Poverty in America

Subsistence is the Only Choice

Published July 29, 2009 @ 11:00AM PT

Monday's post about the lack of housing affordability for anyone working minimum wage struck a chord with many readers; to date, it's driven the most readers to this blog.  I noticed that after folks read it, they tended to root around in our Actions to see what they could do.  There's a lot of options, but here's a couple suggestions:

  • Join a campaign for a Living Wage;
  • Join a coalition of affordable housing advocates to push for more quality housing for low-income Americans, especially for families, the elderly and the disabled;
  • Fight for welfare "reforms" that count higher education towards work and expand access to subsidized childcare and for longer periods of time.  (There's actually a lot more that could be done, but I'm trying to keep you all focused.)

Talking about poverty day in and day out can get pretty debilitating - I can't imagine how it is for my readers and loved ones who live it everyday.  I'm feeling particularly beat down this morning by the combination of this absolutely horrendous report of the tragic confluence of child poverty, tenant exploitation and substandard housing from New Orleans, as well as the insistence from many readers around the web that minimum wage is generous enough - that if immigrants can get by, why can't we; that it will make teen workers more irresponsible, that it will hurt the businesses too meager or cheap or profit-oriented to even pay benefits.  Bull.  Bull. And more bull.

Commenter Marissa left in comments a link to the graph featured above, which shows that one adult working full-time at minimum wage will never move her family across the federal poverty threshold.* This is meant to demonstrate that for low-income Americans, welfare is a more "rational choice" than working at minimum wage.  In reality, there is no choice: living at a subsistence level is your sentence for being poor in America.

Consider Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), our current cash assistance program for poor mothers.  First of all, it's time-limited to a lifetime maximum of five years.  Second, it requires looking for work and obtaining work in order to retain your benefits, young children at home and/or disabling health be damned.  Degree-granting education is discouraged or out-of-reach.  There are all kinds of penalties for behavioral issues.  Any child support from fathers is taken by the state first as reimbursement for TANF; then the mom may receive the rest.  Currently, countless states are understaffed and overworked, and the length of time to qualify and begin receiving benefits is dangerously long.  Only about 40% of those eligible for benefits actually manage to collect them.  And so on.

Grinding out as many hours as possible at minimum wage may be a healthy parent's only viable option.  If you have any obstacles to working, well, good luck to you.

But this is apparently how we think it should be in the US.  We de-linked minimum wage from inflation in the 1970s, so it hasn't kept up even remotely with the cost of living.  And we're going on 13 years of flushing poor mothers from the welfare rolls and dropping them into cycles of dead-end, low-wage work and unemployment.  And we falsely believe, apparently because we lack any adequate mathematics and economics education in this country, that increasing minimum wage will drive up the cost of living.  Face it people, wages have been declining for decades as the costs of housing, energy and food have risen dramatically.  Paying those holding up the economic ladder for the rest of us is not going to lead to a startling across-the-board cost of living increase.

But you know what will?  Reducing corporate taxes to rates not seen since the early 1980s; funding insane, needless wars of aggression abroad; bailing out banks; and subsidizing mega-developments and corporate plant decisions at the expense of housing, education and services in our communities.

*The graph is somewhat misleading, as it shows one adult working towards the poverty level for a family of four that presumes two adults and two children.  In actuality, two adults working at minimum wage should be able to eek across that threshold, but the reality that two low-income parents can both work full-time while raising dependent children and afford childcare at minimum wage is questionable.

Share this Post

Related Posts

Comments (8)

  1. Jeffrey Hill

    I would rather give a single mother welfare, food stamps, decent public housing, and all of the time in the day to raise her children properly than force her to work at a poorly paying job with no hope of escape from poverty and have strangers at a day care center raise her kids, but I'm in the minority.

      It really is much less costly to assist her in being a good mother than to warehouse her grown children in a counterproductive prison setting later on, but there are many mean-spiritted, hateful, bigotted people who want to punish women who have children out of wedlock and who inadvertently punish the children at the same time while allowing the deadbeat father to shirk his responsibility. 

    Posted by Jeffrey Hill on 07/29/2009 @ 12:12PM PT

  2. Danetta Amschler

    What I'm starting to think it's going to take is outside intervention.  Intervention to get across the point that such longstanding failure to address the problems you mentioned and closely related ones (like health care) are what they really are in all too many cases - HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES.  I'd love to see this addressed internally but as you've noted yourself, it's as if cries fall on deaf ears - of if the ears can hear, the responses are snotty (like get your own damn job, then get your own damn food and your own damn housing - as if it were that simple and as if the typically available jobs really did pay what's necessary and/or everyone really CAN work).  And yes, this is one of those times where I'm sitting at home rolling my eyes.

    All that's needed, all we'd have to do to AVOID outside intervention is a handful of things - but they're things that, quite frankly are both low on list of political importance and generally also on lists of political expedience.  The first would be to flat out tank the Federal Poverty Line we have now;  admit that Mollie Orshansky's report was very, horribly, badly flawed and that as a result for over 40 years we've beyond inadequately funded our "assistance" programs, written inappropriate guidelines for them and inappropriately funded them all because we had a hideously mistaken idea of what poverty was that grossly underestimated it.  The next would be to figure out what poverty IS in this country since it's NOT correctly estimated by the FPL as based in Mollie Orshansky's report - which is almost certainly going to have to include some regional indexing since things like food and housing costs vary from one area to another and sometimes by quite a bit.  The third would be to develop guidelines for some assistance programs that really DO assist people - and without forcing them into absolute abject poverty just to get something that pretends to be help (like some states' current versions of MNP Medicaid, where they even have that any more or have it in a way you can actually GET it).  Fourth, from food to housing to medical assistance we have to fund all programs adequately so that they can help all who need help - which means that we can't continue playing word games to pretend people don't need help (like that a person isn't homeless if they sleep in a car) and we can't legalize discrimination in the aid programs (like pretending adults don't need toilet paper and dish soap so that we can deny them cash aid even when the only adult or all adults in the household are elderly and/or disabled).  Finally, we need to make these things exempt from budget cuts so things like what the Governator just did by line item veto and by his budet bullying in CA can't be done to take an ax to the assistance programs' budgets and cut aid for the needy - budgets shouldn't be "solved" or "balanced" on the backs of the neediest and the helpless...even if it means raising fees and taxes...there's got to be a guaranteed minimum level of services and funding absolutely, positively no matter what and that must be indexed to things like inflation and cost of living (which also needs to be fixed so it reflects all costs like food - since some important things are left out of its figures).

    You're right about one thing, it's a lot harder to live it than to watch poverty and talk about it.  I swore growing up I'd never come back to this and every day I remember why.  There's nothing as miserable as having to worry daily about whether or not you can keep your bills paid, if you'll have enough food (even crap food), if your health can hold out with or without docs, if you can keep housing, praying that the rent won't go up again, that the car won't need repairs, etc.  After a while that sucks your soul out or at least tries its damnedest to do so.  You've got to be quite a fighter to survive poverty and quite the optimist too if you want to survive it without becoming overtly bitter. 

    Have you read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle?  While we've upgraded a few labor, meat processing and food laws, how people in poverty are treated - ultimately - isn't all that different even now.  At least not that I can see from here.  Might be different groups and ethnicities, but the societal attitudes are frighteningly similar.

    Posted by Danetta Amschler on 07/29/2009 @ 12:42PM PT

  3. Leigh Graham

    I was assigned it in high school when we spent some time studying the Progressive Era and it really depressed me.  So much so that I hated it because I was too young to really understand what I was feeling, which was moral outrage.  Instead I was just pissed at the book and my soc studies teacher for making me feel so bad about the plight of all these immigrants toiling in factories and living in tenements.

    Funny to recall that now...

    Posted by Leigh Graham on 07/29/2009 @ 12:49PM PT

    • Report close

      You must be signed in to report content.

    • 2 people like this comment.   Like
  4. Danetta Amschler

    Having finally read it, I can see why they only mentioned it in passing at my high school.  I'm thinking that if too many students actually READ it and then went home and said anything to their parents... Well, the potential for stuff things people (certain ones at least) didn't want was too high, and esp. considering that I started high school not very long after things really quited down from the UFW strikes.  It wasn't just farm town, but in Central California during that era.

    Posted by Danetta Amschler on 07/29/2009 @ 01:10PM PT

    • Report close

      You must be signed in to report content.

    • 1 person likes this comment.   Like
  5. Reply to thread
  6. jan Lightfootlane

    The Magazine called the progressive put out an 100the anniversity issue which high lighted a few stories from past years. The nouns has changed but not the actions Instead of fighting the wobbleys, with clubs, Labor Unions are being knuckled under to accept less pay.

    I am glad to hear people talking about our human rights. As the right to make a livable wage.

    I would love to hear authors understand that the FPL is a Joke it only includes food costs. There are more than 120 million people that do not make enough to pay for life's basics. They are told $12.00 an hour for a coffee manager is a good wage.  Yet even by the think tanks own low numbers they fall short  $5.50 each hour.  

    Leigh you are doing a good job. We need people to call for the end of all poverty TODAY.

    Posted by jan Lightfootlane on 07/29/2009 @ 01:41PM PT

  7. Danetta Amschler

    $12.00 won't cut it, not unless you're still ignoring housing or talking about providing assistance with it.  The wages I've had in my lifetime that allowed me to live without worry AND pay rent were when I had REAL employment (meaning I wasn't a "contractor") and I was making at least $18/hour.  Living comfortably was more like at least $20.  Though I'll give you that when working, I've generally lived up and down the west coast, so the wage might not need to be quite so much in a state away from the coast.  Then too, I've always HAD to carry the insurance and HAD to use it - which upped my PERSONAL cost of living.

    Posted by Danetta Amschler on 07/29/2009 @ 04:33PM PT

    • Report close

      You must be signed in to report content.

    • 1 person likes this comment.   Like
  8. Reply to thread
  9. jan Lightfootlane

    Why aren't others posting there thought on this topic, we should call a friend and give this site. I think I will email a friend who for the past decade lives in So, Korera She gives a dam.

    I have also posted at the site talking about HUD  I learned these facts at a poverty conference in Louisville Kentucky this month.  It went like this

    I am delighted that your are giving some of the real facts about vouchers.  As someone unpaid but immersed in the homeless field I hear about people unable to pay the deposit, now required to utilize a voucher.  And even Bad credit checks making people ineligible for the program. Walk 5 miles in our sures WE ARE UNDERPAID, that is why we have no, or bad credit!   These are unneeded "Barriers".

    Other unneeded BARRIERS are the number of vouchers dropping. The count of available vouchers relay upon whether the government spends 84 Billion on housing,  or under 30 Billion.

    In 2000, the HUD  funding dipped to 25 billion. it then rose and leveled off under 30 billion a year under Bush.  Between 1976 and 1980 HUD rose from 58 billion, to about 84 billion. with steep drops after that. From Chart 3: HUD Budget Authority and McKinney Homeless Assistance funding.

    Around 2006 the Mc Kinney funding nearly reached 1 billion

     In 2005 only 1.5% of America's outlays were spent on HUD.

    from The Executive Office of the President,Office of Management and Budget 2006 & 2007.

    Most Americans are not aware of HUD Funding rates. As far as I can tell this figures and charts, were composed by HUD themselves.

    Posted by jan Lightfootlane on 07/30/2009 @ 02:57PM PT

  10. Danetta Amschler

    That's a good point about credit.  How can you build credit in a low income bracket?  Expense to income - including your debts - alone is enough to disqualify you from good credit even if you've NEVER missed a payment in your life and never more than once or twice made a late payment and when you did it was never more than just late enough to get to say so.  The way credit - good credit especially - is figured is flat out discrminatory against anyone making a lower income.  It's going to be awfully flipping difficult for anyone who's in a lower income bracket to make it much past the edge of poor into fair/good according to the financial advisors to whom I've spoken - and that's with good payment history and minimal debt.  It's ENTIRELY because of how expenses to income and debt to income are weighted.  So how in the blue blazes are they expecting to find low income tenants - especially in the brackets where you'd qualify for HUD help - with GOOD credit?  Good rental history I could see.  But good credit is asking a bit much and a full deposit in advance is going way over the edge considering that for most in this income range you're talking a month to two month's income.  Why doesn't HUD just admit that they don't want to help anyone?

    Posted by Danetta Amschler on 07/30/2009 @ 04:54PM PT

    • Report close

      You must be signed in to report content.

    • 2 people like this comment.   Like
  11. Reply to thread

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author

Twitter Feed

Leigh Graham

Leigh is a PhD candidate in urban planning at MIT, and a consultant on U.S. Gulf Coast recovery. She sits on the Board of the Allston-Brighton Community Development Corporation in Boston, and has worked with non-profits, foundations and local governments on policies and programs aimed at reducing urban poverty and inequality.

close

This user's Profile page is not public. They have restricted it to only their friends.

Already a Member?

Create an Account

You must create a Change.org account to complete this action.
If you already have an account click here.