This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Social Work Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Social Work on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Social WorkWikipedia:WikiProject Social WorkTemplate:WikiProject Social WorkSocial work Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 15 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blankebl2019.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gmcki1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. This is a bit of a mess.

I removed the mention and link to Proudhon from the part on right-wing welfare-dependency criticisms: the Proudhon linked to was the painter Pierre Proudhon, rather than the anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, which can't be right. I don't know what P-J Proudhon thought about welfare dependency, but mentioning him in the same breath as right-wingers is rather misleading.

Hmm, thanks for checking. I don't know why I didn't check it earlier. However, we're left stuck with weasel words - where we say "some" and "critics", without clearly identifying them. Better than wrongly identifying them, I suppose. Do you know of a solution? Thanks for contributing! -- Natalinasmpf 18:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vicous cycle section was soo poorly written so heavily pov, it was a nasty mess. I tried to edit it in such a way as to remove pov and place it into the causes section, but it was just so horriblly written and so pov slaughtered it wouldnt even fit. (Gibby 18:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

I think the page looks much cleaner and much more npov than before. I hope you all agree (Gibby 18:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

I agree, Gibby, which is why I went ahead and took the initiative to discharge this page from the ICU. CopaceticThought (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of neutrality, I think this page needs more of the right-wing views rather than just left-wing and neo-libertarian views. Simply because this would cirtainly make it neutral. Also I'm sure the changing nature of the views on causes of poverty over time would be a good addition.

What exactly do you mean "extralegal" and "legal" markets in terms of excessive intervention by the state? I assume when the state overregulates the market as you say, it becomes extralegal becomes it effectively becomes unfair for the poor, if I get the grammar? It wasn't explicitly elaborated so this is rather ambiguous. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

extralegal means outside of legality, aka blackmarket. An extralegal market is a market where government regulation does not exist because regulation in the legal market is so burdonsome even people who want to abide by the law cannot afford to. Operating in a extralegal market is generally very risky, sometimes unprofitable, and always extremely difficult to expand a buisness without attracting attention. Wealth creation is thus highly limited. Since the poor are almost always operating exclusivly in extralegal markets its easy to say that government overregulation helps to sustains their poverty. Its also easier to note that the rich are almost always able to overcome regulatory costs and thus can afford to abide by the law and thus benefit greatly by legal protection while building wealth. (Gibby 06:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC))

Fine, I will elaborate. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KDRGibby has recently gone around adding large chunks of text of criticising any alternative to market economics and labelling them one and the same, ie. it's the same as planned economics, it's the same as Marxism/communism in a new form (despite the fact that implementations of communism in itself, never mind socialism or progressive reform varies widely with many different schools), etc. This has happened on participatory economics as well as gift economy. I think that such generalised criticism against all market alternatives is not relevant in this article (it may be so in another article) and should be removed, as it is not concise nor does it deal with the point directly, and violates NPOV for undue weight (it's already on his biography, and we can link a paragraph about his views, and only for alternatives in general, not every alternative economy). I therefore think KDRGibby's recent additions should be removed. Please note that he has a current RFAr concerning his behaviour.Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

naturally your too lazy to argue against legit criticism. I disagree with you, its not pov because its the views of published nobel prizing winning freaking economists...stop bending the rules to fit your needs. And again, cut the bullshit about my views, your a freaking anarcho communist constantly posting on pages criticizing capitalism and you even mention it dozens of times...this is what we call a hypocritical statement. Cut it out. (Gibby 06:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

I just wonder why the blame isn't put on the individual? The individual if they are making less then x amount of dollars and are so poor then they should have no problem relocating to an area in which can they create more oppotunities for themselves? Does anyone believe in self motivation or ownership of one's life? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.152.97.130 (talk • contribs) .

The cycle of poverty is just one of many factors in the environment. The individual may or may not be the cause of the entire thing - but note that a bad attitude can also be more common in property purely because of bad educational environments. John Riemann Soong 03:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should they have no problem in relocating? It's very difficult to relocate, and escpecially when you have very little money. When there is high unemployment there is very little incentive to stay in school because people feel it will not help them in finding work. If the job a person is likely to recieve is menial with very little likelihood of promotion, what incentive is there to stay in school?

Self motivation and ownership of one's life only goes so far. Not everyone who is motivated and hard working will make it or can make it for that matter. There are many jobs on the bottom rungs and very few nearer the top, so that everyone cannot make it. Our captialist system relies on there being many people on the bottom to support those on the top.

At present, there are zero sources for this article. Mdbrownmsw 20:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess.

I just noted the complete lack of sources. From the bias in this article, it would seem the only sources that have anything to say about the "Cycle of poverty" are "the Left" (who are wrong), Milton Friedman and the anarchists.

In the brief discussion of "Solutions", we are told, point blank, what is needed, but is not being done: "In many places the rule of law also needs to be strengthened, by creating efficient legal systems that protect the acquired capital of the poor."

Then we get two paragraph starting "The famous Hills v. Gautreaux case in Chicago..." and "More radical theorists, like anarchist..." presenting socio-anarchist arguments for the only way to solve the Cycle of poverty.

The section titled "Implication and criticism of solutions" is as long as the section "Solutions" and contains such gems as "Anarchists recognize the problem..." (meaning "Anarchists see what others do not..."). There's also the section arguing for revolutionary socialism, currently semi-disguised as a conter-argument to an unpresented view from "those on the political Left".

The section "Advocation of privatization" presents the longest single section of the article, telling us a whole lot about Milton Friedman and his views on public education, in this article on... uh, wait, oh, yeah, the cycle of poverty.

Throughout, the pattern is as follows:

1) "The Left" is responsible for all current attempts. All current attempts are failing.

2) Milton Friedman can tell us why all current attempts are failing: too much government intervention.

3) There is only one possible alternative: Anarchist's deregulized approach.

Theoretically, a political "Left" implies a political "Right". At present, the "Right" seems to be wholly uninvolved in this topic ("paging Mr. Reagan, Mr. Ronald Reagan..."). There are two choices: "the Left" (i.e. failure) and anarchism. Mdbrownmsw 20:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know who Milton Friedman is (or was, for that matter)? I agree that this article is a mess, but I wouldn't say the right has been left out. Also, many of these "left wing" solutions are not very extreme, yet the article almost seems to equate them with communism. I think "left wing" has a negative tone and should be replaced with something else (liberal?). Back to Mr. Friedman, someone should change all mentionings of him to past tense (i.e. "believed" instead of "believes") seeing as he's dead now.. -km

Eight months later, and still no sources. This "article" is an unbalanced mess.

"There are many different and distinct political camps..." Apparently, those many different camps are: 1) the neoliberals."Left wing" (I've just renamed them "liberal") and 2) free-market/libertarians.

As there are no sources, we get such inclusions such as: - "has been described" (by whom?) - "it occurs because" (says who?) - numerous cases of probable improper synthesis: A leads to B leads to C leads to D leads to... (example: "This effect leads to a technology shortage, which can in turn lead to low production, and thus...") - "More liberal politicians tend to argue..." - "Free market proponents such as libertarians may argue" - "is thought by many" And so on. Essentially, this article reads like a mid-term essay: Here's a synthesis of what I think I know about the subject, with a few names credited for general theories. (Usually, the source is Friedman, obliquely cited 6 times, the only two others are mentioned once each.) There is nothing verifiable here.

The article has several examples of beliefs stated as facts: - "In many places the rule of law also needs to be strengthened..." - "Left to themselves, the poor cannot get out of poverty; they are trapped in the cycle." - "reformists forget that keeping people in poverty may be a deliberate policy of the ruling class or elite, and that "do-gooder" interventions aiming to improve the lot of the poor might actually have the effect of making their problems, or those of other people, worse, not better." (Yes, the beginning gives weak attribution, but it's quickly lost.) - "It is argued that the poor must show the will to fight poverty, and improve their lot, through becoming aware and controlling their future." - "From their own unskilled labor, persons may spend or save as they wish and along the way build wealth. Whether or not they use this wealth to purchase an education and or build skills to improve income is their own business." - The whole "Further reading" (ha!) section, starting with "A useful starter to the modern debates is:" Gee, maybe they are, but that's not verifiable. Notable that the three books are not cited in the article. In fact, the authors of those books aren't cited or even mentioned. Are Jeffrey Sachs and William Easterly just authors of broad surveys on poverty, with no real theories of their own?

For the moment, I'm not changing much here. Unless I can find some reasonably reliable sources, I'm going to start hacking away all of the unsourced and one-sided stuff, leaving a stub or a redirect to Poverty Reduction. Mdbrownmsw 17:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a life shocks section. I was surpised it wasn't included, considering how obvious it is. In any case, there's research to support it, and criticism of how obvious the research is, and it's all included in the new section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.115.168 (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is crazy!! when they say that divorce levels are high or whatever it doesn't mean that because a child is living with only one guardian or has a single parent that they will be living in poverty. children can be living in perfectly capable homes that don't have any issues with poverty and they can have solo parents or guardians. the wording in that section wasn't good for the context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.185.84 (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cycle of poverty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090626031730/http://www.hcz.org/programs/the-hcz-project to http://hcz.org/programs/the-hcz-project

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cycle of poverty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928055320/http://www.lisproject.org/publications/liswps/188.pdf to http://www.lisproject.org/publications/liswps/188.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hcz.org/programs/the-hcz-project

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will be making some edits on this page in the upcoming week. I am wondering your thoughts on adding information from these sources:

Public Education Funding Inequity in an Era of Increasing Concentration of Poverty and Resegregation by The United States Commission on Civil Rights https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/2018-01-10-Education-Inequity.pdf

Gorski, Paul. Reaching and Teaching Students in Poverty : Strategies for Erasing the Opportunity Gap. Teachers College Press, 2013. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat04202a&AN=ucb.b20762039&site=eds-liv — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Mehayla (talk • contribs) 23:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

Reading your concerns regarding this page it seems that there is a consensus that this is a mess of an article. I am hoping to help in the organization of the article as well as to fill in missing sources for the education sections.

Firstly, I am wondering what are your thoughts are on possibly renaming the 'family background' section to something like 'systemic perpetuation'. That way it could lead to future development on healthcare, policies that contribute, and more that are not included in this article as of now. I also think the causes of the cycle could be changed as there are particular causes for each cycle. I think how these sections have been named is what has lead to a lot of the article's disorganization.

Second, I notice a large concern is providing less biased sources on these issues. If anyone has more right-wing authors that are speaking of the poverty cycle and education please feel free to reach out to me. Otherwise, I will try my best to seek them.

I look forward to working with you all. 1Mehayla (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ParrTiff (article contribs).

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2022 and 1 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ehudson9 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ehudson9 (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why migration as reason of the povery is not mentioned? IMO its impact substential on wellbeing of individuals (behind lack of access to resources of course) that may give a start to the poverty cycle. I suggest we highlight this issue. There are papers on that, e.g. Migration and Poverty (Linkages, Knowledge Gaps and Policy Implications), [1] etc. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to see more substantial discussion of a single parent. Fatherless familes are more likely to force children into extremel poverty. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]