One thing that particularly struck me about Evanoff’s article was the balanced approach to how we should go about fixing poverty. I feel like often, people approach solutions to poverty from a very one-sided approach. For example, repeatedly and especially throughout the course of the previous election, I hear the same resounding sentiment that if people could become more educated and apply themselves, or more bluntly, not be so lazy, they wouldn’t have to be poor. However, there are so many barriers to actually pulling oneself out of poverty that simply improving education alone will not solve the problem.
This same idea is shown in Evanoff’s article. Evanoff asserts that public transportation in Memphis should be improved to “allow a family a tolerable life free of buying a car, fuel, and insurance.” However, he is not suggesting that increased and improved public transportation is the answer. Interestingly, some of the cities with the best public transportation systems in the United States like New York, Boston, Denver, and Los Angeles were included in the list of cities with relatively similar poverty levels to those of Memphis. Thus, having a more extensive public transportation system alone does not show a significant impact on poverty levels. Granted, most of these United States city systems do not compare in their scope and use to those in cities like London, Hong Kong, and Tokyo, so there are still improvements that could be made. Nonetheless, to affect poverty levels, one solution, no matter how grandiose it may be, cannot fix the problem. Thus Evanoff proposes many ideas like bringing back manufacturing jobs, improving education and teaching skills like plumbing and electricity, investing in neighborhoods, and helping young people purchase homes.
Evanoff’s ideas about how to help the poor are much more positive ways to help people “fend for themselves.” Although I think this sentiment is one felt by many Americans, it often manifests itself as proposals to stop welfare and Medicaid spending and letting the poor sink or swim on their own. I was really encouraged by Evanoff’s method of letting the poor fend for themselves: giving them real skills and opportunities and fostering home ownership and safety so that people might actually find that they are not destined to stay poor.
I was also interested in Evanoff's suggestion that Memphis should train men and women in their 20's and 30's. In the media there is definitely an "echoing sentiment" that we need to be better educating/motivating the younger generations, but a disinterest in unskilled, middle-aged Americans. Evanoff doesn't really elaborate about how these Memphians will be trained (as electricians, mechanics, etc.), and he doesn't detail the availability or demand for these jobs. It makes me curious how he wants this revival to come about. Nonprofit organizations, perhaps? It seems to me that instead of focusing on rebuilding Memphis to attract the "creative class" Evanoff intends to create it through these men and women in their 20's and 30's.
ReplyDeleteAs a close friend of several people who work for Teach For America, I tend to think that our future lies with education and our youth. Good teaching inspires engaged students and future scholasticism.
I thought it was interesting how Evanoff discussed the future of the United States in terms of innovative ideas. He believes that there are no innovative ideas that will create an economic boom for our country, which is a good argument. Most of the innovative ideas that will emerge will most likely decrease the number of jobs available through development of new technology and equipment. This has been a trend in the past; take for example, the replacement of factory workers by machinery. But still, it is a stretch and quite pessimistic to assume that the up and coming generations of the United States will not be able to somehow reform the job market with new concepts and ideas. Humans have capabilities that simple gadgets and computers could never replace, at least in our near future, such as our ability to think cognitively, have emotion, feeling, etc.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I also found the idea of preparing for the new “frugality” quite appealing. Though revamping the transportation system is not going to fix anything on it’s own, it saves a great deal of money for poor families and partnered with more affordable housing and safer neighborhoods, this combination can reduce the stress of a bad economy drastically. Though cities such as New York, Boston, Chicago, etc. all have great transportation systems, they have overpriced housing, even in humble neighborhoods. Though I believe equipping the poor with distinctive skills is extremely important, putting this into place could be quite difficult due to current conflict over education. If it is so hard to get funding for educating our young, why would this change for those that are in their 20’s and 30’s?