I like your link and it aligns with my proposal. Read it again carefully, it is a good analysis. I did not say "get a job", I said getting a job is the primary way to reduce poverty.

I noted that, more than getting a job, the goal is to get the person into a program that works to prepare them to advance up the career ladder. Specifically, I wrote...

"The next level of the program is to get you on a "career ladder". I noted Germany's education system insures people have the skills to earn a good living. We need to emulate that at some level.

Your link confirms this...

"Over the long term, the most successful programs supported efforts to boost the education and skills of those subject to work requirements, rather than simply requiring them to search for work or find a job "

Your link went on to say...

"Too many disadvantaged individuals want to work but can’t find jobs for reasons that work requirements don’t solve: they lack the skills or work experience that employers want, they lack childcare assistance, they lack the social connections that would help them identify job openings and get hired, or they have criminal records or have other personal challenges that keep employers from hiring them."

I agree with this also... a reason, I support the Medicaid expansion portion of the ACA is to help people transition back into the work force without losing health benefits. I also support enhanced childcare benefits for single moms, single dads, or both parents work full time jobs.

I also noted that during Trump's presidency... "the unemployment rate got so low, that companies were hiring people they normally wouldn't hire and training them including high school dropouts and felons." We need training programs to fix the failure of our public-school system to produce adults capable of earning a decent wage.

You are correct, the answer is not just telling people to "get a job" but rather facilitating them to get a job and then support their career growth.

Here is another statistic for you, 90% of young people living in poverty and working a full-time job transition out of it within 10 years. It should be 100% and it should be less than 5 years.

The point is the only way to effectively address poverty is with a job. There is no other way, that works, no matter how appealing on paper it might appear.

Regarding government addressing poverty. First, poverty is defined differently in every country, but an attempt to normalize the differences to do comparisons highlighted that:

Countries like Canada and Norway which are resource rich and have small populations do support their poor better than the US. But they don't need to tax people to do so, they tax resources.

Meanwhile, most European countries when you do apples to apples comparisons have higher poverty rates to the US tied to their higher unemployment rates. Again, pointing to the importance of jobs in reducing poverty. Another predictor of poverty is the size of the elderly population. Which presents a different issue. Historically, children cared for their parents in extended family settings, but the movement toward independent living has created a massive increase in funding needed to support that and there are too many competing demands for social spending to support it.

Attempts to tax the rich have proven largely ineffective. They are simply too good at shifting their money where it can't be taxed.

France tried with a millionaire's tax, only to see their millionaires flee and government tax revenues get hammered. Other countries have tried to tax the wealth of people fleeing, that just causes them to leave and never return. There are plenty of countries offering "wealth asylum" and no taxes, if you bring your wealth with you.

That is why European countries rely on a huge VAT tax (sales tax) of almost 20% to fund their social programs. The income rates in Europe are lower than the US, when you factor in state income taxes. But the European middle class takes it on the chin because of that. When you adjust for the relative cost of living in Germany (the largest economy in Europe), the purchasing power of the average citizen equates to that of a resident in Mississippi (48th in the US).

So, heavy government taxation produces higher unemployment that leads to more poverty requiring high taxes that lowers the purchasing power of citizens. Not a good deal.

It is natural to want "government to fix things". But at the end of the day, the more stuff people make the better off on average people are. Making stuff is a function of people working and productivity. Investing in productivity does including training people not only lifts them out of poverty but once the initial training is over, turns them into people supporting the system.

A country is nothing more than a super large family. You cannot raise the standard of living of the family without increasing the income of the family. Sure, you take money away from some of the family to support other members, but when you try to take the money away from the family members earning the money without their permission, well let's say it ends badly.