The Poverty Game as a Teaching Tool

PAGE 3 OF 3

In a message dated 10/21/99 7:47:57 PM, sue    AT    MCPHERSONS.FREESERVE.CO.UK writes:
 
<< There is always
the notion that the poor deserve what they get, and it can
be frightening for those better off to look at them and see
themselves reflected, and start to think, "That could be me" >>
 
Indeed. Unfortunately, the scenarios suggested so far seem to ignore the
reality that poverty could befall *anyone* at *any time*. (Sorry if I missed
something in my scanning.) It is very possible to end up in poverty *even if*
you start out in the middle class, particularly if you become disabled.
 
Here's another possible scenario, assuming life in the U.S.:
 
You have finished your education, for which you had to borrow substantially;
your loan payments are $250/mo.; you have a minimum credit card payment of
$100/mo. However, you have begun a brilliant career. Unfortunately, two years
into it, you suddenly  become permanently disabled. Because you were young
and healthy, you didn't buy disability insurance. Your employer provides only
minimum disability (in NY, 6 months and $600/month maximum payment required).
Although you earned a good enough salary, you did not work long enough to
contribute to your Social Security in any substantial way, so your SSDI
(social security disability income) entitlement is only slightly more than
the minimum of $500 per month; your entitlement is $600 per month.
 
It takes an average of two years before most people are approved for SSDI, so
there will likely be an 18 month gap where you have no income at all. Because
of your hefty student loans, you have not been able to save anything yet.
 
Your parents are experiencing their own sudden financial downturn. They were
both laid off from their jobs and due to their age are having great
difficulty finding other work. Like most Americans, they are deeply in debt.
They have lost the family home to foreclosure, and there is no room for you
in their new apartment. Your other relatives believe you are malingering and
will not help.
 
You are eligible for health insurance under the COBRA law (I'm not sure what
those letters stand for), which means you get to keep your health insurance
for 18 months but you have to pay the employer's rate out of pocket, say
$200/month (that is, almost half of your disability income). When those 18
months are up, your premium will be $300 per month. Medicare doesn't kick in
until 2 years after the start of your disability, assuming you are approved
for it. Even then, it doesn't cover prescriptions, and you require
maintenence drugs costing approximately $300 per month.
 
The income cutoff for eligibility for Medicaid (In NY state at least) is
$592/mo. for a disabled person (less for the non-disabled). You may get help
paying your insurance premiums (subtract $200 from $600=$400; $592 minus
$400=$192/mo. insurance assistance. Co-pays and deductibles for
hospitalizations, rx's and dr's appointments are not included and you must
pay them out-of-pocket. You owe $2,000 in deductibles for hospitalizations
and $50/mo in co-pays for rx's. You require regular medical supervision;
co-pays for that are another $30 per month. (This all assumes that your
employer offered a high quality HMO insurance option and you elected it when
you began employment. If you have no health insurance at all you will not
qualify for insurance assistance. If you selected a traditional 80/20 option,
you must pay the 20% not covered out of pocket, even though your income is
only $600/mo.)
 
If you earn any money at all during the process of SSDI approval, chances are
great that you will be disqualified. After approval, you can earn no more
than $500 per month. If you earn more than that, you will not only be
disqualified from SSDI, you will lose your Medicare coverage.
 
Figure out how you are going to live, first in the two years before your
SSDI/Medicare kicks in, then the rest of your life.
 
*****
Georgia NeSmith
gnesmith    AT    aol.com

Krista and All-
 
The simulation I have information on is called "Life in the State of
Poverty"  It was developed by ROWL and has been used extensively.  It
requires 15 volunteers to cover the stations and suggest that these be
people who have a good working knowledge of life on welfare. To obtain more
information go to:
 
www.exnet.iastate.edu
 
click on families
 
click on Exploring the State of Poverty
 
There is also a two hour video available from a 1998 teleconference that
discusses the pros and cons of the simulation.
 
Sorry Krista that I don't have info specifically on the BC women's
simulation.
 
Nelda
npearson    AT    runet.edu

I have been following this discussion with some interest, having recently read
Amy Dacyczyn's compilations of her now-defunct "Tightwad Gazette" newsletter on
frugal living (the compilations are published by Villard Press). In addition to
tips on saving money, she has many thoughtful observations on typical American
spending habits and economic attitudes, pointing out that people often choose
paths that lead them into--or keep them in--poverty. With regard to the
assignment of an unexpected pregnancy, I wondered if any of your students paid
for an abortion rather than passively acquiesing to having a child?
 
Anne Carson
Cornell University Law Library
Ithaca, NY 14853
carson    AT    law.mail.cornell.edu

On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Anne Carson wrote:
 
>  assignment of an unexpected pregnancy, I wondered if any of your students
>  paid for an abortion rather than passively acquiesing to having a child?
 
Of course in the current climate, this too raises some sharp questions not
only about paying for abortion--although that is central,clearly--but also
about access to services: there may not be an abortion provider in your
community, you may have to travel, adding expense and logistical
problems [what if there are other children to be cared for, work demands,
what if you are under the age of majority?]
All this--without even touching on the issue of personal religious or
cultural opposition to abortion--might make the term 'passive acquiescence to
having a child' not quite the right one.
 
Best,
 
sara murphy
sem2    AT    is4.nyu.edu

Anne,
 
I'm sure there are many reasons why people choose or
appear to choose paths that they must know would lead
them into poverty.  One reason, related to your question
on abortion, is a belief in God, or fate, or destiny; at any
rate that they don't have control over their lives, and that
what happens to them must have happened for a reason.
So, in the case of the abortion, it may not be exactly passive
acquiesance, but a choice to submit to what has come their
way.  In fact, even knowing that their material lives may suffer,
they may fight for the right to have that child.
 
I think this kind of thinking can come out of living in a state
of powerlessness, and having to depend on something
other than rational, material-oriented decision-making,
perhaps an advantage of being wealthy.
 
Another reason why people may appear to consciously
choose paths leading to poverty is that that particular
path has great significance for them, even if no-one else
understands.  Many of the great artists and writers and I'm
sure composers and so on remaimed dedicated to their
life-work despite the lack of recognition.  They folowed their
own path.  And this might also apply to choosing to have a
child over abortion, especially if events leading to this
decision have come to have great significance.
 
I'm sure there are many other reasons why people seem to
choose to take paths leading to poverty, but perhaps money
is not their top priority.
 
The way you have worded the question seems to make the
assumption that, when the issue is between living in poverty
with a child and being well-off without one, abortion is always
the rational choice.
 
 
Finally, I don't think that any kind of game, or fiction can
prepare a person for the real thing.  Choosing whether
to have an abortion or a baby is not an easy decision for
many women.
 
Read Carol Gilligan's  In a Different Voice, and Susan Moller
Okin - Thinking like a Woman, for more on this.
 
Sue McPherson
sue    AT    mcphersons.freeserve.co.uk
 

I got the information on how to get to the Simulation from the video which
was done in 1998.  Apparently this no longer works.  I tried a search on
ROWEL which is Reform Organization of Welfare Education Association and did
get to a page off the iastate website.  The contact info from the page I
got is as follows:
 
Jeannette Matt Oxford
REA Executive Director
ROWEL Education Association
5300 Delamr
St. Louis, Mo.
63112
Ph 314-361-6665
FAX 314-367-9626
rowel    AT    fastrans.net
 
the web address is:
www.exnet.iastate.edu/Pages/cyfar/sim/simulation_ROWEL.html
 
Nelda

In a message dated 10/25/99 9:08:23 AM, CARSON    AT    LAW.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU writes:
 
<< With regard to the
 assignment of an unexpected pregnancy, I wondered if any of your students
paid for an abortion rather than passively acquiesing to having a child? >>
 
For a good many students, this is *not* a hypothetical.
 
Real life: my own daughter, pregnant at 18, decided to keep her baby, now my
wonderful 8 year-old grandson. This despite the fact that her father told
her, "If you have this baby, I won't pay for college." She said "Well, dad, I
guess I won't go to college."
 
I hardly call this passive acquiescence. It was her father who gave in ....
 
Tho' she did go to college (much more difficult being a single mom), she
still endured poverty for that baby. Her view on abortion was/is that while
she firmly supports every woman's right to have one, it was not something she
could do herself. That's not passive. That's damned hard work standing up for
yourself and your baby.
 
 
Georgia NeSmith
gnesmith    AT    aol.com

Bravo to you and your daughter, Georgia! I can't add anything that will
say it better, but I, too, cringed at the suggestion that such a choice
would be "passive." I hope we never forget that child-bearing and
child-raising are
feminist acts too.
 
Good luck to you-
 
shelley rees
ssg0001    AT    jove.acs.unt.edu
 

> In a message dated 10/25/99 9:08:23 AM, CARSON    AT    LAW.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU writes:
>
> << With regard to the assignment of an unexpected pregnancy, I wondered if any
 of your students
> paid for an abortion rather than passively acquiesing to having a child? >>
 
   In the last week or so there was a story in the news about protests
against a billboard offering financial assistance for drug addicts to use
birth control.
 
   I don't have the particulars in front of me, but the billboard
message had been deliberately situated in a low income area known for its
drug problem. It seems the woman who paid for the billboard advertisement
meant well, and some women accepted her offer of financial assistance for
some sort of birth control, but others in the community objected --
resulting in the billboard message being brought down by the local
government.
 
   The protesters saw the offer as a means of restricting childbirth to
the non-poor.
 
Betty Glass
glass    AT    unr.edu

Betty Glass wrote:
 
"In the last week or so there was a story in the news about protests
against a billboard offering financial assistance for drug addicts to use
birth control."
 
The program is called CRACK (for Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity).
The woman who created it is Barbara Harris.  I learned about it in a
New Republic article.  The article is online at http://
www.thenewrepublic.com/magazines/tnr/archive/0899/082399/cottle082399.html .
 
Marc Sacks
msacks    AT    world.std.com

I've thought about this comment, and feel compelled to reply.
 
My class just finished reading _Don't Call Me Out of Name_.  The chapter
on being on welfare identifies this as a low point in the lives of the
women in the book.  Welfare workers who keep clients waiting,
depersonalize them in a variety of ways, with the result that the
clients feel even more stigmatized and negative about themselves.  So I
can appreciate the framework of your son's response.
 
I'm also aware of those marvelous students in our Social Work Program.
(Sociology and Social Work share a department.)  These students -
mostly women - are motivated to take on jobs which pay less than many
other job categories do, in the hope of positively affecting the lives
of women who have fallen on hard times.  I doubt I could find a better
motivated, altruistic group of students anywhere.
 
Just as we as a society demonize those on welfare (women being
conspicious in that group), we choose to demonize those who deal with
those on welfare.  If we stigmatize both categories of people/women, how
much easier it is to dismiss the systemic problems which help perpetuate
the negative aspects of both sides of the situation in the first place.
 
Inn the State of Connecticut - highest per capita state in the U.S. -
the case load of a welfare worker is such that that case worker has
about 2 hours per month to spend on each client - before you take time
for meetings, paper work, etc., out of that worker's schedule.
 
Our Social Workers lose considerably, in lower pay scale than for jobs
with comparable responsibility; as well as in various problems of
bringing home their frustrations at not being able to move the system
more, and ultimately of burn out and fatigue.    - Mary
 
Mary L. Ertel, Associate Professor, Sociology
Central Connecticut State University
ERTEL    AT    EROLS.COM          ERTEL    AT    CCSU.EDU

In a message dated 11/19/99 1:16:52 PM, you wrote:
 
<<
Our Social Workers lose considerably, in lower pay scale than for jobs
with comparable responsibility; as well as in various problems of
bringing home their frustrations at not being able to move the system
more, and ultimately of burn out and fatigue.>>
 
Doesn't it seem immoral to encourage altruistic young women to pursue a path
that we know to be so futile and hurtful besides?  Wouldn't it be so much
more satisfying to redirect them into business for themselves of a nature
that serves the ideals they now seek?  For example, the Dpt of Agriculture
offers grants to businesses offering social services and home construction
assistance to the rural poor.  The pay may not be much better but the
idealists would not be sorry for their results.  Surely this is not an
isolated possibility.
 
Jeanette
http://members.aol.com/dectire/LaStraw.htm - LastStraw Revolution

On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Mary Louise Ertel wrote:
 
> I've thought about this comment, and feel compelled to reply.
>
>
> Just as we as a society demonize those on welfare (women being
> conspicious in that group), we choose to demonize those who deal with
> those on welfare.  If we stigmatize both categories of people/women, how
 
I understand why you THINK that. But in the REAL WELFARE WORLD right now,
ask any recipient what they think of their workers...I have never met such
incompetence in my life elsewhere. Ask any agency or business that DEALS
with welfare, i. e. childcare providers waiting for state paid funds,
health providers waiting on state payments, etc... I understand the system
is bad but I have seen too many workers simply seem to HATE the clients to
really be objective anymore. I think until you are poor, have been
homeless or on welfare, you shouldn't define their realities. It could be
different for some small few, but the majority of people who interact with
the welfare system will attest to the lack of accountability and
sloppiness of work. I got 2 letters from my worker recently dated the SAME
DATE, with TWO DIFFERENT SPELLINGS OF MY  NAME< NEITHER OF WHICH ARE MY
ACTUAL NAME!!!!! Things like this are the rule at welfare offices. Go to
one any morning, any day of the week, go into the offices and talk to the
clients in office if you want to know what these people are thinking re
the workers.
 
The difference is the workers are supposedly educated, are well paid with
benefits and do not do their job. Welfare clients wait like hungry dogs
for the bone that their welfare worker finally tosses her on the brink of
starvation...it is pretty grim in the real world.
 
sorry. I do believe this and it is my experience.
 
kirsten anderberg
kirstena    AT    scn.org

On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Jeanette Raichyk wrote:
 
> Doesn't it seem immoral to encourage altruistic young women to pursue a path
> that we know to be so futile and hurtful besides?  Wouldn't it be so much
> more satisfying to redirect them into business for themselves of a nature
> that serves the ideals they now seek?  For example, the Dpt of Agriculture
> offers grants to businesses offering social services and home construction
> assistance to the rural poor.  The pay may not be much better but the
> idealists would not be sorry for their results.  Surely this is not an
> isolated possibility.
 
tHE PROBLEM WITH THIS PLAN IS...IT DOESN'T BENEFIT BUSINESSES THAT PAY FOR
THE JOB TRAINING! That is how it works! To teach women independent
business skills to say be business owners is not actually offered in the
Washington or Oregon systems, I know that for sure. The businesses that
fund welfare do  not need professors or attorneys, doctors or business
owners...they need workers...and they would rather we bring all the poor
into rental hosing barely above their wages so they CAN'T move and then
you lock them into the cycle of the working poor. No one cares about
getting welfare women into an independent position and if you know
somewhere that is into this, feel free to give them my email address. I
want to talk to them.  Welfare is for the business community to get cheap
labor that the state will pay the training for and will give great tax
breaks to the businesses too for this...and if social workers actually did
their jobs, they would systematically elimate a large bulk of the
clientele they rely on. Much of the trauma in welfare recipients' lives is
caused by late payments and unfulfilled promises by the workers due to
them losing paperwork, missing deadlines, etc...keeping them in
dependence...
 
kirsten anderberg
kirstena    AT    scn.org