By now we have probably seen the picture and heard the story: New York City police officer buys homeless man a pair of boots. It’s a heartwarming image and story. But last night our local (Albuquerque) news reported that the story continues in interesting ways. Apparently the homeless man is again walking around the city barefoot. When asked why, here’s what the homeless man said (and I’m paraphrasing our local news report): “While I appreciate what the officer did, those boots are worth a lot of money out on the street, so I stashed them. Out on the street, I could be killed for those boots, so it’s safer for me to continue walking barefoot.” When asked about his opinion concerning the “viral” nature of his story out in the blogosphere, the homeless man simply replied, “I sure would like a piece of that pie considering it’s about me and my situation.”
The above story reminded me of a grant our Foundation made back in the late 1990s to the Valencia County Habitat for Humanity (VCHH). VCHH contacted us looking for a grant to put on a Fiscal Responsibility Workshop for those people in Valencia County who receive a Habitat Home. Here’s what was going on. No sooner did many people move into their Habitat Home than there would be a knock at the door. Lenders knocked on the doors of Habitat Homeowners hoping to convert the zero interest loans that Habitat Homeowners enjoyed, to high interest loans. Why? To give the Habitat Homeowner a huge amount of equity in the form of a cash payout. As the executive director of VCHH told me, “Most Habitat Homeowners do not value what mortgages or equity or interest rates or credit ratings can do for them, but they certainly value what cash can do for them.” Sadly, in Valencia County many of the Habitat Homeowners take the cash and end up defaulting on their high interest loans. Then these unscrupulous lenders flip the houses they gain through foreclosure for a considerable profit.
In both cases above the technical solution is easy to discern: shoeless? buy some shoes; homeless? build a home. But most often problems go way beyond the technical. New shoes could actually make a person’s situation worse. A homeless person with new shoes could now be open to predation—being preyed upon by others who covet the value and worth of new shoes. A homeless person with a new home could now also be open to predation—being preyed upon by others (i.e., unscrupulous lenders) who covet the value and worth of a new house. Simply, a technical solution could open up a host of adaptive problems. Ideally both the technical and the adaptive should be looked at when considering a solution. One more quick example.
The following article by Jennifer Wheary caught my attention:
Jobless? Create a job. Not so fast. Wheary argues that some jobs—especially low-wage jobs—can create all manner of adaptive problems. Consider this quote from Wheary’s article from a section entitled A Downward Spiral:
[A] Boston College and UMass study shows that parents earning low wages often cannot meet essential expenses, let alone pay for after-school programs, enrichment activities, or services to support the basic health and well-being of their children. It also finds that, since low-wage jobs often have inflexible schedules, parents working in low-wage jobs are often denied time with their children and therefore miss critical opportunities to encourage and support them.
These harsh realities of low-wage life have important short and long-term consequences. According to the Boston College study, youth in low-wage families are more likely to drop out of school. They also have a greater chance of having health problems like childhood obesity, and they are more likely to bear children at a young age. Living in a low-wage household also robs children of their youth. As parents work long hours for little pay, children are forced to care for themselves or care for younger sibling. As a result, they take on adult roles early, diverting time and attention from their education, extracurricular activities, and social and personal development.
So, as it turns out there are a host of adaptive problems associated with solving the problem of joblessness with the technical solution of a low-wage job. As a student of Bowlbian attachment theory I took note of Wheary’s observation that low-wage jobs are associated with psychological processes that Bowlby railed against: role-reversal and parentification (e.g., essentially turning kids into adults with adult responsibilities). Bowlby (and many of Bowlby’s followers) argued that role-reversal and parentification are closely associated with the development of insecure attachment. Role-reversal and parentification are two psychological processes looked at in detail in the following two books:
Mary Eberstadt’s 2004 book Home-alone America—The Hidden Toll of Day Care, Behavioral Drugs, and Other Parent Substitutes
Kay Hymowitz’s 1999 book Ready or Not: Why Treating Children as Small Adults Endangers Their Future—And Ours
(Contact the Foundation for a copy of my executive summary of Hymowitz’s book.)
One final point from Wheary’s article: “Estimates show that low-wage work is projected to account for two of every three new jobs in the United Staes over the next decade.” I cannot help but think that the predictions economist Jeremy Rifkin presents in his 1995 book The End of Work—The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era (executive summary available), are in fact coming true. What did Rifkin say? The technical solution? Automation. The adaptive problem? A low-wage or no-wage world. But as Wheary points out, the adaptive side of a low- or no-wage world extends into the realm of child development. Bowlby’s contribution? A low- or no-wage world could lead to a no-parent, home-alone world, which, in turn, could lead to such destructive psychological and developmental processes as role-reveral and parentification.
So, all this to say that technical solutions are often privileged—especially in philanthropy—because as far as they go they are quick and easy: new shoes, new home, new low-wage job, automation, etc. But there may be heck to pay when adaptive issues raise their ugly heads: street predation, lender predation, child parentification, The End of Work.
Before I leave, I’d like to briefly return to the homeless man’s request for a “piece of the viral pie.” He raises an interesting issue. Should we be allowed to take pictures or videos and then upload them to social network sites without first getting permission? I often watch the evening news where faces are regularly blurred out, especially the faces of young children. I’m sure this is in part for privacy issues as well as for permission issues. It seems that “blurring protocol” does not apply out in the world of social networks. Should the homeless man get a piece of the viral pie? He provided content, and that content is then used to sell advertising. What about Facebook? Users create content. Where’s their share of the viral pie? Seems like a lot of people are spending a lot of time engaged in no-wage activities (i.e., social networking) that are generating huge sums of money for a select few. I think this homeless man is on to something: divvy up the viral pie so that content creators get their share.
COMMENT: Technical Versus Adaptive Solutions In The News
By now we have probably seen the picture and heard the story: New York City police officer buys homeless man a pair of boots. It’s a heartwarming image and story. But last night our local (Albuquerque) news reported that the story continues in interesting ways. Apparently the homeless man is again walking around the city barefoot. When asked why, here’s what the homeless man said (and I’m paraphrasing our local news report): “While I appreciate what the officer did, those boots are worth a lot of money out on the street, so I stashed them. Out on the street, I could be killed for those boots, so it’s safer for me to continue walking barefoot.” When asked about his opinion concerning the “viral” nature of his story out in the blogosphere, the homeless man simply replied, “I sure would like a piece of that pie considering it’s about me and my situation.”
The above story reminded me of a grant our Foundation made back in the late 1990s to the Valencia County Habitat for Humanity (VCHH). VCHH contacted us looking for a grant to put on a Fiscal Responsibility Workshop for those people in Valencia County who receive a Habitat Home. Here’s what was going on. No sooner did many people move into their Habitat Home than there would be a knock at the door. Lenders knocked on the doors of Habitat Homeowners hoping to convert the zero interest loans that Habitat Homeowners enjoyed, to high interest loans. Why? To give the Habitat Homeowner a huge amount of equity in the form of a cash payout. As the executive director of VCHH told me, “Most Habitat Homeowners do not value what mortgages or equity or interest rates or credit ratings can do for them, but they certainly value what cash can do for them.” Sadly, in Valencia County many of the Habitat Homeowners take the cash and end up defaulting on their high interest loans. Then these unscrupulous lenders flip the houses they gain through foreclosure for a considerable profit.
In both cases above the technical solution is easy to discern: shoeless? buy some shoes; homeless? build a home. But most often problems go way beyond the technical. New shoes could actually make a person’s situation worse. A homeless person with new shoes could now be open to predation—being preyed upon by others who covet the value and worth of new shoes. A homeless person with a new home could now also be open to predation—being preyed upon by others (i.e., unscrupulous lenders) who covet the value and worth of a new house. Simply, a technical solution could open up a host of adaptive problems. Ideally both the technical and the adaptive should be looked at when considering a solution. One more quick example.
The following article by Jennifer Wheary caught my attention:
Low-Wage Jobs Cause More Problems Than They Solve
Jobless? Create a job. Not so fast. Wheary argues that some jobs—especially low-wage jobs—can create all manner of adaptive problems. Consider this quote from Wheary’s article from a section entitled A Downward Spiral:
So, as it turns out there are a host of adaptive problems associated with solving the problem of joblessness with the technical solution of a low-wage job. As a student of Bowlbian attachment theory I took note of Wheary’s observation that low-wage jobs are associated with psychological processes that Bowlby railed against: role-reversal and parentification (e.g., essentially turning kids into adults with adult responsibilities). Bowlby (and many of Bowlby’s followers) argued that role-reversal and parentification are closely associated with the development of insecure attachment. Role-reversal and parentification are two psychological processes looked at in detail in the following two books:
(Contact the Foundation for a copy of my executive summary of Hymowitz’s book.)
One final point from Wheary’s article: “Estimates show that low-wage work is projected to account for two of every three new jobs in the United Staes over the next decade.” I cannot help but think that the predictions economist Jeremy Rifkin presents in his 1995 book The End of Work—The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era (executive summary available), are in fact coming true. What did Rifkin say? The technical solution? Automation. The adaptive problem? A low-wage or no-wage world. But as Wheary points out, the adaptive side of a low- or no-wage world extends into the realm of child development. Bowlby’s contribution? A low- or no-wage world could lead to a no-parent, home-alone world, which, in turn, could lead to such destructive psychological and developmental processes as role-reveral and parentification.
So, all this to say that technical solutions are often privileged—especially in philanthropy—because as far as they go they are quick and easy: new shoes, new home, new low-wage job, automation, etc. But there may be heck to pay when adaptive issues raise their ugly heads: street predation, lender predation, child parentification, The End of Work.
Before I leave, I’d like to briefly return to the homeless man’s request for a “piece of the viral pie.” He raises an interesting issue. Should we be allowed to take pictures or videos and then upload them to social network sites without first getting permission? I often watch the evening news where faces are regularly blurred out, especially the faces of young children. I’m sure this is in part for privacy issues as well as for permission issues. It seems that “blurring protocol” does not apply out in the world of social networks. Should the homeless man get a piece of the viral pie? He provided content, and that content is then used to sell advertising. What about Facebook? Users create content. Where’s their share of the viral pie? Seems like a lot of people are spending a lot of time engaged in no-wage activities (i.e., social networking) that are generating huge sums of money for a select few. I think this homeless man is on to something: divvy up the viral pie so that content creators get their share.