Why not distinguish between lifestyle problems and catastrophe problems?

Lifestyle poverty comes about when people don’t do four things: Stay sober, stay in school at least through high school graduation, stay out of bed in situations likely to lead to pregnancy or abortion, and stay with a job even if it lacks thrills. When people don’t follow these basics, the result is often alcoholism and addiction, single parenting, and lack of the skills or perseverance needed to get and hold a job.

Lifestyle poverty arises out of messy lives, and sending a government check does nothing to clean up the mess. That’s different from catastrophe poverty: A plant closes, a person is injured, or—right now—a person is laid off when recession begins and doesn’t get new opportunities, as economic blight drags on year after year.

Catastrophe poverty is not like lifestyle poverty. Those who suffer through catastrophe poverty are often work-oriented. They have not fallen into joblessness: Situations beyond their control have pushed them into it. They may need financial help to bridge the gap until they are ready and able to work again, but their values do not need realignment.

With lifestyle poverty, though, a government check can hurt rather than help, because it may just further a non-work psychology. Those sunk into lifestyle poverty need challenging, personal, and spiritual help, rather than cold, enabling, entitling, by-the-numbers bureaucratic aid. We should not treat them the way we treat pet dogs: In the morning put some food and water in their bowls, and in the evening take them out for walks.