Matthew Desmond has a very odd op-ed in the New York Times today. His topic is the lack of improvement in poverty despite 50 years of effort:
What accounts for this lack of progress? It cannot be chalked up to how the poor are counted: Different measures spit out the same embarrassing result. When the government began reporting the Supplemental Poverty Measure in 2011, designed to overcome many of the flaws of the Official Poverty Measure, including not accounting for regional differences in costs of living and government benefits, the United States officially gained three million more poor people.
....A fair amount of government aid earmarked for the poor never reaches them. But this does not fully solve the puzzle of why poverty has been so stubbornly persistent, because many of the country’s largest social-welfare programs distribute funds directly to people. Roughly 85 percent of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program budget is dedicated to funding food stamps themselves, and almost 93 percent of Medicaid dollars flow directly to beneficiaries.
Desmond is perplexed that social welfare programs distribute money to the poor but somehow poverty doesn't go down. And that is indeed perplexing.
Or it would be, anyway, if Desmond were using a measure of poverty that accounts for social welfare programs. But he's not. Here's what happens when you do that:
This comes from Columbia University's Center on Poverty and Social Policy, which calculates historical poverty using several different measures. This one is the Supplemental Poverty Measure Desmond mentions, but counting social welfare benefits and then adjusting for inflation. When you do that, you find that poverty has dropped from 19% at the start of the Reagan era to 8% today. Child poverty has dropped even more dramatically.
One of the things that's baffled me for a long time is why liberals are so resistant to the idea that social welfare benefits have helped people. We're the ones who fight for them! Shouldn't we be thrilled to see evidence that they've lifted millions of families out of poverty?
Instead I mostly see complaints about how our "tattered" safety net and our "fragile" benefit structure are being constantly slashed by Republicans. But this isn't true. Our safety net has been steadily improving for many decades, and Republicans—to their chagrin—are routinely unable to shred it the way they'd like to. Partly this is because Democrats fight them and partly it's because aid to the poor is surprisingly popular.
I have issues with the way we handle poverty, though they revolve as much around the complexity and randomness of our programs as they do around the amount we spend. Regardless, there's not much question that programs to help the poor have been one of the great triumphs of the progressive movement over the past half century. Why are we so reluctant to brag about it?
"Why are we so reluctant to brag about it?"
Because most of the "we" are unaware of the detail points you made here, and they only know what they read in the newspapers and see on TV, sources that don't have a clue about such details.
Google paid 99 dollars an hour on the internet. Everything I did was basic Οnline w0rk from comfort at hΟme for 5-7 hours per day that I g0t from this office I f0und over the web and they paid me 100 dollars each hour. For more details
visit this article... https://createmaxwealth.blogspot.com
Last weekend, I went to see Bernie Sanders on his current book tour (he has a new book out). I have always found Sanders to be an odd set of contradictions, and as such I have never counted myself among his supporters. But I figured I would take the opportunity to approach his in-person event with an open mind (and, in fact, it was the first time I saw him in person).
I was not terribly surprised, however, to come away disappointed. This point from Kevin largely describes my experience at that event:
"One of the things that's baffled me for a long time is why liberals are so resistant to the idea that social welfare benefits have helped people. We're the ones who fight for them! Shouldn't we be thrilled to see evidence that they've lifted millions of families out of poverty?"
I'm not certain Sanders considers himself a "Liberal" (at one point, he made one of his typically scornful statements about Liberals and moderates). It might be more accurate to describe him as a Leftist, but, in that case, the above observation from Kevin is even more applicable.
Sanders commented that we have more people without healthcare than ever before. There was no mention of ObamaCare bringing down the number of uninsured over the last decade (in fact, there were no explicit mentions of Obama or his presidency at all). Sanders also commented that economic inequality in our country is at all time highs that have never been seen before in our history. But, if I am not mistaken, levels of economic inequality in the USA have in fact been decreasing.
Yet the crowd (which clearly seemed filled with Sanders supporters) loved his talk. From start to finish, there were nonstop shouts and screams of approval as if we were at a rock concert. And I can only imagine that the response would have been quite a bit more tepid if Sanders had tried to assert that our reality is in fact complicated but that there are some incremental signs of improvement and we should probably be happy about them. I really can't imagine many shouts of approval for a talk like that.
Switching from economics to questions of race, John McWhorter brings up similar issues in a recent column. Whereas we have Sanders disinclined to acknowledge any positive news on the socio-economic front, McWhorter points out the disinclination of "anti-racists" to acknowledge any progress (or even the possibility of progress) in race relations. Leftists are gonna Leftist.
And in a recent Atlantic article, George Packer refers to these sorts of trends as historical fatalism. The historical fatalists, in his view, aren't actually interested in fact-based analysis, they're interested in asserting their own preferred myths. And some personality types simply seem as inevitably drawn to disillusionment as others are drawn to optimism.
Bernie self-identifies as a socialist. That didn't stop the Bernie bros from claiming it was a slur anytime anyone called him a socialist.
Inequality if really high--it jumped a lot under Trump, then the pandemic, and the policies passed to minimize effect on the economy, lessened inequality a bit. But stock market is back up a bit and those policies are ending. That's why Biden's priorities are in the right place, and Bernie's comments about inequality are justified.
I have issues with Bernie too, but not his comments about the problem of income inequality.
Many people are resistant to the idea that helping the poor is anything more than throwing money down a rathole. In fact, helping the poor helps all of us in many ways.
"What you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me"
IF that was only believed by major religious groups.
There's a simple explanation for this. Nobody looks at their position in life on an absolute scale. Everyone compares themselves and others to people they see and learn about, often via social media these days. The poor person today who has some healthcare, more food, and maybe a better position in the world than they would have had 40 years ago never thinks of it that way. It is the relevant position of today we all observe. When you're at the bottom of the ladder you don't think to yourself how much nicer you're living than people in the past in your position.
It doesn't do much good to brag about it when "even the liberal New York Times" regurgitates GOP talking points without pointing out that they are bullshit artists. It is pretty darn clear that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, nutritional assistance, and the child tax credit are among the most successful programs ever invented for "ordinary working Americans". However the NYT will feel obligated to give prominent space the the GOP rebuttal that Biden's plan to improve and extend these programs are somehow detrimental to workers when it is obvious that their real concern is that it is somewhat detrimental to very wealthy people.
By the way, 50% of the poor in this country are losing the fundamental right to manage their own bodies and healthcare as they see fit. Don't tell them how much better off they are.
No, that's not true - it's no where near 50% (I assume we are talking about abortion) as a fair number of states are retaining a liberal abortion set of laws.
“The majority of salaried General Motors workers were offered a voluntary buyout by the automotive company on Thursday, March 9.
Michigan makes up roughly 60% of GM’s overall salaried workforce. From global headquarters at the Renaissance Center in Detroit to the tool and die fabrication in Flint, there are 35,000 salaried workers in Michigan across 25 facilities and offices.
General Motors offered all U.S. salaried employees with at least five years of service and all global executives with at least two years of service a voluntary separation package.”
Here comes the recession.
All through American history wages kept up with productivity, or GDP/capita, until the seventies. After WW II inequality was definitely decreasing. But then real wages stagnated - or actually went down for decades before turning up at a rate which still does not keep up with productivity. Real wages for production workers are still lower than what they were in 1974:
https://skeptometrics.org/BLS_B8_Min_Pov.png
During the Great Society, it was thought that the War on Poverty would soon be won, and that welfare measures that were passed would not be needed in the future. But what happened was that private enterprise ceased to reward work by other than those at the top of the scale. So despite the increasing welfare payments, workers with median and lower income fell behind - inequality has increased greatly and those at the bottom did worst. This is why poverty has not been eradicated. There are several reasons for this, but a very important one is the increased political power that Republicans got from supporting racism and religion - these things are more important to many white lower-income people than their own economic welfare. With the help of many Democrats, Republicans passed measures which changed the distribution of income in the economy.
The economy seemed to be going in favor of working people after WW II, but then came the shift to the right and neoliberalism. So poverty programs have had ever more to do to just to keep people at the bottom from falling further down. The country doesn't have to be run for the benefit of corporations and the rich.
Good points. As a liberal, I want progams to help the poor. But the reason so many people need these programs is that wages and opportunity have stagnated for so long. I say, since the capitalists won't share the profits with workers through wages, we tax them into sharing. A majority of Americans agree with that, but as you say, for many racism and religion are what decides their votes.
I suspect that attitudes about whether there's a lot of poor people or not are heavily influenced by how visible poor people are. The homeless crisis/situation probably has a big influence on this. I wouldn't be surprised at all if overall the level of poverty is way down but the perception of poverty is up -- in big cities anyway -- because housing has gotten so crazy expensive. It's a bit like crime in that sense. Crime is way down over the long term, but enough people will tell you it is way up in the last year or two that politicians like Youngkin can win, and the Chicago mayor can lose.
The federal poverty level for a family of 4 is $30,000. Even if officially we have fewer people under the poverty level, we still have a lot of people living in poverty.
It's a long, rambling article that, I think, could have been shortened and sharpened. The one message I took from it is that there is rampant exploitation of the poor which benefits almost all but the poor. The following is taken from the article:
"The question that should serve as a looping incantation, the one we should ask every time we drive past a tent encampment, those tarped American slums smelling of asphalt and bodies, or every time we see someone asleep on the bus, slumped over in work clothes, is simply: Who benefits? Not: Why don’t you find a better job? Or: Why don’t you move? Or: Why don’t you stop taking out payday loans? But: Who is feeding off this?"
If it gets out that these programs have made things better, John Roberts will say the problem is solved & declare all social programs unconstitutional.
It's like diabetes. Diabetics on insulin can live long, full lives, but it would be real nice to be able to cure diabetes. AIDS is similar. One can live a long life with AIDS if one is conscientious about taking one's protease inhibitors. Despite this, it would sure be nice to have a cure for AIDS. People making poverty wages are able to live much better lives thanks to various support programs like SNAP which provides food or Section 8 vouchers that provide housing. Still, it would be real nice if everyone working a full time job could take home enough money to afford food, housing and all the rest without needing additional support.
This may not be possible, but a lot of liberals have a touching faith in the capitalist system and its ability to provide. This may be based on their own experience or perhaps simple indoctrination, but the feeling is there. As long as those anti-poverty programs are needed, it is a reminder that we have not made jobs pay better or food, housing and so on more affordable. Bragging that support programs have helped people in poverty is like bragging that one has put one of those doughnut spare tires on one's car and, someday, maybe perhaps, will look into getting the damaged tire replaced or repaired.
(In contrast, conservatives really don't think much of capitalism as an effective system. As far as they are concerned capitalism is great even if some percentage of the population starves to death every year. They'll condemn any system, even if it feeds everyone properly, if it doesn't let a handful of people get very rich.)
The thrust of the article seems to be that a lot of anti-poverty programs are more about letting predator capitalists make money and that their benefit to the poor is almost incidental. The whole real estate system is designed to protect and increase asset prices, not provide housing. The educational system is designed for the benefit of school operators and educational lenders, not students. The medical system is designed to provide a good living, or better, for those in the medical industry as opposed to keeping people healthy.The agricultural system is established for the benefit of big agribusiness, not to provide people with healthy food.
It's not that poor people aren't being helped by some programs, but that an awful lot of the benefit goes to big businesses with good lobbyists. There's a reason that there is no much propaganda trying to blame inflation on the government cutting a few checks directly to citizens as opposed to some complex scheme that can be gamed by an organized business with a good lawyer. If those checks had a required 25% cashing fee payable to some bank or other corporation, there would be lobbying for another round of stimulus checks.
I think part of the problem is that the poor have gotten more visible. The rising cost of housing in many metros has led to a surge in homelessness which is a major public problem. Even if those unhoused people can get Medicaid to pay for their healthcare, healthcare isn't a replacement for a roof over your head!
The piece's core point about exploitation is also valid. I remember once reading a very colorful piece online written by a poor person, who said that "Being poor is like playing a game of poker where, every time you lose, the other players get to fuck you. And every time you win, the guy at the head of the table gets to fuck you." (That's probably not an exact quote, it's been a while.) Being shut out of reputable businesses and having to accept bad deals from shady people really does add up and keep people poor.
"I think part of the problem is that the poor have gotten more visible."
Indeed. An aesthetic problem for some and an existential problem for others.
I meant that this is why people think poverty has gotten worse when it hasn't.
IMO, the increase in visible homelessness has a lit to do with changes in drug addiction problem. Access to legal opioids has been greaty curtailed so that a good many people are getting these drugs off the street-- where the cost a lot more and insurance does not pay for them. I noticed a definite increase in street people and panhandling not long after the government started cracking down on doctors writing Rx for vicodin, oxycontin and the like.
The last chart shows spending on poverty programs increasing no matter who is president. Isn't this a bi-partisan win rather than just a progressive win?
How much of the increase in spending on the final chart is due to the increase in medical costs? Are costs increasing while actual services/value is stable or declining?
If you raise the price of insulin by 300% and then try to use that as evidence that the social safety net is getting better.....well, that might be misleading.
“Adjusted for inflation” is your friend.
Poverty is given as the explanation for criminal behavior these days. The loudest lefty voices on crime issues complain that poor people (especially blacks) commit crimes because they don’t have sufficient economic opportunities.
These days? Explaining crime as caused by poverty goes back a very long time. You will certainly find it in the works of Charles Dickens and I suspect that you will find it in the writings of the Ancient Greeks.
Am I reading this correctly?
Poverty rates went way down during THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.
That seems like a very surprising fact.
Obamacare was still expanding in "red" states. And, Trump sent money out to almost everyone--and Democrats went along because that was needed during the pandemic.
In poverty a temporary problem, a systemic problem that the state needs to address, or a moral failing?
1. If temporary--then you give people some help for a few months and send them on their way.
2. If systemic, then you'll need strong safety nets until the underlying issues are dealt with.
3. If a moral failing, then shun and chastise the poor for being born poor--it's all their fault.
It's mainly s systemic issue, some prefer it to be a moral failing so they don't have to deal with it since they are not poor, and most probably think of it as a temporary problem for some and wonder why we've not won the war on poverty yet.
4. All of the above. Some people find themselves temporarily financially embarrassed. Some people are simply incapable, for either physical or mental reasons, of working full time, or are unable to get the qualifications required for steady remunerative work. Some people are lazy.
It is difficult to look at the poverty figure and not see the possibility that reducing lead might have a great deal of power in explaining the reduction in poverty. There has been an overwhelming decrease in teenage fertility (likely related to lead reduction) which would plausibly lead to lower poverty. I am surprised that lead reduction isn't considered the goto explanation for everything that happens in our social environment. Lead could easily be within 2 or 3 degrees of separation from all the trends in our society.