so sharply in the last half century. However, I think fixing them is easier than almost anyone seems to think. To me, the easiest and most logical, and probably most impactful, thing that we could do to address inner city poverty and decay is to have a new New Deal that is city-centric. The New Deal focused largely on rural areas, because they were the most impoverished at that time. Now, infrastructure is shit, trash is strewn in the streets, and people are jobless in the ghetto. Why not pay anyone who wants a job a wage to clean the place? Mow lawns, pick up garbage, deconstruct abandoned houses, landscape lots, etc. At $10/hr, I think there would be no trouble attracting people in all the country's ghettos to sign up. There's no dignity in the ghetto; that's been my observation from living in one for most of a decade. Employing people while sprucing the place up would be a great way to bring some back.
I agree that the solution is seemingly simple - or at least as not as complicated as it is often portrayed. Unfortunately, we don't have the political will to make it happen.
None of those things reduce criminality, not even employment. Poor areas already receive all of those things but it hasn't reduced crime a bit. And why should college be any kind of a goal? It's a debt trap, you're much better off in a vocational school, you don't even need to finish high school and you could be making $50,000 a year after 2 years in a vocational school. Education isn't some kind of magic bullet, nor is it really necessary, the best schools in the world are in Finland and they have the least school hours and the least homework.
Others have brought up multiple issues with your argument, and to be honest I don't use sites like this to get into pissing matches or to try in vain to change someone's opinion. Suffice to say, though, that your description of the situation is inaccurate at best and flat-out wrong at worst. A few things: -I never mentioned anything about college (edit: my bad, I did mention it in passing, but I didn't advocate for universal college education, as you seem to imply; see below for why I think college "being a dream" is indicative of low quality education), so I'm not sure why you brought that up. When I mean "quality education," I mean education that 1) is provided in a safe environment and 2) enables students to, should they desire to do so, pursue a college education. I agree with you that the goal of universal college education is a stupid one. A college education is simply not necessary for the average person to achieve his/her vocational goals. Not to mention that it comes at a hefty price. -You claim that "poor areas already receive all of those things but it hasn't reduced crime a bit." Based on what? Where did you get this information? How many urban centers did you look at? Where's the data? You make quite a claim there and then link to a website which itself provides no actual evidence other than "many studies say." And no offense if you're a student there, but I'm not going to accept carte blanche what some FSU professor has to say about social issues like this without some kind of substantiation - ESPECIALLY if that person is involved in criminology (versus, say, sociology or another field that actually looks at things like this). The topic is too politically contentious for me to trust sources of authority in that way. Again, where's the data? -You're correct that social programs do exist, but can people get to them? Are they adequate and efficacious (i.e., do they actually do any good)? I'm in a major US city (one of the top 5 largest) in a state that is generally considered to be "liberal." I also happen to be a healthcare provider in an area that is racked with poverty. I can tell you from first-hand experience that the resources these people are offered by the city/county/state are pathetic and sorely lacking. As an example, the poor can get "free" medical care and medications at the large county hospital, but how can they possibly do that when it takes 2+ hours to get there by mass transit? At present, people that need meds are told to go to the county hospital and wait at the pharmacy starting at 7am and going until 5pm until their prescription is ready. There is no mechanism for dropping off and picking up prescriptions. You MUST drop your prescription off in person, and you MUST pick it up in person. If you're not there by 8-9am, the likelihood that you're getting your meds that day are next to zero. Even if these people do want to come to clinic, are they supposed to miss work for that? What if they can't afford to miss the wages they would've earned during that time? What do you say to the people that don't live within 15-20 blocks of a grocery store that provides food other than processed, manufactured crap a la chips, Twinkies, and sodas? The point here is that poverty is a multifactorial problem that cannot be pinned on one issue, be it education, employment opportunity, health, etc.. All of these things coalesce to enable or hold back poverty. Your analysis doesn't even discuss these other things - things which, I would argue, are substantially more important to one's socioeconomic status than education alone. I'm more than willing to entertain the claims you make, but you have to show us the primary data. Otherwise your claim is nothing more than that - a claim.
uh...I live in the poorest congressional district in America, the South Bronx. Poor areas dont just "already receive all of those things." I just want to point that out. Those things do stop people from committing crimes.
If you ever had to talk to a person in a situation where crime is the only means of accessing money, the means of survival in this society, maybe your opinion would change. Perhaps its worth considering exactly whats happening in people's lives where crime is legitimately viewed as the best alternative. I agree on the point about college. Currently, I am of the opinion that its a waste if you arent a STEM major and certain branches of the arts.
> Poor areas dont just "already receive all of those things." Yes they do, they're just not taken full advantage of. >Those things do stop people from committing crimes. Evidence shows they do now. > If you ever had to talk to a person in a situation where crime is the only means of accessing money, the means of survival in this society, maybe your opinion would change. Crime is not the only means for accessing money, they may feel it is, but again there is no empirical link between poverty and crime, however there may be a link between crime and poverty. That is to say people may be impoverished because they are criminal. In any case, there is no excuse for committing a crime especially when there are so many social institutions in place for you. There is a link to dense urban populations and crime however. But I think researchers just use that as a code word for black people as the same results can't be found in majority white areas.
Really show us a paper. I will apply my it is probably racism to say that the over policing and incarceration of black folks leads to more poverty.no empirical link between poverty and crime, however there may be a link between crime and poverty.
I already posted a paper. And are black neighborhoods over policed or are they policed because blacks are more criminal? Criminologists will be the first to tell you that blacks are simply more criminal. http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-statistics-of-black-on-white-violence-with-links-and-mathematical-extrapolation-formulas http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/time-young-black-men-murder-14-times-more-than-young-white-men/ http://www.wnd.com/2001/03/8380/ Are federal statistics made up because of racism?
Are any of your actions because of racism? If so why not theirs?