Growing up my mother would take me and my siblings to work, when our nannies could not watch us. She worked in a hospital in the poorest district in the city. To get to the hospital, we passed through abandoned train tracks, where some unfortunately called their home. Looking out the window I saw children play in the dirt, while their parents watched from abandoned cargo crates. This image is burned vividly in the back of my mind. My mother took it upon herself to teach us a lesson. Sometimes when we would pass through the tracks, she would hand food out to the little children, and I would naively get mad because I wanted the food she was giving. She always told us the importance of, “sharing our blessings.”  She told us people that lived there did not always get a chance to eat. I asked her why and how people of authority let them live like this. She said that no one is fighting for them and it was up to us to help. The reality is that even though that was an extreme case of poverty, there are so many people who cannot afford necessary human needs. 

 Twelve years later, I applaud my mother for teaching me this valuable lesson, but I couldn’t disagree more with her logic on encompassing poverty. Yes, people in poverty are grateful for people like her, but that is a momentary solution. I believe that there are more concrete solutions, where the government can create policies to help people in need, which would result in a more lasting impact. Instead on aiming to help and fix, the government gives free “handouts” through government assistance. There are not enough government programs and policies in place to help educate the poor, and the ones that are in place are being tossed away or help in the wrong way. People in poverty cannot thrive in their current situations if the government does not place importance on education and job proficiency.  

The big question is: why aren’t there more programs that help educate and provide job skills for people in need? This population does not only include the extreme poor but also populations likes military veterans and orphans, who slip through the cracks. Instead programs like food stamps and universal health care aim to help bridge inequality, but in a way, keep people in poverty through government assistance. The famous saying, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for lifetime,” is the premise of this problem.  Instead of giving lifelines there should be centers for people in need, where they can attain certain skills sets and have an opportunity of receiving proper and quality education.  This way when different presidential administrations decide to alter or get rid of policies, these people would have attained work ethic and most importantly proper education. In the book, The Fight Against Poverty: Policy Options and Reality, that education is the best, “Protection against unemployment and poverty” (Bussmann). Job readiness and a proper education is needed for fundamental success in life. Although government aid is part of the solution, the government needs to take a step further. This step is creating policies that give people in need proper training. It is important that these people must be given the same educational opportunity middle class and privileged people do, because it gives a sense of meaning and purpose to their life and bridges inequality. 

Different people interpret poverty in different ways. According to the Census Bureau, a study was taken which showed that approximately, 43.1 million people live in poverty. Although statistics show that poverty has gone down there is still a large population of people living in poverty. Everyone defines poverty in different ways. The most common definition is the lack of access to necessary human needs, meaning lack of food and shelter and the idea of having little to no income. Officially in the U.S., poverty is solely measured through family size and income. According to the Census Bureau, “If a family’s total income is less than the family threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty,” however this measure is argued to be unreliable. According to the Center for Poverty Research at University of California-Davis, the poverty measure does not take in to account relative poverty. This means that the measure does not consider, “The differences in cost-of-living” (Center for Poverty Research). The lack of urgency to change how poverty is measured shows how little the government cares. This problem is prevalent because this statistic does not only show our economic standing, but shows how our country prioritizes their time and the federal budget. Many people do not realize that this is a problem or how serious this problem is. People also fail to realize the benefits of helping people in need. Helping people in need could potentially help the economy by having more educated citizens contribute to society and the expansion of job growth. 

A major misconception about poverty is that people in poverty are to blame for their situation.  In some cases, poverty is cyclical, parents often do their best to provide for their children, but they can only do so much. Ronald Hill states that, “Poor children often become poor adults,” this shows that it is hard for children to be successful when their parents aren’t successful themselves. There is an argument that to exit the cycle of poverty, it should be upon the poor to put themselves out there and successfully get a job. People need to understand that to do that they need to be educated and possess certain skill sets. However, people in poverty do not have proper access to these tools. Therefore, the only jobs they work are minimum wage part-time jobs. Especially today, when most high paying jobs require more schooling and more credentials. Hill also claims that to be more proactive with this battle, “We must suspend judgments of the poor that hold them wholly responsible for circumstances…”  They do not have a lot of power over their situation. Living off minimum wage is not feasible for a person to pay for necessities. Even more it is not sufficient to feed a family. These misconceptions are dangerous and is the reason it is hard create change. If we place blame on people in poverty themselves, then government officials will be more reluctant to create policies and programs that can create change.  

 Emily Badger, a writer from the Washington Post, wrote an article about Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon, and who ran for the 2016 presidential election. Carson believes that poverty is a “state of mind.” In the article, he states that if people in poverty can just change their mindset and outlook on their situation, then they can pull themselves out of poverty. However, being hungry, having nowhere to sleep, or living pay check to pay check is not just a state of mind. It is a reality for 43.1 million Americans. Carson backs his claim by using himself as an example. He claims that if he can do it, then so can you (Badger). However, he does not realize that although it worked for him, does not mean it will work for everyone. Carson also had access to proper education, which most do not. He accredits his success to his mother, who pushed him to thrive in school (Badger). I agree that having a “right mindset” serves as a catalyst to success, but it can’t stand alone. It doesn’t matter if one has the right mindset, when they are not given an equal opportunity as others. I think that for people in poverty to be successful, a proper attitude, education, and skill set are the perfect combination for a solution. Badger quotes Eldar Shafir, who says that this situation was studied and experimented a plethora of times and his logic is not sound.  People like Ben Carson perpetuate the problem of poverty. 

Education is the stepping stool to success. Jared Bernstein, a writer for The American Prospect, claims that education alone is an “insufficient antipoverty tool.” Bernstein claims that to be successful it is crucial for people in poverty to understand the benefits, “From their improved human capital.” I conquer if there is no sense of accomplishment then people can easily be discouraged. Relating back to Badgers article, Carson claims that, “You can give them everything in the world. They’ll work their way right back down to the bottom” this statement agrees with Bernstein’s argument by saying that people in poverty need to understand the benefits they are receiving for their hard work. A statistic from Bernstein’s article states that, “When education is combined with multidimensional job training readiness, and quality job search, the returns more than double,” so if these studies prove high success rates, then why doesn’t the government invest in programs that help train and invest in a solution. 

The government doesn’t place emphasis in helping the poor, they leave charities to do their dirty work. The mere fact that it is so easy to find charities on Google that help educate people in need, but harder to find research about the governmental policies that do help educate people in poverty again shows how little the government cares.  There are government programs like Head Start, which help low income families attain education for their children do help solve the problem. Bussmann states that if children do not start receiving proper education at a young age, then it affects their job options later. Although, this program helps it is only one of the few that are out there. It is also important to stress that people in poverty need to understand that learning never ends, and that they need to continue to grow (Bussmann). 

On the other hand, some like Jonathan Tanner believe that we can never end poverty. His main arguments include the increase in inequality, the lack of aid to help, and the different perspectives people have on poverty (Tanner).  He claims that policy is a much more powerful tool than aid. There needs to be a focus on governmental policies that help bridge the inequalities like education. It’s impossible to solve a problem if you are looking at the problem the wrong way. Governmental aid is the first part of the solution, but there needs to be more. In the TEDx Talk, “Fix Poverty, Fix Education, or Fix Nothing,” Tony Allen argues that it is possible to give quality education to people in need, but first we need to “give a damn.” He proposes a chain reaction idea, that if the people in the community care about educating city kids then people of authority must do something about it. Allen also argues equal opportunity can fix poverty and education.  

Another problem is that policies that are in place to help bridge inequality can change within different administrations. Past presidents like Franklin D Roosevelt and Barack Obama created programs like Food stamps and Medicaid to help people’s current situation, but Donald Trump’s administration is trying to create change for the worse. Donald Trump’s proposed federal budget cuts include, “$800 billion from Medicaid, the federal health program for the poor, while slicing $192 billion from nutritional assistance and $272 million over all from welfare programs” (Davis). Governmental aid is important on helping bridge inequality, even though it does not drive to change. This provides major setbacks to people in need. His proposed budget cuts can potentially further widen inequality. Without government aid, there is likely no chance that there will be programs that educate the poor.

There needs to be a change in how the government sees poverty. The problem is not with the person in poverty itself, but rather how the government is solving it. These misconceptions further widen the problem, because it makes it harder to understand it and how to solve it. Yes, governmental aids help bridge inequality because it gives a form of equal opportunity. However, governmental aids do not necessitate action. There needs to be policies and programs that help build work ethic and sharpen the education they receive. This action makes the person feel like they are improving, and can potentially motivate them to work harder. Although it seems daunting to end poverty when the numbers are high, its crucial to look at the problem through a smaller lens. 
