I did not like Evanoff's "Memphis Poverty: Preparing for the new frugality", and here's why:
The Brookings Institute does mention stuff like Memphis not being THE poorest, but it also is a metropolitan areas that's established size is increasing in the size of those living in poverty. Whereas, other cities are decreasing the size of their poverty, have more or less people initially residing to skew the numbers, and have attracted one of these "man on the moon" type technologies like google fiber in Kansas City or even directTV installers and these new AT&T contraptions.
With "Complete Streets" a plan to engage every user with a street/sidewalk that the mayor has agreed to and will go into place, buses along Poplar and Elvis Presley will experience a bus rapid transit BRT situation-streamlining the system on these streets so that buses do not stop at every stoplight and can accomodate for more people by being timely and convenient. *The article explaining this was written before Evanoff's.
As much as we do have these crazy single mother statistics, let's take a step back and acknowledge that our health is getting better-we started at the bottom, so granted any improvement is something. No child has been born with HIV in Memphis in 2 years. That shouldn't have to be a feat, but it is.
The Electrolux jobs are overwhelmingly blue collar, so I do not know what he's talking about there. I do know that I don't think for the tax write offs and ridiculous incentives it will ever employ 5,000 workers but maybe more in the 1,200 range-see that here.
Now we have the stores that profit off the poor. Poverty, Inc. This concept is shocking and true and heartbreaking. I'm not sure if any of you have been in a Family Dollar when it was being robbed, but when I was, the robber stole detergent, not like cell phones, or something really expensive or detrimental to health or an addiction, laundry detergent. The people behind the register were very upset, they said it happened all the time, and the product would be taken from their low wages. Similarly, a camera or a security guard, despite asking multiple times, would not be placed in the store.
Maybe one of the real issues here is the fact that these service sector jobs that these about 30 year old, tired women do not pay or make citizens feel safe. Fred's one of the stores that is mentioned in the article and based in Memphis was long guilty of wage theft and/or not paying their employees, the type of people who would shop at Fred's, minimum wage. This cyclical relationship, something that even Henry Ford saw as he wanted his workers to be able to purchase a car they had made, between the blue collar jobs and the poor and where they spend their money ties to financial literacy and the kinds of goods available for purchase. There are more than 105,000 Memphians who do not have a checking account and therefore must use money to get money often from a convenience or liquor store. Also, family dollar, despite the "value" name has goods that are more expensive there than at a supermarket or elsewhere. Would the profiting off the poor, if stopped, cut the jobs of the barely paid workers? People living in poverty often know how to fend for themselves, more so than many wealthy would if they had to live in poverty.
Also, because of low registrations, low voter turnout, and lack of excitement, Evanoff's final statement about voting is wishful thinking, especially when you have high turnout in the county compared to city because of issues that counter helping poor people (in 2012 schools, taxes).
The concept of preparing for frugality is not a bad idea, but I think he should look to some of this background, more, like the drivers of poverty inc and that maybe fending for oneself or learning how to live frugally is not the main problem.
I agree. Having read A few of Evanoff's articles relating to poverty, including Poverty, Inc., I have felt from all of them an annoyance with his disrespect towards the impoverished population of Memphis. I appreciatedat first how he addressed the impoverished population as a market and an asset despite poverty. However, in this article he mentions Poverty, Inc. as a "safety net." But the impoverished population should not be viewed and used (read: exploited) only as a reason for Memphis receiving more government money. The people he disrespects in other article for depending on government money he now seeks to emulate on a mass scale--a city scale--in order to excuse the stagnance he claims Memphis has. And that leads me to another complaint: Evanoff says that we will not be doing anything amazing. Evanoff quotes, " ...our most productive era is long behind us..." First of all, there are new technologies being created still. Memphis and America are not stagnant! And the proof is in something he mentions himself when he describes the solutions such as "transform the city bus line." Evanoff says, "Well, let's do what we can." Well, what we can do is great, and we are already doing plenty! He mentions the bus line as though the city has not made efforts to improve it, but improvements were made days before this article was released. It just seems very clear that this man does not have an accurate idea of the impoverished population of Memphis and how they should be viewed and treated. As a native Memphian, I feel that I can also safely say that he does not acknowledge the assets of Memphis or the brilliant strides we as a city have made in the past few years.
ReplyDelete