Poverty problem affects everyone, not just the poor

Poverty is a complex issue. On the surface it seems like someone else's problem, but a deeper look can show its impact on others. You don't have to be poor to see the effects of poverty.

As a teenager, I thought poverty was something that in itself couldn't actually affect anything. I felt poverty was an outcome of someone else's poor decisions and lifestyle choices. The poor were merely unable to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps - as the saying goes.

In hindsight, I didn't really think about it at all. I imagine most people don't. As with many other aspects of the world around us, our exposure to poverty is mainly through the lens of television cameras. The poverty we see on the news is real, but it's not just on TV - poverty is problem all over the United States, and especially here in Louisiana.

In its most base definition, poverty is deprivation. People living in poverty are often deprived of access to healthy food, clean water, proper shelter and education.

People are classified as impoverished when their income is lower than the poverty line or they meet federal poverty guidelines.

The poverty line itself is calculated by the U.S. government and considers inflation and the cost of living, and is used primarily for statistical classification. The federal poverty guidelines are a little more flexible and are used to grant access to government programs such as Women's Infants and Children's Nutrition Fund.

They are both highly influential in the classification of people in poverty and the public perception of what constitutes poverty.

The 2008 poverty line for a single person is $10,400 dollars of yearly income, according to the Federal Register. That means a single person who earns less than $10,400 is technically living in poverty. The line changes for the number of dependents the head of the household has, adding $3,600 for each dependent, so a family of two must be less than $14,000.

They're not the most holistic methods of measuring poverty, but they're the easiest way to see poverty from the outside.

On the national level, 13 percent of the U.S. population lives below the poverty line according to the 2006 U.S. census. That seems like a fairly low number, but in terms of poverty prevention and intervention, the U.S. is one of the lowest-ranked developed nations according to the United Nation's development program. On the human poverty index the U.S. ranks 18th - below most of western Europe and Japan.

That's pretty awful, but poverty in our state is even worse.

Around 14.4 percent of all families in Louisiana are impoverished, as are 19 percent of individuals according the U.S. Census 2006 American Community Survey.

Locally things don't look so good either. 2006 figures show 20 percent of Baton Rouge families and 27 percent of individuals living in poverty.

There are certainly some post-Katrina factors in those statistics, but arguments about the definition of the numbers won't change anything - we're still in pretty bad shape.

The big deal here is that many of the same factors that keep Louisiana on the lowest tier of nearly every U.S. ranking are the result of or a determinant of poverty. The issue really isn't as individual as people tend to believe - poverty affects entire regions.

Two of the major determinants of poverty, education and healthcare, are major problems in Louisiana and have far-reaching effects.

Our poorly funded and staffed schools keep our children uneducated and unskilled in a world that is rapidly requiring advanced training for even the simplest of jobs. Our future workforce will be tainted by poor living conditions and unskilled for the future.

Our inadequate medical facilities can barely handle the sick they have now, but children born into poverty have a lesser chance of survival than those born out of it. High infant mortality is inexcusable in the modern world, but it is also something that damages the future of our state by cutting our population.

Both of these measures seem distant and abstract. But new young people and their education are of utmost importance to the betterment of this state and to the public policy that will be drafted by the state. These are just two examples, but there are many more.

Whether an individual is poor or not is almost irrelevant. Poverty itself is influential and will affect our future.

Originally published in The Daily Reveille...

Social structure plays major part in obesity problem

Americans hear about their worst problem every day.

It's barked at them by TV drill sergeants and blasted on the radio by people who claim to be doctors. It's made millionaires out of chemists and celebrities out of washed-up athletes. It's also a problem of our own creation.

The problem is: Americans are fat.

It's been common knowledge for years now that America has high rates of obesity and all of the fun health problems that go along with it.

Previous attempts to rectify the problem have focused almost exclusively on motivating the individual. These attempts have failed and we're getting fatter.

Perhaps it's time to look at things differently. We should think about some of the other factors that may be at the heart of the problem.

More than 66 percent of Americans are overweight, according to 2007 survey funded by the National Center for Health Statistics. Even more unsettling is the fact that the same survey shows that more than 32 percent of Americans are obese, which means their weight puts them at heightened risk for health problems.

Rates of obesity have increased dramatically in the past 15 years. The NCHS data show 56 percent of Americans are overweight. The percentage of overweight Americans increased to 65.2 percent in 2002, an increase of nearly 14 percent. What's even more startling, is that rates of obesity have more than doubled since 1994, with 32 percent of Americans listed as obese compared to 1994's 15.

These statistics have not been kept secret. They've have been force-fed down the throats of everyone with access to a TV, radio or the Internet.

So if everyone knows about the problem, why hasn't anything happened?

Nobody knows.

Well, some people claim to know, but their solution to the problem seems to be calling everyone lazy and then flexing their own rippled abs.

I disagree - it's not completely an issue of laziness.

I can't say for sure what the problem is, but I think we've taken a rather individualistic approach to this problem. We've taken an approach that may ignore issues grounded in our social structure.

Americans have tried, and spent millions of dollars in the process, to incorporate exercise into their daily routines. The government has spent millions pushing programs that focus on getting people out there and moving. We're all doing the Louisiana two-step, right?

Most of the previous efforts to slim down Americans focused on getting individual people to make healthy choices.

However, individual people often have more things going on in their everyday lives than just trying to lose weight - they have families, responsibilities and other stresses.

They also exist within a structure that may not be all that supportive of making healthy choices.

Recent academic research has brought light to food deserts, or areas where access to high-quality food is limited. These areas could be limited by location - meaning there are no local supermarkets, by finances - they can't afford to buy good food or they lack the cooking skills to prepare fresh food.

Food deserts are most common in areas that are highly rural or urban - areas that, according to the NCHS and US Census, just so happen to have the highest rates of obesity and poverty in the country.

The most common scenario for a food desert is an inner city ravaged by urban sprawl. As the wealthier population leaves the city, so do most of the large scale businesses, including supermarkets. This leaves poor residents with very few options for healthy food choices - especially if they lack transportation.

A mother can either buy a few apples for five bucks, or she can buy a lot more junk food for the same price. If you're concerned with feeding your family for the long-term, the junk food may look like a better option.

I'm sure she wants to keep her family healthy, but it may seem better to have them eat poorly than not enough.

That's not to say it's wrong to place some blame on the individual. Of course our individual actions play a part in our health, but those actions are always set in the context of our environment and that effect cannot be ignored.

It's easy to call people lazy or weak when they are unable to lose weight and become healthier. However, not everyone goes through life with the same access to skills and resources.

Until we begin to address obesity at the structural level we are not going to see changes. We're not going to get healthier, and we may be faced with a generation of Americans that were condemned to sickness and disease by their lack of resources before they realized it.

Originally published in The Daily Reveille...

Educators cannot ignore effects of technology

Technology will revolutionize the education system, but not in the way most people think.

Educational technology has advanced by leaps and bounds within the past 10 years. Nearly every classroom here at the University has a computer that can connect to the Internet, show videos and DVDs and play PowerPoint presentations. All of these are technological advancements that our parents and early educators would have never dreamed possible. But for all the advancement they represent, they are not the advancements that will truly alter the education of future generations.

On the contrary, it's not the technologies themselves that will change education, but the after effects of these technologies will shape the education of our children.

We live in a time of great technological advancement, but the true benefit of technology is not reaped by the first generation to experience it. It's the subsequent generations that truly explore, exploit and refine technology.

This isn't a knock on the intelligence of older generations. It isn't an issue of capacity, but one of exposure.

The easiest example of the diffusion of technology through generations is the Internet.

The early adopters of the Internet were a few tech-savvy members of Generation X. This generation, born between 1965 and 1982, helped nurture the Internet into its current state. In those days the Internet was more of a person-to-person method of communicating - similar to the message boards we have today. However, because of the advanced knowledge required to access the Internet, only a small set of Gen X have been exposed to it in significant amounts.

While Gen X is credited with furthering the Internet, it is not the generation most entrenched in it.

The Millennial Generation, unlike its predecessor, came of age when the Internet was just beginning to take off and is most heavily associated with its use.

This group, born between 1982 and 1997, were exposed to the Internet on a much larger scale than the general population of Gen X. The millennial generation has extensive experience with the Internet, but it was still introduced after its early socialization - the Internet merely augmented an existing world-view instead of being the focal point.

The Millennial Generation is the group that has popularized sites like Facebook.com and Myspace.com - they are social Internet users.

The generation after the Millennials, which some have taken to calling Generation Z, was born with the Internet. Many of those young people were at keyboards before they could ride bikes and are quite familiar with the Internet and its possibilities.

At the heart of the Internet is information, specifically instant information. There are few questions that cannot be answered, or at the very least enlightened, by a quick Internet search.

For those socialized and educated through the old way of learning, such as using a card catalogue in a library, this new method of information seeking exists in contrast to the old way, and makes it better.

For the new generation coming up, there is no old way. The technology that has brought amazing advancements to Gen X and the Millennials will be the status-quo for Gen Z- they won't know anything else.

Rapid access to information will become, or already is, the norm. I imagine there are hundreds of students at the University right now that have no idea what a library card catalogue actually looks like, much less how it works.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but that generation will need new skills to deal with this information.

This new generation shouldn't change for us - we should better ourselves and up the ante. Future educators will need to revolutionize the way they dole out and teach students to analyze information.

It's already happening in other parts of society.

In a 2008 study, The Context-Based Research Group found that young people responded better to information that was processed in quick, successive waves. Each wave increasing the level of detail, until a full picture was established. Using that information, several Associated Press branches tailored their style and found a great deal of success.

The writing is on the wall. While it may seem blasphemous to those that still remember the old ways, those ways may need to go the way of the Edsel and Windows ME.

Of course not all areas of education will change completely. Medical doctors will still need to know how to troubleshoot a patient's problems, and scholars will still have to be familiar with the body of work in their area. But the steps leading to those levels of education cannot remain as they are.

Without revolution or innovation we may find ourselves a shallow, under-educated society that has access to all the world's information, but without the capability to use it.

Originally published in The Daily Reveille...