![\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File%3AHelping_the_homeless.jpg;](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/533\/2016\/04\/Helping_the_homeless.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nSo having given a more-or-less straight summary of $2 a Day<\/em> in my\u00a0prior post<\/a>, here are my observations:<\/p>\n Edin & Shaeffer start off with \u201c$2\/day poverty has doubled since welfare reform\u201d but other than that, the book is pretty void of statistics. \u00a0What were the baseline numbers? \u00a0When they say that virtually no one gets TANF these days, and the states use their block grants for other purposes, it really requires some hard data. \u00a0They also breezily say, offhand, that in the pre-welfare reform days, welfare clients faced benefits loss on a $1 to $1 ratio if they started earning a paycheck, but nonetheless, they\u2019re pretty confident that the prior system of benefits indefinitely without any work requirements had no effect on recipients\u2019 willingness to work.<\/p>\n They also didn\u2019t discuss drug use\/abuse at all: \u00a0none of the individuals they profiled, nor any of the other people in their lives, used drugs except for cigarettes.\u00a0Presumably this was either a choice, to make the individuals more sympathetic, or a result of the drug users being even more in the shadows and less likely to be willing to be interview subjects. \u00a0But it does matter. \u00a0It may even have been that, as an Amazon reviewer pointed out, the toothless mother was so not because of faulty dental care as a child but because of drug use that she declined to reveal to the interviewer.<\/p>\n Another thing that\u2019s not mentioned is street-corner begging. \u00a0Certainly not effective in the Delta, but what portion of the poorest make their way to downtowns, intersections, etc., asking for cash, and how much to they take in?<\/p>\n With respect to the single mothers (though not all of the interviewees are single mothers), child support is virtually nonexistent. \u00a0Perhaps the fathers are just as unemployed, but they ought to at least be more employable<\/em>, without children to care for, and there\u2019s a big gap if the state makes no effort to pursue child support in these cases.<\/p>\n About the Delta? \u00a0Well, this is where Kevin D. Williamson\u2019s case for giving them a U-Haul is pretty strong. \u00a0Edin and Shaeffer describe that region as almost wholly lacking in jobs, and similarly\u00a0lacking any reason for any employer to set up shop there, with a level of poverty that\u2019s so entrenched that it\u2019s practically another world. \u00a0And its isolation makes life even more difficult for the poor there, since there isn\u2019t the same charitiable infrastructure; there are no food banks or school supply distributions, nor any mass transit for those without cars. \u00a0But why should the government just permanently support these people solely so they can hold on to places because that\u2019s where their mothers and grandmothers lived? \u00a0(After all, large portions of their neighbors have left already.)\u00a0\u00a0Yes, there is no longer any specific region with a \u201cpull\u201d in the way that Northern cities pulled ex-sharecroppers in the 1960s, but there is still no point in trying to support these people \u201cin place.\u201d<\/p>\n And Alva Mae, the woman with thirteen children who go hungry because she sells the food stamps at 50 cents on the dollar to pay bills? \u00a0I just can\u2019t comprehend that. \u00a0The authors excuse her because her second husband\/partner was abusive, but this says that, in 8 visits to the hospital in as many years, as well as trips to get food stamps (and presumably WIC), no one did anything, said anything, offered any kind of contraception, let alone help leaving an abusive situation \u2014 or she rejected the offer. \u00a0The answer for the Alva Maes of the Delta, or elsewhere, is not more cash. \u00a0The answer is intervention far before they reach this point \u2014 and, no, I\u2019m not saying that they\u00a0should have been sterilized, or required to accept a contraceptive implant as a condition of receiving government benefits, but that\u00a0they need services from a social worker, a restraining order against the abusive boyfriend, and, I don\u2019t know, perhaps the whole family, mom included, needs to be in a \u201cfoster home\u201d of sorts, or a shelter-with-services, even if they\u2019re not technically homeless, and they need to get the h*** out of their small town.<\/p>\n (Incidentally, that\u2019s the trouble with dreams of a \u201cminimum income\u201d as a replacement for welfare: \u00a0cash alone isn\u2019t enough to remedy the poor decision-making, drug abuse, domestic violence, etc.)<\/p>\n One thing that was a surprise: \u00a0the lack of phone service. \u00a0What about the whole scandal of the readily-available \u201cObamaphone\u201d? \u00a0From all reports, this required no long wait in a welfare office, and, even though the program has been tightened, it still exists \u2014 and you\u2019d think that the homeless shelters would have been able to provide the relevant information to their guests without phones.<\/p>\n Other elements of the book that were troubling: \u00a0families having trouble finding a homeless shelter that would take them in, and three-month limits on stays in those shelters. \u00a0The lack of dental care for adults; charities are happy to help children but not their parents. \u00a0And, yes, you\u2019d want people to take care of their teeth in the first place, but some level of access is important if that\u2019s not happened.<\/p>\n About housing cost, Edin & Shaeffer acknowledge that a part of the reason for its growth is that there\u2019s an increase in living standards: \u00a0from indoor plumbing to hot water to air conditioning, these items all have costs. \u00a0They further claim that a reason why housing appears less affordable is that wages have stagnated, but they use a mistaken metric, assessing whether an individual earning minimum wage could afford a two-bedroom apartment \u201cat the fair market rent\u201d \u2014 which they don\u2019t source but is likely taken from the National Low Income Housing Coalition\u2019s Out of Reach<\/a> report, which takes as its metric the 40th percentile rent for a \u201ctypical non-substandard\u201d apartment, including utilities, and which doesn\u2019t reflect the fact that, in reality, it\u2019s reasonable to expect that the very poor will live in the cheapest available, not the 40th percentile, apartments. \u00a0But be that as it may, there\u2019s a whole issue around the fact that policymakers have simultaneously cheered (and encouraged) growth in home values, as a marker of economic prosperity and asset growth for homeowners, and simultaneously been shocked at housing cost. \u00a0And regardless of all of this, no one can afford a place to live without an income of some kind.<\/p>\n Edin & Shaeffer also write near-simultaneously of the need to raise the minimum wage, and the fact that, at the bottom, the very poor have a exceedingly difficult time finding a job. \u00a0They propose to remedy the latter problem through government jobs, but the list they give is not exactly filled with the sort of jobs that a person with no skills can do \u2014 infrastructure\/construction work (how many flaggers do you need?), day care teachers, elder care, staffing libraries, pools, homeless shelters.<\/p>\n