Poorly Understood: What America Gets Wrong About Poverty PDF

[]{#00_cover.xhtml} cover []{#01_Halftitle.xhtml} []{#01_Halftitle.xhtml#page_i}Poorly Understood[]{#01_Halftitle.xhtml#page_ii} {#01_Halftitle.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-1-titleGroup-1.halftitle} ============================================================================== []{#02_Titlepage.xhtml} WHAT AMERICA GETS WRONG ABOUT POVERTY {#what-america-gets-wrong-about-poverty.subtitle} ===================================== Mark Robert Rank, Lawrence M. Eppard, and Heather E. Bullock ![image](img/logo.jpg) []{#03_Copyright.xhtml} {#03_Copyright.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-3.fmheadn} - []{#03_Copyright.xhtml#page_iv} image Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2021 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Rank, Mark Robert, author. \| Eppard, Lawrence M., author. \| Bullock, Heather E., author. Title: Poorly understood : what America gets wrong about poverty / by Mark Robert Rank, Lawrence M. Eppard, Heather E. Bullock. Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, \[2021\] \| Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020039392 (print) \| LCCN 2020039393 (ebook) \| ISBN 9780190881382 (hardback) \| ISBN 9780190881405 (epub) \| ISBN 9780190881412 Subjects: LCSH: Poor---United States. \| Poverty---United States. \| Public welfare---United States. \| United States---Social conditions \| United States---Economic conditions. Classification: LCC HV91. R364 2021 (print) \| LCC HV91 (ebook) \| DDC 362.50973---dc23 LC record available at LC ebook record available at DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190881382.001.0001 []{#04_Dedication.xhtml} {#04_Dedication.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-4.fmheadn} - []{#04_Dedication.xhtml#page_v}*One study shows that more than half of Americans will experience poverty at some point during their adult lives. Think about that. This is not an isolated situation. More than half of Americans at some point in their lives will experience poverty.* Former U.S. President Barack Obama, Remarks by the President on Economic Mobility, December 4, 2013.[]{#04_Dedication.xhtml#page_vi} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#page_vii}{ Contents } {#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5.fmhead} -------------------------------------------- []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item2-1}[]{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item3-1}[[1.]{.ClassList}Introduction](#06_chapter1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-1){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0000} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item2-2}[SECTION I Who Are the Poor?](#07_part1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-part-1){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0001} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item3-2}[[2.]{.ClassList}Most Americans Will Experience Poverty](#08_chapter2.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-2){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0002} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item3-3}[[3.]{.ClassList}The Poor Tend to Live Outside of Impoverished Inner-City Neighborhoods](#09_chapter3.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-3){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0003} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item3-4}[[4.]{.ClassList}Poverty Spells Are Short but Frequent](#10_chapter4.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-4){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0004} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item3-5}[[5.]{.ClassList}Whites Are the Largest Racial Group Experiencing Poverty](#11_chapter5.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-5){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0005} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item2-3}[SECTION II Why Is There Poverty?](#12_part2.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-part-2){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0006} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item3-6}[[6.]{.ClassList}Hard Work Is Insufficient](#13_chapter6.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-6){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0007} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item3-7}[[7.]{.ClassList}Raising Education and Skill Levels Will Not Solve Poverty Alone](#14_chapter7.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-7){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0008} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item3-8}[[8.]{.ClassList}Decision-Making Is Constrained for Those With Fewer Resources](#15_chapter8.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-8){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0009} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item3-9}[[9.]{.ClassList}Poverty Is Preventable](#16_chapter9.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-9){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0010} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item2-4}[SECTION III What Is the Cost of Poverty?](#17_part3.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-part-3){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0011} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item3-10}[[10.]{.ClassList}America's Poor Are Worse Off Than Elsewhere](#18_chapter10.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-10){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0012} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item3-11}[[11.]{.ClassList}The Economic Cost of Poverty Is Enormous](#19_chapter11.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-11){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0013} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item3-12}[[12.]{.ClassList}The Moral Ground to View Poverty Is Injustice](#20_chapter12.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-12){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0014} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item2-5}[SECTION IV Does Welfare Work?](#21_part4.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-part-4){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0015} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item3-13}[[13.]{.ClassList}The U.S. Welfare State Is Minimal](#22_chapter13.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-13){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0016} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item3-14}[[14.]{.ClassList}Welfare Fraud Is Scarce](#23_chapter14.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-14){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0017} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item3-15}[[15.]{.ClassList}Government Programs Can Reduce Poverty](#24_chapter15.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-15){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0018} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item2-6}[]{#05_Contents1.xhtml#page_viii}[SECTION V How Extensive Is Inequality?](#25_part5.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-part-5){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0019} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item3-16}[[16.]{.ClassList}The United States Is No Longer a Land of Upward Mobility and Opportunity](#26_chapter16.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-16){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0020} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item3-17}[[17.]{.ClassList}The Playing Field Is Uneven](#27_chapter17.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-17){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0021} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item3-18}[[18.]{.ClassList}Inequality Matters](#28_chapter18.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-18){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0022} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item2-7}[SECTION VI Pulling It Together](#29_part6.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-part-6){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0023} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item3-19}[[19.]{.ClassList}Why Do the Myths Persist?](#30_chapter19.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-19){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0024} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item3-20}[[20.]{.ClassList}Reshaping Social Policy](#31_chapter20.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-20){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0025} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item3-21}[[21.]{.ClassList}Creating the Change](#32_chapter21.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-21){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0026} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item2-8}[Appendix: Further Readings and Resources](#33_appendix1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-appendix-1){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0027} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item2-9}[Notes](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0028} []{#05_Contents1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-5-item2-10}[Index](#35_Index1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-indexList-1){#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0029} []{#06_chapter1.xhtml} []{#06_chapter1.xhtml#page_1}[{ 1 }](#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0000) {#06_chapter1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-1.ch_title1} --------------------------------------------------------------- [Introduction](#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0000) {#introduction.ch_title2} ----------------------------------------- []{#06_chapter1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-1-div1-1}Few topics have as many myths, stereotypes, and misperceptions surrounding them as that of poverty in America. The poor have been badly misunderstood since the beginnings of the country, with the rhetoric intensifying in recent times. Our current era of fake news, alternative facts, and media partisanship has led to a breeding ground for all types of myths gaining traction and legitimacy. The time would appear right to set the record straight. To our knowledge, *Poorly Understood* is the first book to systematically address and confront many of the most widespread myths pertaining to poverty. Throughout our careers, each of us has encountered these myths on a routine basis. They can be found virtually everywhere---from the political rhetoric emanating out of the highest office in the land to the neighborhood gossip down the street. It would seem as if everyone has a heated opinion about the poor, with the heat rising even higher when the topic of welfare is thrown into the mix. Yet, as we shall see throughout these chapters, the realities of poverty are much different than the myths. In many ways, they are more disturbing. The idealized image of American society is one of abundant opportunities, with hard work being rewarded by economic prosperity. Consequently, those who fail to get ahead have only themselves to blame according to this argument. It is within this context that America thinks of itself as a fair and meritocratic society in which people get what they deserve in life. But what if this picture is wrong? What if poverty is an experience that touches the majority of Americans? What if hard work does not necessarily lead to economic well-being? What if the reasons for poverty are largely beyond the control of individuals? Indicative of this is the epigraph quote from President Obama on the front page referring to our research results showing that a majority of Americans will at some point experience poverty. These are much more disturbing realities to consider because they call into question the very core of America's identity. And perhaps this is one reason []{#06_chapter1.xhtml#page_2}that the myths continue. To consider the possibility that people do not get what they deserve is indeed disturbing. It becomes particularly distressing within the context of the American dream. The American dream has been central to how we as a people like to perceive ourselves and our future.[^1^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-7){#06_chapter1.xhtml#n0030} That future is thought to be full of promise as long as we work hard and play by the rules. The playing field is assumed to be level, allowing everyone to compete fairly. Yet, as we will see, such beliefs can and do blind us to the realities of poverty. They may actually prevent us from addressing and alleviating poverty because they hold out the promise of a better life to come, thereby minimizing the need to correct for the problems of today. To paraphrase Karl Marx, the American dream may be the opiate of the American people. This, then, is one possible reason that the myths of poverty continue despite strong evidence to the contrary. There may be other reasons as well. Could the maintenance of these myths actually be useful for particularly powerful constituencies? Does the continuation of these myths serve a purpose or function for other segments of the American population? If so, who and what might that be? We will explore these questions in greater detail in later chapters. It should be noted that poverty and inequality are not acts of nature. Rather, they are strongly influenced by social policies and macroeconomic conditions.[^2^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-8){#06_chapter1.xhtml#n0031} Some countries have low rates of poverty and less inequality as a result of their social and economic policies and programs. Other countries, such as the United States, have high rates of poverty and inequality largely as a result of their lack of a strong social safety net. In short, there is nothing inevitable about poverty. And that is what makes the issue so troubling. The United States has the resources to significantly alleviate poverty. Yet, it chooses not to. As we shall see in later chapters, this approach is, to quote a familiar saying, "penny wise and pound foolish." But once again, poverty myths prevent us from seeing clearly. That is why we feel the importance of setting the record straight. It is vital to carefully assess the research with a clear mind in order to draw well-reasoned conclusions. We also wish to convey this information in an accessible and direct manner. Now more than ever, we should be firmly guided by grounded facts, not political rhetoric or biased perceptions pandering to particular interest groups. We believe that evidence-based arguments can ultimately dismantle the myths, although the process may be long and tenacious. Yet, as we shall argue in our concluding chapter, paradigm change can and does occur. In fact, we believe we may be on the cusp of such a change. Let us begin. ### Organization of the Book {#06_chapter1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-1-div1-2.sec1} Before we started writing this book, we each sat down and compiled a list of the most common myths regarding poverty that we had encountered. Although []{#06_chapter1.xhtml#page_3}there were quite a few, our tallies were remarkably similar. We quickly put together an overall list and began the task of marshaling the best available evidence with respect to the many aspects of poverty that we were addressing. The result is the book that appears before you now. For each of us, the content within this book is very much in our proverbial wheelhouse. It is a subject that we know quite well, and as such, we are eager to share with you this knowledge. *Poorly Understood* is divided into six sections. In the first five sections, we examine a wide range of poverty myths, while the sixth section seeks to explore why these myths persist despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, as well as discussing how we might move forward to effectively confront the realities of poverty. We have designed each of the chapters to be concise and accessible. They can be read in sequence or as stand-alone pieces. At the end of each chapter are insights provided by an expert in the field regarding the particular subject matter. These short sections are intended to be provocative and add further to your understanding of the many aspects of poverty. We have invited scholars who span a wide range of academic disciplines, representing many of the best researchers in the field of poverty studies today. In some cases we conducted interviews with our invited experts (which were then transcribed), while in other cases the experts submitted their thoughts in writing. Finally, in the Appendix, readers will find a short list of additional resources for exploring the chapter subject matter in greater detail. These include books and articles, websites, and multimedia sources of information. We begin in Section I by looking at the characteristics of those experiencing poverty. Section II explores why poverty exists. We address the costs of poverty in Section III. Section IV examines the issue of welfare and the social safety net. In [Section V](#25_part5.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-part-5){#06_chapter1.xhtml#n0032}, we turn to the wider context of inequality. And finally, Section VI pulls together our arguments in order to provide a pathway for moving forward in the future. The chapters themselves are designed to be concise and accessible. We have written them to impart the essential information regarding each topic and to do so in an engaging manner. Each chapter is based on our pulling together the best available research on the subject. For readers interested in delving further into the individual topics, the chapter footnotes contain the original source material used to formulate our conclusions. Curious readers are encouraged to explore these source materials (along with the additional resources in the Appendix) in order to gain greater insights into the subject matter. ### Defining Our Terms {#06_chapter1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-1-div1-3.sec1} There are several terms and concepts that we will refer to frequently throughout this book. The most obvious is the concept of poverty itself. Although poverty []{#06_chapter1.xhtml#page_4}can be defined in a number of ways, much our analysis is based on the official definition of poverty used by the U.S. Census Bureau.[^3^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-9){#06_chapter1.xhtml#n0033} The Census Bureau defines those living in poverty as being in a household that falls below a specific level of annual income. It is thought that those who are lacking this amount of income cannot purchase the necessary goods and services to maintain a minimally adequate life. In 2019, these levels ranged from \$13,011 for a one-person household, to \$26,172 for a four-person household, to \$52,875 for a household of nine or more people. Each year, the various poverty lines are adjusted upward to take into account inflation. This type of poverty definition is what is known as an absolute measure of poverty. In other words, there is an absolute line drawn with respect to income, and if families fall below that line, they are counted as living in poverty for the year. Another manner of thinking about poverty is through what is known as a relative measure of poverty. This particular way of defining poverty looks at where someone is in the income distribution relative to where others are, and is used frequently when making comparisons across countries. The most common relative poverty measure is one that counts individuals as poor if they fall below one-half of a country's median income.[^4^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-10){#06_chapter1.xhtml#n0034} Consequently, if the median income for a country were \$60,000, then households earning less than \$30,000 would be considered in poverty. This measure has the advantage of allowing us to make comparisons across countries with respect to the percentage of the population falling into poverty. A second broad concept that we will be exploring in the chapters ahead is that of economic inequality. We discuss both income and wealth inequality. Income inequality refers to how wide or narrow the overall distribution of annual income is.[^5^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-11){#06_chapter1.xhtml#n0035} For example, how far apart are those who are earning at the top 10th percentile of the income distribution from those earning at the bottom 10th percentile? We will also examine wealth inequality. This is analogous to income inequality but is looking at the distribution of economic assets rather than income. Net worth refers to all of one's assets minus all of one's debts. Financial wealth is exactly the same but does not include the equity that one has built up in a home.[^6^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-12){#06_chapter1.xhtml#n0036} A third set of terms that we will be using refer to welfare programs and the social safety net. Welfare programs are generally considered those in which an individual has to be below a certain income and asset level and fall into a particular population group in order to be eligible. These are also known as means-tested programs, with individuals only able to participate if their income and assets are low enough to qualify.[^7^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-13){#06_chapter1.xhtml#n0037} They include a wide range of programs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as food stamps), Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Housing Assistance, and several others. The social safety net is a somewhat boarder concept than the welfare system. It includes not only welfare programs but also other government entitlement []{#06_chapter1.xhtml#page_5}programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, in which you do not need to be below a particular income level in order to quality. Finally, there are several terms that we use frequently in discussing the array of research findings that we cover. When making international comparisons, we will often refer to OECD countries.[^8^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-14){#06_chapter1.xhtml#n0038} These include the 37 countries that are a part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. They are characterized as wealthy nations with highly developed economies. They consist of all European and North American countries, along with Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, and Chile. Our discussion of research results is intentionally jargon-free and straightforward. We do, however, refer to a few very basic statistics. With respect to measuring the amount of economic inequality in a country, we make use of what is known as the Gini coefficient or index.[^9^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-15){#06_chapter1.xhtml#n0039} This is an overall measure of how unequal the income distribution is, and it ranges from 0 (complete equality) to 1 (complete inequality). The relationship between two factors is what is known as a simple correlation. It also ranges from 0 to 1. As a correlation approaches 1, the association between two variables is stronger, such that by knowing what one factor is, we can largely know what the other factor is. Finally, in discussing economic mobility across generations, we refer to the intergenerational elasticity statistic. Again, this ranges between 0 and 1 and indicates how strong the relationship is between parents' income and their children's income.[^10^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-16){#06_chapter1.xhtml#n0040} With this brief tour of the book complete, it is time to start our exploration into the specific myths surrounding poverty and the actual realities that define these topics. We begin at a logical starting point: Who exactly experiences poverty?[]{#06_chapter1.xhtml#page_6} []{#07_part1.xhtml} []{#07_part1.xhtml#page_7}[{ Section I }](#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0001) {#07_part1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-part-1.part1} -------------------------------------------------------------------- [Who Are the Poor?](#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0001) {#who-are-the-poor.part2} ---------------------------------------------- []{#07_part1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-div1-4}As discussed in [Chapter 1](#06_chapter1.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-1){#07_part1.xhtml#n0041}, there are many myths and misperceptions surrounding who the poor are. The typical image is of someone who has lived in poverty for years at a time, is Black or Hispanic, resides in an inner-city ghetto, receives two or three welfare programs, and is reluctant to work. On all counts, this image is a severe distortion of the reality. We begin our examination of poverty myths with several of the most dominant ones regarding who the poor are. The underlying theme tying these myths together is that poverty is often perceived to be an issue of "them" rather than an issue of "us"---that those who experience poverty are viewed as strangers to mainstream America, falling outside acceptable behavior, and as such, are to be scorned and stigmatized. As we discuss in later chapters, this perspective has helped foster a strong animosity toward those in poverty and an overall reluctance to provide much assistance. Yet, as we shall see throughout these next chapters, the reality of who experiences poverty is, in many ways, more disturbing than the mythology. The truth is that impoverishment is much closer than most of us would like to think.[]{#07_part1.xhtml#page_8} []{#08_chapter2.xhtml} []{#08_chapter2.xhtml#page_9}[{ 2 }](#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0002) {#08_chapter2.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-2.ch_title1} --------------------------------------------------------------- [Most Americans Will Experience Poverty](#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0002) {#most-americans-will-experience-poverty.ch_title2} ------------------------------------------------------------------- []{#08_chapter2.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-2-div1-5}We begin our dismantling of poverty myths with the widely held belief that most Americans will never experience poverty---that only a small minority of Americans will directly experience impoverishment during the course of their lives and, further, that the use of a social safety net or welfare program is something very much out of the ordinary. One of the consequences of this myth is that it encourages the idea that those in poverty are somehow different from the typical or average American. For example, survey research has found that in the general population, the words "poverty" and "welfare" often conjure up images of people on the fringes of society---unwed mothers with a multitude of children, inner-city unemployed Black men, high school dropouts on drugs, the mentally disturbed homeless, and so on.[^1^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-17){#08_chapter2.xhtml#n0042} The media, political rhetoric, and even at times the research of social scientists often depict the poor as alien and out of step with the rest of America.[^2^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-18){#08_chapter2.xhtml#n0043} In short, being poor and using welfare are widely perceived as behaviors that fall outside the American mainstream. Yet, it turns out that a majority of Americans will experience poverty first hand. Research indicates that most of us will encounter poverty at some point during our lives. Even more surprising, a majority of Americans will turn to public assistance at least once during their adulthood. Rather than poverty and welfare use being an issue of them, it is much more accurate to think of it as an issue of us. ### Background {#08_chapter2.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-2-div1-6.sec1} The life course research of sociologists Mark Rank and Thomas Hirschl has helped shed light on this issue. More than two decades ago, Rank and Hirschl were interested in asking a very basic question, "How likely is it that an American will experience poverty first hand?" Furthermore, "What are the []{#08_chapter2.xhtml#page_10}chances that an American will use a social safety net program at some point during their adulthood?" To answer these questions, they turned to an invaluable longitudinal data set---the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, otherwise known as the PSID. The PSID is a nationally representative, longitudinal sample of households interviewed from 1968 onward.[^3^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-19){#08_chapter2.xhtml#n0044} It has been administered by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan, and it constitutes the longest running panel data set both in the United States and the world. The PSID initially interviewed approximately 5,000 U.S. households in 1968, obtaining detailed information on roughly 18,000 individuals within those households. These individuals have since been tracked annually (biennially after 1997), including children and adults who eventually break off from their original households to form new households (e.g., children leaving home or adults following a divorce). Thus, the PSID is designed so that in any given year, the sample is representative of the entire nonimmigrant U.S. population. As its name implies, the PSID is primarily focused on household information about economics and demographics. For each wave of the study, there is detailed information about the annual income for each household. Consequently, one can easily determine whether households fell into poverty across the various years of the study. The survey also asks a variety of questions pertaining to whether anyone in the household has used a social safety net or welfare program at some point during the year. Based on these data, Rank and Hirschl constructed a series of what are known as life tables. The life table is a technique for calculating how often particular events occur during a specific period of time and is frequently used by demographers and medical researchers to assess risk (i.e., the risk of having a heart attack during later adulthood). It allows one to estimate the percentage of the American population that will experience poverty at some point during adulthood. ### Risk of Poverty {#08_chapter2.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-2-div1-7.sec1} Using this life table approach, the risk of experiencing poverty for the American population can be assessed. Results indicate that between the ages of 20 and 75 years, nearly 60 percent of Americans will experience living for at least 1 year below the official poverty line, while three-fourths of Americans will encounter poverty or near-poverty (150 percent below the official poverty line).[^4^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-20){#08_chapter2.xhtml#n0045} These findings indicate that a clear majority of Americans will directly experience poverty at some point during their adulthood. Rather than a small fringe on the outskirts of society, the majority of Americans will encounter poverty. [Table 2.1](#08_chapter2.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-2-tableGroup-1){#08_chapter2.xhtml#n0046} shows the cumulative percentages of the population who will be touched by poverty or near-poverty. Between []{#08_chapter2.xhtml#page_11}the ages of 20 and 35 years, 31.4 percent will have experienced poverty; by age 55 years, 45.0 percent; and by age 75 years, 58.5 percent. Similarly, 76.0 percent of the population will have spent at least 1 year below 150 percent of the official poverty line by the time they reach age 75 years. ::: {#08_chapter2.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-2-tableGroup-1.table} TABLE 2.1 Cumulative Percentage of Americans Experiencing Poverty Across Adulthood Age ::: Level of poverty Below 1.00 poverty line (%) Below 1.25 poverty line (%) Below 1.50 poverty line (%) 20 10.6 15.0 19.1 25 21.6 27.8 34.3 30 27.1 34.1 41.3 35 31.4 39.0 46.9 40 35.6 43.6 51.7 45 38.8 46.7 55.0 50 41.8 49.6 57.9 55 45.0 52.8 61.0 60 48.2 56.1 64.2 65 51.4 59.7 67.5 70 55.0 63.6 71.8 75 58.5 68.0 76.0 *Source*: Panel Study of Income Dynamics, Rank and Hirschl computations. This pattern holds up regardless of how we might measure poverty. For example, in a complimentary analysis, Rank and Hirschl relied on a relative measure of poverty: They analyzed the likelihood of Americans falling into the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution as well as the bottom 10 percent. They calculated that 62 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 60 years would at some point experience living for at least 1 year below the 20th percentile, while 42 percent would fall below the 10th percentile.[^5^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-21){#08_chapter2.xhtml#n0047} Again, the likelihood of poverty was quite pronounced across the life course. Using a broader definition of economic turmoil that includes experiencing poverty, receiving a social safety net program, or encountering a spell of unemployment results in even higher rates. Consequently, between the ages of 25 and 60 years, 79 percent of the American population experienced one or more of these events during at least 1 year, and 49.8 percent experienced 3 or more years of such turmoil.[^6^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-22){#08_chapter2.xhtml#n0048} The reason these percentages are so high is that over long periods of time, detrimental events are much more likely to happen to people, which can then throw them and their families into poverty.[^7^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-23){#08_chapter2.xhtml#n0049} These events include losing a job, families splitting up, or medical and health emergencies, all of which have the potential to start a downward spiral into poverty (discussed in [Chapter 4](#10_chapter4.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-4){#08_chapter2.xhtml#n0050}). As []{#08_chapter2.xhtml#page_12}we look across broad expanses of time, the probability of one or more of these events occurring increases significantly. Rank and Hirschl's analyses also indicate that poverty is quite prevalent during childhood and older age. Between the time of birth and age 17 years, 34 percent of American children will have spent at least 1 year below the poverty line, while 40 percent will have experienced poverty or near-poverty (125 percent of the poverty line).[^8^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-24){#08_chapter2.xhtml#n0051} In addition, 40 percent of older adults will encounter at least 1 year of poverty between the ages of 60 and 90 years, while 48 percent will encounter poverty at the 125 percent level.[^9^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-25){#08_chapter2.xhtml#n0052} ### Likelihood of Welfare Use {#08_chapter2.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-2-div1-8.sec1} Having established that a majority of the U.S. population will experience poverty, to what extent do Americans rely on the social safety net in order to help them navigate through these periods of economic distress? The conventional image of welfare use is one of social deviancy. In fact, few behaviors are as stigmatized in American society as that of welfare use (which we examine in Section IV). Survey research has repeatedly documented the public's considerable animosity regarding welfare programs and its participants.[^10^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-26){#08_chapter2.xhtml#n0053} At the heart of this opposition is the belief that welfare recipients are largely undeserving of such assistance. As Martin Gilens writes: ::: {.prosequote} *While no one factor can fully account for the public's opposition to welfare, the most important single component is this widespread belief that most welfare recipients would rather sit home and collect benefits than work hard themselves. In large measure Americans hate welfare because they view it as a program that rewards the undeserving poor.*[^11^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-27){#08_chapter2.xhtml#n0054} ::: Accentuating this belief is the pervasive image that those who rely on welfare are predominately minorities, are often plagued by alcohol or drug problems, have large numbers of children, and remain on the dole for years at a time. The visual portrait is of someone quite alien to mainstream America.[^12^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-28){#08_chapter2.xhtml#n0055} In short, for many Americans, welfare use is perceived as something that happens to someone else, and welfare recipients as diametrically opposed to the American experience. Yet, how accurate is this assumption? To what extent will Americans find themselves economically strapped and having to rely on government assistance in order to alleviate their needs? Or, put a slightly different way, to what extent does the welfare system touch the lives of American citizens? We have seen that a majority of Americans will face the experience of poverty. Is the same pattern true of welfare use as well? ::: {#08_chapter2.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-2-tableGroup-2.table} TABLE 2.2 Cumulative Percentage of Americans Experiencing Various Years of Welfare Receipt Across Adulthood Age ::: Number of years 1 or more 2 or more 3 or more 4 or more 5 or more 20 14.2 --- --- --- --- 25 26.6 18.9 13.9 9.8 6.7 30 33.3 26.5 22.3 17.9 14.2 35 38.7 31.9 27.4 23.3 18.1 40 43.7 36.5 32.4 27.8 21.9 45 47.2 40.6 36.5 31.4 25.3 50 50.9 44.2 40.5 35.2 29.2 55 54.6 48.2 44.1 38.8 32.2 60 58.4 52.7 48.4 42.6 35.5 65 65.0 58.7 54.2 48.0 40.3 *Source*: Panel Study of Income Dynamics, Rank and Hirschl computations. It turns out that the likelihood of using a social safety net program is also exceedingly high. [Table 2.2](#08_chapter2.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-2-tableGroup-2){#08_chapter2.xhtml#n0056} shows that 65 percent of all Americans between the []{#08_chapter2.xhtml#page_13}ages of 20 and 65 years will at some point reside in a household that receives a means-tested welfare program (e.g., Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program \[SNAP\], Medicaid). Furthermore, 40 percent of the American population will use a welfare program in 5 or more years (although spaced out at different points across the life course). As with the dynamics of poverty spells (discussed in [Chapter 4](#10_chapter4.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-4){#08_chapter2.xhtml#n0057}), the typical pattern of welfare use is that of short spells. Consequently, only 15.9 percent of Americans will reside in a household that receives a welfare program in 5 or more consecutive years.[^13^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-29){#08_chapter2.xhtml#n0058} One program that has a particularly wide reach is SNAP, better known food stamps. Approximately half (49.2 percent) of all U.S. children between the ages 1 and 20 years will at some point reside in a household that receives food stamps.[^14^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-30){#08_chapter2.xhtml#n0059} Childhood thus represents a time of great economic vulnerability for many of America's citizens. ### Implications {#08_chapter2.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-2-div1-9.sec1} Poverty has often been understood by the U.S. public as something that happens to others. Yet, by looking across the adult life span, we can see that poverty touches a clear majority of the population. For most Americans, it would appear that the question is not if they will encounter poverty, but rather, when, which entails a fundamental shift in the perception and meaning of poverty. Assuming that most individuals would rather avoid this experience, it is in their self-interest to ensure that society acts to reduce poverty and that a safety net is in place to soften the blow. Such a perspective can be referred to as a risk-sharing argument and has been elaborated most notably by the philosopher John Rawls.[^15^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-31){#08_chapter2.xhtml#n0060} []{#08_chapter2.xhtml#page_14}The dynamic here is similar to the reason most of us have automobile insurance. No one plans to have a traffic accident. Yet, we are willing to invest in automobile insurance because we realize that at some point we may be involved in a serious traffic accident that could incur sizable costs. Hence, we are willing to pay for automobile insurance now in order to minimize the risks in the future. Rather than a traffic risk, poverty can be thought of as an economic risk that accompanies our economic system. If we lose a job, become ill, see our family split up, or experience countless other circumstances, we run a risk of dwindling income, resulting in eventual poverty. Just as automobile insurance is a form of protection against an unforeseen accident, the social safety net is a form of insurance against the accidents that occur around the rough edges of the free-market system. Despite this, many Americans undoubtedly believe that encountering poverty is only a remote possibility, and therefore they fail to perceive the benefits of an antipoverty policy or of an economic safety net in terms of their own self-interest. The research findings discussed in this chapter directly challenge such beliefs. In doing so they provide a vital piece for making a self-interest argument: Most Americans in fact will be touched directly by poverty. These findings have an additional implication. Much of the general public's resistance to assisting poor people and particularly those on welfare is that they are perceived to be undeserving of such assistance (examined in Section II). That is, their poverty is the result of a lack of motivation, questionable morals, and so on. In short, poor people are fundamentally culpable and, therefore, do not warrant sacrifices on our behalf. Although the causes of poverty have not been examined in this chapter, the findings presented here suggest that given its widespread nature, poverty appears systematic to our economic structure. In short, we have met the enemy, and they are us. Such a realization can cause a paradigm shift in thinking. For example, the economic collapse during the Great Depression spurred a fundamental change in the country's perceptions and policy initiatives as citizens realized the full extent and systematic nature of poverty during the 1930s. Given the enormity of the collapse, it became clear to many Americans that most of their neighbors were not directly responsible for the dire economic situation they found themselves in. This awareness helped provide much of the impetus and justification behind the New Deal. Or, take the case of unemployment as described by sociologist C. Wright Mills: ::: {.prosequote} *When, in a city of 100,000, only one man is unemployed, that is his personal trouble, and for its relief we properly look to the character of the man, his skills, and his immediate opportunities. But when in a nation of 50 million employees, 15 million men are unemployed, that is an issue, and []{#08_chapter2.xhtml#page_15}we may not hope to find its solution within the range of opportunities open to any one individual. The very structure of opportunities has collapsed. Both the correct statement of the problem and the range of possible solutions require us to consider the economic and political institutions of the society, and not merely the personal situation and character of a scatter of individuals.*[^16^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-32){#08_chapter2.xhtml#n0061} ::: In many ways, poverty today is as widespread and systematic as in these examples. Yet, we have been unable to see this because we are not looking in the right direction. By focusing on the life span risks, the prevalent nature of American poverty is revealed. At some point during our adult lives, the bulk of Americans will face the bitter taste of poverty. Consequently, unless the general public is willing to argue that the majority of us are undeserving, the tactic of using character flaws and individual failings as a justification for doing as little as possible to address poverty loses much of its credibility. In short, by conceptualizing and measuring impoverishment over the adult life course, one can observe a set of proportions that truly cast a new light on the subject of poverty in the United States. For the majority of American adults, the question is not if they will experience poverty, but when. Such a reality should cause us to re-evaluate seriously the very nature, scope, and meaning of poverty in the United States. ::: {#08_chapter2.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-2-boxedMatter-1.box} ### An Expert Appraisal---Caroline Ratcliffe {#08_chapter2.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-2-div1-10.sec1} Caroline Ratcliffe is trained as a labor economist and was a long-time Senior Fellow at the Urban Institute where she conducted extensive research on issues involving poverty and asset building. She recently transitioned to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, where she is a Senior Economist in the Office of Research. *This chapter highlights the reality that poverty and means-tested benefit receipt hits closer to home than many of us realize. A majority of U.S. adults---nearly 60 percent---live in poverty for at least 1 year, and along with this financial insecurity, many experience means-tested benefit programs. Some people have their own private safety net to get through tough times (they have built up a savings cushion or can turn to family or friends), but the data presented in this chapter draw attention to the fact that, for many, their private safety net is not adequate. Driving this home, a recent Federal Reserve survey found that 37 percent of Americans cannot cover a \$400 unexpected expense with savings or its equivalence.* *This chapter also makes the point that we are not only talking about adults. As adults cycle into and out of poverty, they take their children with them. More than one-third of children will experience poverty between birth and age 17 years. And some of these children spend year after year in poverty. In fact, 10 percent of children spend at least half of their childhood living in poverty. As these children grow up, they are more []{#08_chapter2.xhtml#page_16}likely to become unmarried parents, drop out of high school, lack a steady job, and be poor as young adults.* *The cost of child poverty is not just borne by the poor. When the expenses related to lost productivity, crime, and poor health are added up, it is estimated that child poverty costs the nation between \$800 billion and \$1.1 trillion per year. This is vastly higher than the estimated \$90 to \$111 billion per year it would take to implement a program package that would lift half of children out of poverty.* *As rightly pointed out in this chapter, preserving the social safety net will help us if and when we fall on hard times and need it. But beyond this, shoring up safety net programs and investing in poor children and families can be a long-term financially sound strategy for the United States.* ::: []{#09_chapter3.xhtml} []{#09_chapter3.xhtml#page_17}[{ 3 }](#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0003) {#09_chapter3.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-3.ch_title1} ---------------------------------------------------------------- [The Poor Tend to Live Outside of Impoverished Inner-City Neighborhoods](#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0003) {#the-poor-tend-to-live-outside-of-impoverished-inner-city-neighborhoods.ch_title2} --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- []{#09_chapter3.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-3-div1-11}An image of the poor often portrayed in the media and elsewhere is that of non-Whites living in high-poverty inner-city neighborhoods.[^1^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-33){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0062} It is a picture that reinforces the idea that the poor are somehow different than other Americans---that they reside in their own neighborhoods, far away from the rest of America. As Paul Jargowsky writes: ::: {.prosequote} *When poverty is discussed, the mental image that often comes to mind is the inner-city, and particularly high-poverty ghettos and barrios in the largest cities. Many people implicitly assume, incorrectly, that most of the nation's poor can be found in these often troubled neighborhoods*.[^2^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-34){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0063} ::: It is certainly true that the United States remains highly segregated on the basis of race and, increasingly, class.[^3^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-35){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0064} Inner cities across the country have been plagued by ongoing economic and social problems. As scholars such as William Julius Wilson have researched and written about over the decades, many of these areas are made up of the "truly disadvantaged."[^4^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-36){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0065} It is therefore surprising to many people to discover that the vast majority of the poor do not live in high-poverty, inner-city neighborhoods. In fact, only approximately 10 to 15 percent of those in poverty do so. In this chapter, we explore several of these unexpected findings. ### Percentage of the Poor Living in High-Poverty Neighborhoods {#09_chapter3.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-3-div1-12.sec1} Based on data from the US Census Bureau, researchers are able to determine what percentage of the poor live in high-poverty neighborhoods. The Census Bureau allows one to analyze these data at the level of what is known as a "census tract" region. A census tract can be thought of as roughly corresponding []{#09_chapter3.xhtml#page_18}to a neighborhood, and generally averages about 4,000 people (or about 1,500 housing units).[^5^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-37){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0066} In a densely populated urban area, this might include a 10-- by 10--square block area, while in a rural location, a census tract would spread out over a much larger geographical region. High-poverty neighborhoods are frequently defined as census tracts in which 40 percent or more of the residents are living below the poverty line.[^6^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-38){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0067} Using this definition, Jargowsky has analyzed the percentage of the poor who are living in impoverished neighborhoods.[^7^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-39){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0068} [Table 3.1](#09_chapter3.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-3-tableGroup-3){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0069} shows these percentages for 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2015. In 1990, 15.1 percent of the poor were residing in high-poverty neighborhoods. That figure dropped to 10.3 percent by 2000, rose to 13.6 percent for 2010, and then fell to 11.9 percent for 2015. ::: {#09_chapter3.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-3-tableGroup-3.table} TABLE 3.1 Percentage of Poor People Living in High-Poverty Census Tracts and Percentage of Overall High-Poverty Census Tracts Year Poor people living in high poverty census tracts (%) Overall high-poverty census tracts (%) ------ ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- 1990 15.5 5.7 2000 10.3 3.9 2010 13.6 5.6 2015 11.9 5.0 *Note*: High-poverty census tracts are defined as census tracts in which 40 percent or more of residents live below the official poverty line. *Source*: Paul A. Jargowsky, personal calculations from U.S. Census Bureau and American Community Survey, 2019. ::: The second column shows the percentage of all the census tracts in the United States that are considered high-poverty areas. In 1990, 5.7 percent of all census tracts were counted as high-poverty areas. In 2000, this percentage was 3.9 percent; by 2010, it had risen to 5.6 percent, and then it fell to 5.0 percent for 2015. Consequently, although there has been some fluctuation in the percentage of the poor living in high-poverty neighborhoods, most individuals in poverty have not and do not live in such neighborhoods. In addition, Jargowsky finds that high-poverty neighborhoods have become less concentrated during this period of time. He notes: ::: {.prosequote} *Ironically, the concentration of poverty has become deconcentrated, in a sense. In 1990 and the years prior to that, most high-poverty census tracts in a metropolitan area could be found in one or two main clusters. These huge high-poverty, neighborhoods---such as Bedford-Stuyvesant, Harlem, the South Side of Chicago, North Philadelphia, and Watts---have become embedded in the public consciousness as iconic representations of urban poverty. But in the more recent data... the individual high-poverty tracts are more decentralized and less clustered*.[^8^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-40){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0070} ::: []{#09_chapter3.xhtml#page_19}The overall finding of a minority of the poor living in high-poverty neighborhoods is consistent with the results presented in [Chapter 4](#10_chapter4.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-4){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0071}---that only a small percentage of those experiencing poverty do so for a long, extended period of time. Certainly, it is important to remember those deeply entrenched in poverty when discussing poverty, but it is equally important to keep in mind that they constitute a relatively small proportion of the entire poverty population. ### Suburban Poverty {#09_chapter3.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-3-div1-13.sec1} The words "suburban" and "poverty" are rarely uttered together. Yet, it turns out that in terms of sheer numbers, there are now more poor people living in suburban areas of the country than are living in central cities.[^9^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-41){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0072} Elizabeth Kneebone and Alan Berube addressed this phenomena in their book, *Confronting Suburban Poverty in America*.[^10^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-42){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0073} They analyzed where the poor were living in 100 of the largest metropolitan areas. Approximately two-thirds of the country's population currently reside in these 100 urban areas. Suburbs were defined as those municipalities within a metropolitan area beyond the first-named city. For example, the city of St. Louis would be counted as the city in the region, while the surrounding municipalities such as Ferguson would be counted as suburban. ::: {#09_chapter3.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-3-figureGroup-1.group} ![image](img/oso-9780190881382-graphic-014-colour.gif) FIGURE 3.1 Number of poor residents in suburbs and cities, 1970 to 2017. *Source*: Brookings Institution. ::: In [Figure 3.1](#09_chapter3.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-3-figureGroup-1){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0074}, we can see that the number of poor residents in suburban areas now outnumbers poor residents in city areas. While it is true that poverty rates remain higher in central cities than suburbs, because of the population growth in suburbia over the past 50 years, the actual number of poor people []{#09_chapter3.xhtml#page_20}is now greater in suburban neighborhoods. In discussing these changes, the authors observe: ::: {.prosequote} *Poverty is a relatively new phenomena in many suburbs... As such, it upends deeply fixed notions of where poverty occurs and whom it affects. As poverty becomes increasingly regional in its scope and reach, it challenges conventional approaches that the nation has taken when dealing with poverty in place.... Poverty rates do remain higher in cities and rural communities than elsewhere. But for three decades the poor population has grown in suburbs. The especially rapid pace of growth in the 2000's saw suburbs ultimately outstrip other types of communities so that they now account for the largest poor population in the country*.[^11^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-43){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0075} ::: Much of this poverty can be found in older, inner-ring suburban areas. These were among the first suburbs developed, often at the beginning of the 20th century. By the end of the 20th century, their infrastructure and housing stock were aging and frequently in need of repair. Likewise, some of these communities saw their school districts slowly deteriorate over time. Consequently, these have been many of the areas where the more affluent have left in order to relocate further afield. The result has been a rising number of poor households in these communities. ### Rural Poverty {#09_chapter3.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-3-div1-14.sec1} Like suburban poverty, poverty in rural areas is an unlikely image for many people when asked to describe where the poor live.[^12^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-44){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0076} However, it turns out that the most deep-seated poverty in this country is generally found in rural America.[^13^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-45){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0077} [Figure 3.2](#09_chapter3.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-3-figureGroup-2){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0078} shows a map of the most persistently poor counties in the United States over the past 40 years. These are counties that have had poverty rates of more than 20 percent from the 1980 Census onward. ::: {#09_chapter3.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-3-figureGroup-2.group} image FIGURE 3.2 Persistently poor counties, 1990 to 2010. *Source:* U.S. Census Bureau, 2019. ::: We can see that the vast majority of these counties are rural or nonmetropolitan. Of the 353 counties with persistent poverty, 301 are nonmetropolitan. We can also observe from the map that there are certain distinct regions of the country where these counties are found. Each of these areas has a unique historical legacy of poverty. The area of Appalachia, found predominately in West Virginia and Kentucky, is a region of long-standing White poverty.[^14^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-46){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0079} It is characterized by the dominance and gradual disappearance of the coal mining industry. As a result, service sector types of jobs are often all that remains.[^15^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-47){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0080} In writing about this, Cynthia Duncan notes: ::: {.prosequote} *There are so few jobs available in these communities, and so many who need work, that people seek fast-food and other part-time retail work in order to []{#09_chapter3.xhtml#page_21}support their families. But the jobs are set up for those who do not need them to offer a living wage. When household heads do get these jobs, their hours are always uncertain and unpredictable, always subject to change*.[^16^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-48){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0081} ::: A second area of deep-seated rural poverty can be found across the Deep South and the Mississippi Delta region. This is an area with a history of slavery and cotton plantations. Many of the poor in this region are the descendants of slaves and sharecroppers. Again, good job opportunities are often few and far between.[^17^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-49){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0082} The Texas--Mexico border along the Rio Grande constitutes a third area of deeply entrenched rural poverty. Here one finds a largely Latinx population with a long history of being exploited.[^18^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-50){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0083} The *colonias* along the border represent largely impoverished communities that are lacking in basic public services. The Southwest and Northern Plains (including parts of Alaska) are also marked by high poverty. Much of this poverty is specific to Native Americans, often on reservations. These counties frequently have some of the highest rates of poverty in the country.[^19^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-51){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0084} The history here is one of exploitation, broken treaties, and the decimation of Native people. Finally, the central corridor of California represents an area of high poverty, especially among migrant laborers. It is a region marked by historically low wages paid to farm laborers and their families. Most of these workers are of Hispanic origin.[^20^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-52){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0085} []{#09_chapter3.xhtml#page_22}The fact that poverty is greater in rural than urban America contradicts the bucolic image that we often have of small towns dotting the countryside. In fact, many of these areas have been crippled by the economic changes that have taken place in the past 50 years.[^21^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-53){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0086} Small towns have often seen their main streets bordered up, and small farming communities in particular have witnessed devastating changes. ### Conclusion {#09_chapter3.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-3-div1-15.sec1} The image of poverty that many hold in their mind is one of inner-city poverty. While no one should doubt that such poverty is quite real and debilitating, those living in poverty reside in a much wider range of areas than this image implies. In fact, the poor can be found in just about any location across America. Yet, such poverty often seems invisible. One reason for this is that poverty is not something that people wish to acknowledge or draw attention to. Rather, it is something that individuals and families would like to go away. As a result, many Americans attempt to conceal their economic difficulties as much as possible.[^22^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-54){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0087} This often involves keeping up appearances and trying to maintain a "normal" lifestyle. Such poverty down the block may at first appear invisible. Nevertheless, the reach of poverty is widespread, touching nearly all communities across America. The myth that poverty is confined to a particular group of Americans, in very specific locations, is corrosive because it encourages the belief that poverty is an issue of "them" rather than "us." As discussed in [Chapter 2](#08_chapter2.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-2){#09_chapter3.xhtml#n0088}, poverty strikes a wide swath of the population. In addition, as we have shown in this chapter, it touches Americans in cities, suburbs, and rural communities. Given this, it is much more accurate to think of poverty as affecting us, rather than them. ::: {#09_chapter3.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-3-boxedMatter-2.box} ### An Expert Appraisal---Paul A. Jargowsky {#09_chapter3.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-3-div1-16.sec1} Paul A. Jargowsky is Professor of Public Policy at Rutgers University, and is also the director of the Center for Urban Research and Urban Education. Much of his research has focused on the geographic concentration of poverty, as well as patterns of residential segregation by race and class. *When poverty is discussed in the United States, the image that comes to many people's minds is, to use sociologist Elijah Anderson's memorable phrase, the "iconic ghetto." Several myths are bundled together in this mental association. The first myth, as the title of this chapter points out, is that most poor people live in high-poverty ghettos and barrios. The second is that all high-poverty neighborhoods are in the central cities of large metropolitan areas, such as New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. The []{#09_chapter3.xhtml#page_23}third is that all African Americans and Hispanics are poor and reside in such places. This chapter, and many of the others in this volume, do well to tease apart fact and fiction with respect to these topics.* *One can hardly blame those who have internalized these ideas. Urban ghettos and barrios---usually depicted as violent and rat-infested---are a staple of movies and TV shows. Depictions of harsh and exploitative neighborhoods are also common in rap music and rags-to-riches memoirs. Politicians looking for votes visit such neighborhoods to push the latest "zone" program promising to revitalize stricken urban cores, only to disappear after the election is over. Judging by the books and articles they write, poverty scholars also seem to focus disproportionately on the urban poor living in high-poverty neighborhoods, often focusing on the question of the effect such neighborhoods may have on children who grow up there.* *As this chapter points out, there are now significantly more concentrations of poverty outside central cities. The inner-ring suburb of Ferguson, Missouri, was a mostly White, middle-class suburb as recently as 1990. Now, it is poor and mostly Black, and it recently experienced some of worst racial unrest since the 1960s, ignited by the police killing of Michael Brown. The growth of poverty in suburban locations strains local governments that lack the experience or capacity to provide social services. And poverty in rural areas and Native American reservations seems intractable because of geographic isolation in areas with little economic activity.* *Neither the public, the academy, nor the government should focus on the poor residing in high-poverty areas to the exclusion of the larger number of poor residing in less disadvantaged neighborhoods or outside traditional urban cores. Yet, it is worth noting that those poor living in urban high-poverty areas face significant challenges. Not only must they cope with their own lack of resources, but also they reside in neighborhoods that often have low-quality housing stock, vacant buildings, crime and violence, and underperforming schools. Recent research has found significant negative effects on children who grow up in such environments. The existence of these neighborhoods has resulted to a large degree from unwise public policies regarding mortgage lending, exclusionary zoning, and large-scale subsidies for suburban sprawl. While we should improve the social safety net for all poor people, wherever they live, we must also reverse the process that creates economically and racially segregated neighborhoods that make all the problems of poverty worse.* ::: []{#10_chapter4.xhtml} []{#10_chapter4.xhtml#page_24}[{ 4 }](#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0004) {#10_chapter4.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-4.ch_title1} ---------------------------------------------------------------- [Poverty Spells Are Short but Frequent](#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0004) {#poverty-spells-are-short-but-frequent.ch_title2} ------------------------------------------------------------------ []{#10_chapter4.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-4-div1-17}An overriding poverty myth is that the poor are fundamentally different from other Americans. As part of this stereotype, they are often viewed as locked into a pattern of long-term poverty because of their dysfunctional characteristics. The mental image is one of families experiencing poverty year in and year out. This myth can be seen frequently in media images of the poor. Whether it is about the poverty of single women having numerous children, homeless men living on the streets, or long-term poverty in economically distressed rural America, the story projected is one of chronic poverty. This dovetails closely with a perspective in the social sciences known as the culture of poverty. The culture of poverty argument asserts that poverty has become a way of life for many of the poor, and that this way of life is passed down from one generation to the next. Perhaps the most popular proponent of this viewpoint today is the author Ruby Paine.[^1^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-55){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0089} Paine has made a career out of advising school districts around the country on how they can best understand and address the needs of poor children in their schools. Her assumption is that such children are locked into long-term poverty and that, as a result, they have developed a completely different way of life and style of learning than their middle-class counterparts. In sharp contrast, academics over the past 40 years have built up a sizable volume of research measuring the actual length of time that individuals will spend in poverty. They have also estimated how frequently households will experience poverty and the events leading families into and out of poverty. As demonstrated throughout this book, these realities are quite different than the myths. ### Most Poverty Spells Are Short {#10_chapter4.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-4-div1-18.sec1} Before the advent of large longitudinal data sets tracking the same people over extended periods of time, it was often assumed that those living in poverty []{#10_chapter4.xhtml#page_25}during the current year are roughly the same people who were living in poverty the previous year and who will be the next year. These assumptions were largely based on anecdotal stories. However, beginning in the mid-1970s, social scientists have gathered substantial information from large longitudinal data sets about the actual patterns and length of time that individuals find themselves in poverty.[^2^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-56){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0090} It turns out that a much more accurate picture is that poverty spells tend to be short but frequent. Poverty is more often fluid, rather than the static image portrayed in the myths. [Table 4.1](#10_chapter4.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-4-tableGroup-4){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0091} displays the percentage of new poverty spells in the United States that end within a given number of years. As we can see, within 1 or 2 years, the majority of people escaped from poverty. Within 1 year, 53 percent of new spells ended; 70 percent ended within 2 years, and more than three-fourths within 3 years. Less than 15 percent of spells last more than 5 years.[^3^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-57){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0092} If we consider long-term poverty as lasting 5 or more consecutive years, then the vast majority of American poverty spells do not meet such a standard. As Mary Jo Bane and David Ellwood explained years ago in one of the first analyses of American poverty spells: "Most people who slip into poverty are quite successful in getting out."[^4^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-58){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0093} ::: {#10_chapter4.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-4-tableGroup-4.table} TABLE 4.1 Spell Length Distribution for New Poverty Spells Years in poverty New spells that ended (%) ------------------ --------------------------- 1 52.5 2 69.7 3 77.9 4 82.9 5 86.1 6 88.3 7 90.1 8 91.3 9 92.3 *Source*: Ann Huff Stevens, "Climbing Out of Poverty, Falling Back In: Measuring the Persistence of Poverty over Multiple Spells," *Journal of Human Resources* 34, no. 3 (Summer 1999), p. 568. ::: Another way of seeing the relatively short-term nature of poverty spells is through a U.S. Census analysis of monthly poverty. Using a large longitudinal data set known as the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), poverty can be analyzed on a monthly rather than an annual basis. During the 36 months of 2009, 2010, and 2011, 31.6 percent of the U.S. population experienced poverty at some point (defined as being in poverty for 2 or more consecutive months). However, for those experiencing poverty, 72.1 percent did so for 12 months or less, while only 15.2 percent of individuals experienced poverty for more than 24 consecutive months.[^5^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-59){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0094} Again, the vast majority of those experiencing poverty do so over a fairly short period of time. []{#10_chapter4.xhtml#page_26}Research has also shown that poverty entrances and exits are most often caused by changes in employment status and/or financial resources. This could involve getting laid off from a job or having one's hours cut. Other causes of entrances/exits include changes in family structure (e.g., divorce/marriage, childbirth, or a child leaving home to start their own household), changes in disability status, educational attainment, and regional employment conditions (e.g., the number of jobs available and wage levels).[^6^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-60){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0095} These are common events that most of us will experience over the life course. Some Americans live closer to the poverty line than others, however, making these events more consequential in their lives. But they can happen to any of us, and for those close to the line who fall into poverty as a result, most fight hard to escape poverty and succeed relatively quickly. Poverty spells triggered by moving out of one's parents' house tend to be the shortest, while spells triggered by the birth of a child tend to be the longest. Employment, education, and marriage are helpful in both avoiding poverty and exiting faster if one does become poor. African Americans, women, female single-parent households, and those with low educational attainment are at higher risk of new spells, multiple spells, and longer lasting spells.[^7^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-61){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0096} While short-term poverty is the norm, long-term poverty is nevertheless a concern. Some analyses show that, at any given moment, a majority of the poor are enduring long-term poverty spells of 10 years or more.[^8^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-62){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0097} How could this be, if most new poverty spells end within 1 or 2 years? Bane and Ellwood explain with a helpful metaphor: ::: {.prosequote} *Consider the situation in a typical hospital. Most of the persons admitted in any year will require only a very short spell of hospitalization. But a few of the newly admitted patients are chronically ill and will have extended stays in the hospital. If we ask what proportion of all admissions are people who are chronically ill, the answer is relatively few. On the other hand, if we ask what fraction of the number of the hospital's beds at any one time are occupied by the chronically ill, the answer is much larger. The reason is simple. Although the chronically ill account for only a small fraction of all admissions, because they stay so long they end up being a sizable part of the hospital population and they consume a sizable proportion of the hospital\'s resources*.[^9^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-63){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0098} ::: So, while most Americans who find themselves in poverty will be there for only a matter of a few years, persistent poverty is in fact a concern. This minority of the poor does indeed present unique challenges to policymakers compared with the majority of those experiencing short-term poverty. The risk of experiencing multiple spells is also a concern. Despite the norm of short spells for most people, slightly more than half of those who escape poverty will return for an additional spell within 5 years. The longer one experiences poverty, the harder it is to escape, and the more likely one is to []{#10_chapter4.xhtml#page_27}return to poverty. While a majority will exit poverty within the first year, the likelihood of escaping declines rapidly after that. For those who have been in poverty for 5 years, their likelihood of exit is less than 20 percent. And of those who have been in poverty for at least 5 years before exit, more than two-thirds will return within 5 years.[^10^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-64){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0099} Data on time spent on government assistance is also helpful to this discussion. A little more than one-fourth (27 percent) of Americans use at least one major means-tested program---Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and/or General Assistance (GA)---at some point during the year. Participation within a given year is higher for female single-parent households (58 percent vs. 20 percent for married couples), African Americans and Hispanics (49 and 46 percent vs. 18 percent for Whites), children (47 percent vs. 23 percent for working-age adults), those without a high school degree (45 percent vs. 29 percent for high school graduates), and unemployed individuals (42 percent vs. 11 percent for full-time workers). Within a 4-year period, a majority of participants (57 percent) use these programs for 3 years or less. Medicaid and SNAP are the most heavily used programs (15 percent and 13 percent monthly participation, respectively).[^11^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-65){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0100} The program that Americans most often strongly associate with "welfare"---TANF---is used much less than other programs (1 percent of the population monthly, 1.7 percent over a 4-year period).[^12^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-66){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0101} Spells on TANF are also very short: about half (49 percent) end within 4 months, and more than three-fourths (78 percent) end within a year. Additionally, the vast majority of TANF participants (72 percent) use the program for 2 years or less in a given 10-year period.[^13^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-67){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0102} ### Economic Insecurity Is Widespread {#10_chapter4.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-4-div1-19.sec1} In addition to the myth that most poverty spells are long, the belief that encountering economic insecurity is an outlier experience is false. Economic insecurity is in fact something that happens to most of us*.* As shown in [Chapter 2](#08_chapter2.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-2){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0103}, a majority of Americans will experience poverty (58 percent) and near-poverty (76 percent) for at least 1 year in their lifetimes.[^14^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-68){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0104} Additionally, by age 60 years, a majority will have been unemployed for a spell (67 percent), a sizable minority (45 percent) will have had to rely on welfare, and an overwhelming majority (79 percent) will have experienced some form of economic insecurity (poverty/near poverty, unemployment, and/or welfare use) for at least 1 year.[^15^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-69){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0105} Furthermore, substantial proportions of the American population will experience multiple years of economic insecurity as well as consecutive years. More than half of the population will experience at least 2 (62 percent) or 3 (50 percent) total years of economic in security, while more than one-third will []{#10_chapter4.xhtml#page_28}experience at least 4 (42 percent) or 5 (35 percent) total years.[^16^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-70){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0106} In terms of consecutive years, approximately one-half (51 percent) experience 2 or more consecutive years, about one-third (34 percent) endure 3 or more, and nearly one-fourth (24 percent) experience 4 or more consecutive years of economic insecurity.[^17^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-71){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0107} Again, the pattern is that economic insecurity will strike a majority of the population but will do so for a relatively short period of time. In fact, regardless of which period of adulthood one examines, whether it is early in one's career or as when approaching retirement, "during any 10-year age period across the prime working years, at least half of the population will experience one or more years of significant economic insecurity."[^18^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-72){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0108} ### Punishing Life Events {#10_chapter4.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-4-div1-20.sec1} What these data tell us is that "the reach of economic distress is quite wide, but its grip is less severe. The typical life course pattern is that individuals tend to move in and out of economic turmoil, depending on the changing conditions in their lives."[^19^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-73){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0109} Some groups are likely to be poor more frequently and for a longer duration than others. For millions of Americans who are living paycheck to paycheck and precariously close to the poverty line, normal life events like the birth of a child or temporary loss of a job can send them below the poverty line. But poverty spells tend to be short, and they are caused by the risk associated with normal events that happen to most of us across the life course. They are just more catastrophic for some than for others. Indicative of how close many Americans are to poverty, a recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank found that 37 percent of Americans do not have enough savings put aside to protect them from a \$400 emergency.[^20^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-74){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0110} What is abnormal about this situation is not that people experience these events, but that we have collectively chosen as a society to punish these normal life events so severely. Because of this, poverty is a much more normal and systemic feature of the American experience than it is in many other wealthy countries. David Brady and colleagues have shown this to be empirically the case across 29 rich democracies. The authors focused on four major risks of poverty---low education, single motherhood, young adults heading a household, and unemployment. They found that although the prevalence of these risks in the United States is actually below the average in other countries, the rate of poverty in the United States is the highest. The reason is that "the penalties for risks in the United States are the highest of the 29 countries. An individual with all four risks has an extremely heightened probability of being poor in the United States." Take the examples of single parents and young parents. In one cross-national analysis of single-parent family poverty rates, the country that penalized []{#10_chapter4.xhtml#page_29}single-parent families the least (Denmark) boasted a single-parent family poverty rate of only 8 percent. In the country that penalized these families the most (the United States), the rate was about 4 times higher at 33 percent.[^21^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-75){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0111} In another analysis of poverty rates for young-parent families in rich democracies, the penalty was twice as high or higher for young headship in the United States compared with countries like Australia and Japan.[^22^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-76){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0112} This is largely because of the different contexts in which these family structures occur. In some countries, social policies are designed to protect a wider variety of families than in the United States, regardless of their structure. In the United States, we have collectively decided that we are not going to protect all families to the same degree, and this is reflected in our social policies and resulting poverty rates for these families. Consider another example---education. It is true that in most countries, as in the United States, a higher level of educational attainment is typically associated with a lower risk of economic insecurity. But the penalties associated with low levels of educational attainment, and the rewards associated with high levels of attainment, vary significantly by country. Full-time workers without a high school degree in Finland, for instance, report the same earnings as those with a high school degree. In the United States, however, these workers experience a 24 percent earnings penalty for not completing high school.[^23^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-77){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0113} In Norway, a college degree yields only a 20 percent earnings increase over a high school degree for full-time workers, versus a much higher 68 percent increase in the United States.[^24^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-78){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0114} The percentage of those with a high school degree earning at or below the poverty threshold is more than 4 times higher in the United States than in Belgium.[^25^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-79){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0115} ::: {#10_chapter4.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-4-figureGroup-3.group} ![image](img/oso-9780190881382-graphic-005.gif) FIGURE 4.1 Increased poverty probability for the unemployed across 29 rich democracies. *Source*: David Brady, Ryan M. Finnegan, and Sabine Hübgen, "Rethinking the Risks of Poverty: A Framework for Analyzing Prevalences and Penalties," *American Journal of Sociology* 123, no. 3 (November 2017), p. 753. ::: Finally, consider the example of unemployment (as shown in [Figure 4.1](#10_chapter4.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-4-figureGroup-3){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0116}). There are 19 rich democracies that have a higher prevalence of unemployment than the United States, and only nine that have a lower prevalence. What is different about the United States is not the prevalence of unemployment, but the penalty associated with it. We can see in [Figure 4.1](#10_chapter4.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-4-figureGroup-3){#10_chapter4.xhtml#n0117} that there are only four rich []{#10_chapter4.xhtml#page_30}democracies that penalize unemployment more severely than the United States, and 24 that penalize it less severely. Unemployed workers are much more likely to fall into poverty in countries like the United States, Canada, and Japan, compared with countries such as the Netherlands and Iceland. ### Conclusion {#10_chapter4.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-4-div1-21.sec1} To truly alleviate poverty on a large scale, we must fix a system in which normal life experiences such as childbirth can translate into economic insecurity. Most of the poor are not unexplainable anomalies in an otherwise well-functioning society. Instead, they are the normal consequence of structural arrangements guaranteed to produce economic insecurity. Yet, it may be easier to believe that poverty is something that happens to deficient "others" who are hopelessly locked into a vicious cycle of their own doing. It eases our minds, assuring us that our own personal risk is minimal. It also helps us to avoid the stressful notion that significant systemic failings persist in our country. This, of course, has the potential to undermine our empathy, distort our understanding of how society works, and in the process hamper social progress. In contrast, poverty is something that most Americans will experience for a short period of time as a consequence of very "normal" occurrences---the loss of a job, the birth of a child, the transition to adulthood, the dissolution of a marriage, and so on. This suggests that the poor are not some deviant group of different "others" that cannot be helped. Instead, they are generally everyday people like you and me who hit a bump in the road and fall on hard times. Once there, the vast majority fight hard to escape poverty and succeed in a short period of time. If we as a society can better manage this systemic problem, we can better manage the risks of new entry into poverty, make them less common, and make the experience of poverty less severe. ::: {#10_chapter4.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-4-boxedMatter-3.box} ### An Expert Appraisal---Signe-Mary Mckernan and Kassandra Martinchek {#10_chapter4.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-4-div1-22.sec1} Signe-Mary McKernan is trained as an economist and is currently the co-director of the Opportunity and Ownership initiative at the Urban Institute. Kassandra Martinchek is a research analyst at the Urban Institute. *Any notion of the poor as a permanent underclass in the United States is a myth. Most Americans will experience poverty, and most people who become poor do not spend a long time in poverty. Believing this myth is damaging---it shapes the way we perceive our public benefits programs, our neighbors, and even our own financial security.* []{#10_chapter4.xhtml#page_31}*Believing that the poor in America are a permanent underclass can warp our beliefs about how our social safety net works and how people fall into poverty, as well as the development of policies that meaningfully address these issues. It implies that safety net programs are largely ineffective because those in poverty remain so for long periods of time. In contrast, SNAP receipt reduces the likelihood of being food insecure by roughly 30 percent, and the safety net (TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid/Children's Health Insurance Program \[CHIP\]) reduces material hardship by 48 percent.* *Nevertheless, we may adopt stories about the behavior of people who experience poverty to explain why they face hardship. We may falsely believe that people in poverty do not work. Or, we may adopt a "welfare queen" view, another myth that most poor people are manipulating the system. However, fraud is rare.* *By relying on the myth of a permanent poor underclass, we often develop policies that have unintended consequences. Asset limits (or savings penalties) are designed so that only the most vulnerable can access public benefit programs. However, in practice, they discourage low-income households from having a checking or savings account and building a savings cushion. Relaxed asset limits increase low-income household savings and mainstream financial market participation.* *This myth can also warp the way we perceive our own financial security and well-being. If we believe poverty is rare, we may adopt financial behaviors that undermine our financial security and well-being---such as saving for a rainy day.* *In summary*, *despite the common myth that the poor in the United States are a permanent underclass, evidence shows that poverty will affect a significant number of us. Most individuals will escape quickly, but there is a good chance some will get thrown back into poverty later in life. Our public safety net can help reduce the number of material hardships experienced by families, and we must realize that we all have a stake in the success of such programs.* ::: []{#11_chapter5.xhtml} []{#11_chapter5.xhtml#page_32}[{ 5 }](#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0005) {#11_chapter5.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-5.ch_title1} ---------------------------------------------------------------- [Whites Are the Largest Racial Group Experiencing Poverty](#05_Contents1.xhtml#n0005) {#whites-are-the-largest-racial-group-experiencing-poverty.ch_title2} ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- []{#11_chapter5.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-5-div1-23}Close your eyes and think about a "typical" person experiencing poverty. Who do you imagine? A woman or man? An adult or child? A person of color or someone who is White? If you are like many people, whom you envision may not align with the reality of people actually living in poverty. This is particularly the case when it comes to racial demographics. Although White Americans make up the largest number of individuals living below the poverty line in the United States, the tendency to equate poverty with people of color, particularly African Americans, persists. In this chapter, we delve into this myth, separating racialized stereotypes from reality, and attending closely to the role of media in perpetuating this pervasive misconception. ### Race and Poverty Demographics {#11_chapter5.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-5-div1-24.sec1} In thinking about who specifically in the U.S. population experiences poverty, there are at least two ways of approaching this question. The first is to focus on which groups have a higher or lower rate of poverty compared with the general population. This allows us to examine to what extent various population characteristics are associated with the risk of poverty. The second approach looks at the overall poverty population with respect to group composition. This informs us about what the face and makeup of poverty look like. Each of these approaches tells us something slightly different about who the poor are. Let us consider the example of race. Non-Whites (specifically African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans) have much higher rates of poverty than Whites. However, the majority of the poor are White. How can this be? The answer is that Whites account for a much larger segment of the overall population, and therefore, even though their rate of poverty is lower than that of non-Whites, they still make up a majority of the poor. []{#11_chapter5.xhtml#page_33}[Table 5.1](#11_chapter5.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-5-tableGroup-5){#11_chapter5.xhtml#n0118} shows how the rate of poverty and the composition of the poor population vary by race. It should be noted that "Hispanic" is considered an ethnic rather than a racial category. Consequently, one could self-identify as both White and Hispanic, or as Black and Hispanic. ::: {#11_chapter5.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-5-tableGroup-5.table} TABLE 5.1 Poverty Rates and Racial Composition of the Poor, 2019 Demographic characteristics Poverty rate (%) Percentage of poor population --------------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------------------- **Total** 10.5 100.0 **Race and ethnicity** Whites 9.1 66.2 Not of Hispanic origin 7.3 41.6 Blacks 18.8 23.8 Hispanics 15.7 28.1 Native Americans 23.7 1.7 Asian and Pacific Islander Americans 7.3 4.3 *Source*: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020. ::: For Whites (not of Hispanic origin), the poverty rate in 2019 was 7.3 percent. In contrast, the rate for other groups was considerably higher: The poverty rate for Blacks was 18.8 percent; for Hispanics, 15.7 percent; for Native Americans, 23.7 percent; and for Asian and Pacific Islander Americans, 7.3 percent. These differences reflect the disparities found across many economic measures. They include significant racial and ethnic differences in income, unemployment rates, net worth, educational attainment, and occupational status.[^1^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-80){#11_chapter5.xhtml#n0119} The result is a much higher overall rate of poverty for non-Whites compared with Whites. On the other hand, we can also see that approximately two-thirds of the poor self-identify as White. As noted previously, this is primarily the result of the relatively larger size of the overall White population, so that while the face of poverty is largely White, the risk of poverty is much greater for non-Whites. The bottom line is that Whites comprise the largest share of the population in both poverty and the overall U.S. population, while communities of color consist of smaller shares of both groups yet are significantly more likely to experience poverty. Relative to their shares of the total population, African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans are overrepresented among people experiencing poverty, with poverty rates more than double that of Whites. Nevertheless, Whites make up the largest share of the population in poverty because their overall size in the general population is much larger. Many of the same demographic patterns and misperceptions that distort understandings of poverty are also evident in stereotypes about safety net programs and their recipients. An exchange between President Donald Trump and the U.S. Congressional Black Caucus vividly illustrates the tendency to []{#11_chapter5.xhtml#page_34}equate welfare receipt with people of color. When one of the caucus members observed that welfare reform would harm her constituents and noted, "not all of whom are Black," President Trump queried, "Really? Then what are they?"[^2^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-81){#11_chapter5.xhtml#n0120} As is the case with poverty, they are probably White. For example, White Americans make up the largest percentage of people participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides food assistance to low-income individuals and families. In 2017, 35.8 percent of SNAP recipients were White, 25.4 percent were African American, 16.5 percent Hispanic, and 3.2 percent Asian American.[^3^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-82){#11_chapter5.xhtml#n0121} Whites also account for the largest number (23.5 million) and percentage (41 percent) of people who are not senior citizens and receive health care through Medicaid, a program that serves low-income individuals and families.[^4^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-83){#11_chapter5.xhtml#n0122} People of color are overrepresented in these programs, but Whites again make up the largest share of recipients. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which provides cash assistance to low-income families with children and is the program most often associated with "welfare," diverges from this pattern. The largest share of TANF recipients in 2018 were Hispanic (37.8 percent), followed by African Americans (28.9 percent), White Americans (27.2 percent), and Asian Americans (1.9 percent).[^5^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-84){#11_chapter5.xhtml#n0123} However, reviewing demographic trends over time reveals that this has not always been the case. Before the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), Whites typically made up a larger share of cash aid caseloads than Hispanics and a similar share as African American recipients. Some researchers attribute these shifting demographics to restrictive welfare reform regulations that discourage all but those with the least resources and opportunities from applying for assistance and push recipients who can to exit the program and to do so as quickly as possible. As a consequence, families of color and other recipients with limited social and human capital may be more likely to receive TANF. ### Media and the Persistence of Racialized Poverty Myths {#11_chapter5.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-chapter-5-div1-25.sec1} Media plays a powerful role in encouraging and reinforcing the association of people of color, especially African Americans, with poverty and safety net programs. The overrepresentation of Blacks and the relative invisibility of Whites in news stories about poverty and welfare is well documented. In a content analysis of 2015--2016 television, print, and online news stories, 59 percent of poor people who were discussed or portrayed were African American, yet they accounted for just 27 percent of people experiencing poverty at the time.[^6^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-85){#11_chapter5.xhtml#n0124} Conversely, Whites constituted 66 percent of the low-income population but were depicted in just 17 percent of news media stories.[^7^](#34_Notes.xhtml#oso-9780190881382-miscMatter-6-note-86){#11_chapter5.xhtml#n0125} These skewed representations were present in both right- and left-l

Poorly Understood: What America Gets Wrong About Poverty PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript