More Reactions to Poverty Series

Your section on the poverty crisis in Los Angeles is excellent. Not only is it well reported, but it is the most important subject pertaining to the future for all of us in Southern California.

The broader community needs to focus on the education issue in particular. The problems of LAUSD notwithstanding, the challenge all K-12 educators throughout Southern California face is overwhelming without broad community support.

Education has always been valuable, but in the Information Age, it is essential. With our schools crumbling right at the dawn of the information age, an entire generation (and our region) may be put at risk. I hope you can develop an article on “looking for answers.”

D. RANDALL BARTH

CEO, National Management

Chairman, T.H.I.N.K. Together

—

As Jesus said, “You will always have the poor among you.” Unfortunately, the questions of how many and why are further muddled by your series on poverty in L.A.

The myth of a vast, permanent underclass is perpetuated by those who champion big government (meaning taking your money and spending it on someone else). The vast majority of people categorized at any time in the bottom 20 percent income level leave that category within a decade. Only 3 percent of them are still “poor” within eight years. Indeed, more of them rise to the top 20 percent income level than remain in the bottom 20 percent. Most Americans classified below the official (and very artificial) poverty level have their own color TVs, VCRs, microwaves and other “necessities” that would elevate them to the middle classes in nearly every other country.

To quote from syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell, a non-poor black man: “Karl Marx was poor in that sense, and his family sometimes suffered hunger and other very real deprivations, even though Marx’s known sources of income were sufficient for them to have lived a lot better He spent money like a teen-ager all his life, frittering away inheritances on self-indulgences, and then got angry at bill collectors

“Nothing is going to stop that kind of poverty.”

MARK LANDSBAUM

Landmark Communications

Diamond Bar

Thank you for your series on the poverty crisis in L.A. Considering your demographics, it is about time that the well-to-do in this city who have maids, gardeners, cooks, own restaurants and other businesses that utilize the low/non-skilled workforce see the consequences of their exploitation.

The entire economy at the same time benefits and suffers from it. The benefits are obvious: lower costs for the maid, janitor, gardener, nail lady. But at the same time, we all pay in terms of increased costs in welfare, crime, and medical insurance for the uninsured.

Your article rightly pointed out that the tremendous influx of immigrants competing for jobs drives down wages. But I would also suggest that the natural increase/high birth rate of this immigrant class self-perpetuates the poverty. They create their own poverty by having more children than they can support, and the responsibilities of child care and “bringing home the bacon” interfere with opportunities for higher education.

In some circles it is considered an elitist or racist comment to suggest that economics should determine who can procreate, but in the absence of a societal safety net, the realities of one’s own pocketbook would be the determinant. Furthermore, if an immigrant mom has four or five kids to feed and works three jobs to make ends meet, when is there time to seek a higher education? And a schedule involving two or three low-skilled jobs and classes at school is not easily accomplished when one does not own an automobile in Los Angeles.

Of course the other issue not discussed but quite obvious is the fact that the U.S. government is not effective in controlling the influx of low-skilled, often-illegal immigrants to Los Angeles.

MICHELE GALASSI

Graduate Student, Urban Geography

Cal State Los Angeles

Dot-Com Mania

Let’s have a dose of reality here. E-commerce retail, with its low barriers to entry, is a fool’s game. To think that one “dot-com” company is going to hog the lion’s share of the market is ridiculous.

More important, companies in the real world must provide a reasonable return on investment. At a minimum, this means turning a profit. Other than porn sites, none of the high-cap Internet companies can make that claim. In the real world, where all of us live our lives, businesses are judged on their P & L; statements and their P/E ratios. What god of commerce decided to exempt the Internet stocks from the rational and legitimate rules that we all must follow in our household finances and in the governance of our companies?

The stratospheric valuations these companies are receiving is speculation-driven. Which of you wishes to be that poor, dumb sucker left holding the bag at the end of the game? C’mon everybody, this is a pyramid scheme if ever there was one! These valuations are clearly unrealistic and improbable, not based upon the cold, sober realities that real business must operate under.

For every Internet company that is overvalued, there’s at least one real company that is undervalued. When you see the lemmings all running together, it’s a good bet that you should run in the opposite direction. The real bargains to buy today are the non-Internet stocks. When the roof caves in, you’ll be the “smart ones.”

EDWARD J.A. POPE

President, MATECH Advanced Materials

Westlake Village