Many of the costs of poverty are sociological rather than narrowly economic per se

Many of the costs of poverty are sociological rather than narrowly economic per se.

That's the always insightful Tyler Cowen over at marginalrevolution. Definitely worth a read.

Observing that:
- 60% of Utah belongs to the church of LDS and has the lowest child poverty rate in the country
- The poorest community in the United States, in terms of measured income, is mostly Hasidic Jews (1/20)

He notes that:

A political conservative is more likely to make this point than to simply focus on the lack of money earned by the poor. A political liberal is more likely to assume that the rate of strict religiosity can rise only so high, and take that as a background constraint.

He's quick to point out tho that religion is a viable solution yes, but not a viable policy.

It's an example of his fallacy of mood affiliation

For this reason, liberals sometimes underrate the conservative point, because they do not like its political implications, and this leads liberals to misunderstand poverty. The conservatives end up misunderstanding poverty policy. Almost everyone ends up a little screwy and off-base on this issue