No. of Recommendations: 6
I think Brooks is correct on his factual assessment - the "what is" questions, rather than the "what should be" question. There's a large and pretty solid body of evidence that providing material resources to poor people in rich countries doesn't do much to improve their life outcomes. Largely that's because poor people in rich countries are in a different situation than poor people in poor countries. In poor countries, there are plenty of people that are poor that wouldn't have been if they had been in a country with better resources or opportunities or what have you - they've got all the non-material things they need for success, they just lack a context to be successful in. But in rich countries, people like that are often not-poor (not all of them, but a lot of them). So when you provide material assistance to the poor in a rich country, you don't get much beneficial change in life outcomes.
The best predictor in the US of a child's future income is their parent's income. Other things matter, but nothing as much as that.
Which brings me to the reason why I think Brooks is an insufferable blowhard. From the last para in his article:
If you can find some lefties who are willing to spend money fighting poverty but also willing to promote the traditional values and practices that enable people to rise, you can sign me up for the revolution.
What specifically are these traditional values and practices and how do we promote them?
Let me give a liberal/progressive value--not exclusive to liberals/progressives but primarily advanced by them. The civil rights movement. The Black poverty rate has significantly decreased since the 1960s. It turns out that removing barriers to employment and advancement really does help lift people out of poverty.
Here is another one: Equal rights for women. Same story. Not exclusively a liberal/progressive value, but primarily advanced by liberals and progressives. The poverty rate for women also decreased significantly.
Which brings me to the first paragraph of his article:
Last May a study came out suggesting that merely giving people money doesn’t do much to lift them out of poverty.
Call and raise. The study Brooks cited shows giving people a small amount of money doesn't do much. But what if you give them a lot of money? The Earned Income Tax Credit which at its core is giving money to poor people. The EITC has been shown to lift people out of poverty, improve healthcare outcomes, increase employment, and so on. There are many criticisms and areas for improvement but it does work.
So small amounts don't do much, but large amounts do. I wonder why Brooks "forgot" to mention the EITC? I don't want to suggest the answer too much, but Brooks has an enormous blindspot when it comes to facts that don't fit his thesis. Unfortunately, in this case the facts have a liberal bias.
The EITC has generally been supported by both parties, by the way. Clinton, Obama, and Biden all were stanch advocates. As was Ronald Reagan, it should be said. So Brooks can't claim progressives/liberals are against this conservative value.
