U.S. giving Mexico $1.4 Billion to help their borders to Central America

[True blue (and gold)]

Honest question: why, if the poverty level is so high, don't more people move out of the region to where jobs are available? I can understand love for one's home, but given the choice between being able to work or staying at home and living in poverty, its a no brainer for me: move.

 

People are obviously making the choice to stay and live in poverty. Do you think that one of the reason more people aren't moving to get out of poverty is because the welfare system provides enough subsistance that they can stay where they are and get by?

 

 

I know some people advocate that the problem could be solved if more money flowed into the area to improve roads, the school system, stimulate economic development etc., but realistically I don't ever seeing that ever happening to the magnitude necessary.

 

Businesses flow to where easily developable land is available. Much of eastern Ky is challenged there. They flow to where a decently sized airport is nearby. Eastern Kentucky does not have one. They flow to where there is a plentiful supply of highly educated workers. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case in much of eastern Kentucky (if we thought pouring money into the education systems was really going to work, money might help but it would take decades to get the work force needed). Building roads helps but only if it leads to an area where all the other resources are already present. In my mind its the last resource provided, not the first.

 

Finally, I'm not intending to berate eastern Kentucky. I understand their love for their region. Heck, I love N. Ky too. But if I lost my job and could not provide for my family, I'd pick up and move in a heartbeat to where I could get a job. Thus I have a hard time understanding why people continue to live in poverty. Am I oversimplying the situation? I'm honestly looking for "the other side" so I can be better informed.

 

LN, if you are a reader and truly interested, let me suggest Understanding Poverty by Ruby Payne. There is more to understanding the issue than can be presented in this thread. I would be happy to send you my copy, if you are interested.

[PepRock01]

LN, if you are a reader and truly interested, let me suggest Understanding Poverty by Ruby Payne. There is more to understanding the issue than can be presented in this thread. I would be happy to send you my copy, if you are interested.

 

 

I attended a full day of PD with a presentation by someone who was working for Dr. Payne. It was by far the best day of PD I ever experienced.

[True blue (and gold)]

I attended a full day of PD with a presentation by someone who was working for Dr. Payne. It was by far the best day of PD I ever experienced.

 

It was very eye opening for me.

[leatherneck]

LN, if you are a reader and truly interested, let me suggest Understanding Poverty by Ruby Payne. There is more to understanding the issue than can be presented in this thread. I would be happy to send you my copy, if you are interested.

 

I love to read (in my profession, I better). I'll pick up a copy and read it. Thanks for the suggestion. Could you give a thumbnail sketch as to some of the things mentioned by Dr. Payne? LN

[Mr.Fundamental]

Honest question: why, if the poverty level is so high, don't more people move out of the region to where jobs are available? I can understand love for one's home, but given the choice between being able to work or staying at home and living in poverty, its a no brainer for me: move.

 

People are obviously making the choice to stay and live in poverty. Do you think that one of the reason more people aren't moving to get out of poverty is because the welfare system provides enough subsistance that they can stay where they are and get by?

 

 

I know some people advocate that the problem could be solved if more money flowed into the area to improve roads, the school system, stimulate economic development etc., but realistically I don't ever seeing that ever happening to the magnitude necessary.

 

Businesses flow to where easily developable land is available. Much of eastern Ky is challenged there. They flow to where a decently sized airport is nearby. Eastern Kentucky does not have one. They flow to where there is a plentiful supply of highly educated workers. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case in much of eastern Kentucky (if we thought pouring money into the education systems was really going to work, money might help but it would take decades to get the work force needed). Building roads helps but only if it leads to an area where all the other resources are already present. In my mind its the last resource provided, not the first.

 

Finally, I'm not intending to berate eastern Kentucky. I understand their love for their region. Heck, I love N. Ky too. But if I lost my job and could not provide for my family, I'd pick up and move in a heartbeat to where I could get a job. Thus I have a hard time understanding why people continue to live in poverty. Am I oversimplying the situation? I'm honestly looking for "the other side" so I can be better informed.

 

 

 

This is the problem that we have, the good people have to move away, for a better oppertunity. Some of us stay behind trying to ensure a better quality of life for the people that are left. What happens is the following... the school that I teach at 95% of our students go on to college or military, they try to come home, fond memories and such, can not find a job so they move on. I do miss my friends, but I wish them nothing but the best.

[ladiesbballcoach]

1.4 billion.

 

Is that a large sucking sound going south?

[IM4THEHOUNDS]

This is nothing short of ludricrous! We better wake up and smell the tulips . . . or should I say tortillas?

[leatherneck]

[/b]

 

 

 

This is the problem that we have, the good people have to move away, for a better oppertunity. Some of us stay behind trying to ensure a better quality of life for the people that are left. What happens is the following... the school that I teach at 95% of our students go on to college or military, they try to come home, fond memories and such, can not find a job so they move on. I do miss my friends, but I wish them nothing but the best.

 

Understood. And I'm afraid this will come across as rather cavalier but please forgive me as I don't mean to offend, but looking at it practically (not emotionally) are the mountains simply no longer a "place" that can sustain much of a population? I can understand why people wish that wasn't the case, but is it a reality that it simply cannot sustain much of a population? Obvously it can sustain jobs in the mining, timber and tourism industries, but I wonder if we are not deluding ourselves in thinking that the mountains can ever attract decent paying manufacturing or service jobs on a large enough scale in other industries to bring a large percentage of people out of poverty (and I won't restart the debate as to whether a lot of them even want to get out of poverty). Having spent 6 years on the board of N. Ky's economic development agency and having represented corporations for the last 20 some years, I think I have a pretty good feel for what businesses are looking for when deciding where to locate their operations. Most (admittedly not all) want proximity to major airports, access to a large and trained workforce, they want to be located in areas that has a sort of lifestyle that will enable them to attract high quality management types, they want flat land that is easily developed with major utilities nearby, they want to be as close as possible access to their major customers and suppliers and and they want easy access to good highways. A lot of things aren't found in a large part of the mountainous eastern Kentucky areas, are they? And if they aren't, if you are the governor you have to ask yourself: does it make economic sense to spend the large amount of dollars necessary to provide in eastern Kentucky the things that businesses want, when for far less dollars you could make those things happen in other areas of the state?

 

Thoughts?

[True blue (and gold)]

I love to read (in my profession, I better). I'll pick up a copy and read it. Thanks for the suggestion. Could you give a thumbnail sketch as to some of the things mentioned by Dr. Payne? LN

 

Sorry it took me so long...

 

The book begins by explaining the difference between situational poverty and generational poverty. That is fairly easy. Situational poverty, of course, might occur with the loss of a job, divorce, an illness, etc. This ia a sudden event and, hopefully, temporary. Generational poverty means that a family has been in poverty for at least two (might be 3, it's been awhile) generations.

 

The next part of the book discusses how the mindset (I believe that she labels these "hidden rules") of someone that has grown up in generational poverty is different than someone that has not. This is eye opening for everyone...as someone who DID grow up in generational poverty, I felt like I was reading a book written about my family. It made me understand many, many things about why they are the way that they are.

 

This is an extremely important read for educators. I think that many here in the P/R forum that discuss issues of poverty and welfare would enjoy it.

[Bart Fletch]

Unbelieveable.

[Mr.Fundamental]

Understood. And I'm afraid this will come across as rather cavalier but please forgive me as I don't mean to offend, but looking at it practically (not emotionally) are the mountains simply no longer a "place" that can sustain much of a population? I can understand why people wish that wasn't the case, but is it a reality that it simply cannot sustain much of a population? Obvously it can sustain jobs in the mining, timber and tourism industries, but I wonder if we are not deluding ourselves in thinking that the mountains can ever attract decent paying manufacturing or service jobs on a large enough scale in other industries to bring a large percentage of people out of poverty (and I won't restart the debate as to whether a lot of them even want to get out of poverty). Having spent 6 years on the board of N. Ky's economic development agency and having represented corporations for the last 20 some years, I think I have a pretty good feel for what businesses are looking for when deciding where to locate their operations. Most (admittedly not all) want proximity to major airports, access to a large and trained workforce, they want to be located in areas that has a sort of lifestyle that will enable them to attract high quality management types, they want flat land that is easily developed with major utilities nearby, they want to be as close as possible access to their major customers and suppliers and and they want easy access to good highways. A lot of things aren't found in a large part of the mountainous eastern Kentucky areas, are they? And if they aren't, if you are the governor you have to ask yourself: does it make economic sense to spend the large amount of dollars necessary to provide in eastern Kentucky the things that businesses want, when for far less dollars you could make those things happen in other areas of the state?

 

Thoughts?

 

I think that we should start another thread before, we get to far off topic.