Posts Tagged ‘poverty’

Spectre-of-Capitalism

Ross Douthat blames America’s sagging birthrate on “cultural decadence.”

Nancy Folbre has formulated the appropriate response. First, the growth of capitalism itself accounts for most of the decline in fertility during the past 200 hundred years or so. Second,

Today, in an era of serious economic stress, in which the best promises of capitalism have been broken, low-income mothers and children are threatened with major cuts to public assistance. Yet conservatives staunchly defend the unprecedented riches of the top 1 percent, resisting even small increases in marginal tax rates.

Yes, Mr. Douthat, cultural decadence is definitely in evidence.

18543e98-2540-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_gallery

Special mention

123396_600 09-05-12 MadeInAmerica

brooklyn-street-art-phooey-jaime-rojo-12-12-web

source

123291_600

Special mention

123318_600 123313_600

 

I just took a memorable trip to Harlan County, Kentucky—a region with a rich history and crunching poverty.*

 

The latest battle in Harlan County is over mountaintop removal, which is already dominating the landscape and looming over communities across the border in Virginia:

 

*The median household income in Harlan County (according to the Census Bureau, for 2006-2010) is $26,582 (compared to $41,576 for Kentucky) and the poverty rate is 30.7 percent (compared to 17.7 percent for Kentucky)

The other day in class, I explained to students that the average American retires with less than $25,000 in assets and that most people have less than $500 in the bank. And one student responded: “I guess they’ve made bad choices.”

Needless to say, it was a “teaching moment,” as we talked about what it means to live in or near poverty in the United States. And that was before I read a new study by Anuj K. Shah et al., “Some Consequences of Having Too Little,” published in a recent issue of Science. (The article is behind a paywall but it is discussed in the Los Angeles Times.)

According to the authors, “Poor individuals often engage in behaviors, such as excessive borrowing, that reinforce the conditions of poverty.” They often “behave in ways that reinforce poverty. For instance, low-income individuals often play lotteries, fail to enroll in assistance programs, save too little, and borrow too much.” The question is, why?

The theory developed by Anuj K. Shah et al. is that “Resource scarcity creates its own mindset, changing how people look at problems and make decisions.”

To understand this hypothesis, consider how people manage expenses. When money is abundant, basic expenses (e.g., groceries, rent) are handled easily as they arise. These expenses come and go, rarely requiring attention and hardly lingering on the mind. But when money is scarce, expenses are not easily met. Instead of appearing mundane, they feel urgent. The very lack of available resources makes each expense more insistent and more pressing. A trip to the grocery store looms larger, and this month’s rent constantly seizes our attention. Because these problems feel bigger and capture our attention, we engage more deeply in solving them. This is our theory’s core mechanism: Having less elicits greater focus. . .

The second part of our theory follows readily from the first. Because scarcity elicits greater engagement in some problems, it leads to neglect of others. While focusing on the groceries from week to week, we might neglect next month’s rent. While consumed with meeting tomorrow’s manuscript deadline, we might fail to prepare next week’s lecture. Attentional neglect appears in many domains. Low-income homeowners often do not attend to regular home maintenance while they focus on more pressing expenses. Neglected, these small repairs become major projects. Similarly, in areas where water-borne illness is common, families might focus on pressing daily expenses while failing to procure periodic water treatments.

In other words,

It’s not that people living in poverty don’t save or tend to ignore the future; they just see things differently.

The next time some ignoramus steps forward to suggest that we need to cut Social Security in order to balance the fiscal budget, just tell them two things:

First, as I’ve shown before, there is no Social Security crisis.

Second, as the new poverty numbers from the Census Bureau [pdf] show, without Social Security benefits, the Supplemental Poverty Measure rate would have been 24.4 percent rather than 16.1 percent. For those 65 or older, Social Security benefits lowered poverty rates by a whopping 39 percentage points—from 54.1 percent to 15.1 percent.

Clearly, the poverty rates in the United States remain much too high. But without Social Security benefits, those rates would be much, much higher.

Special mention

 

Poverty and abortion

Posted: 15 November 2012 in Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

The next time someone tries to make an argument against abortion—against making abortion legal, safe, and accessible—send them to the Turnaway Study being conducted at the Bixby Center on Global Reproductive Health at University of California San Francisco.

Researchers found that a year after seeking an abortion, more than three-quarters of the women turned away were on public assistance and 67 percent were below the poverty line. Fewer than half of those turned away held a full time job.

Figures dropped significantly for the women who received abortions.

“When a woman is denied the abortion she wants, she is statistically more likely to wind up unemployed, on public assistance, and below the poverty line,” lead researcher Dr. Diana Greene Foster explained to io9. “Another conclusion we could draw is that denying women abortions places more burden on the state because of these new mothers’ increased reliance on public assistance programs.”

Research also revealed that one of the main reasons women sought abortions in the first place was monetary: 45 percent were on some form of public assistance and two-thirds had incomes below the federal poverty line.

Chart of the day

Posted: 15 November 2012 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

According to a new report from the Pew Charitable Trusts [pdf],

A defining factor of the Great Recession was the tremendous wealth loss experienced by families. Between 2007 and 2010, median family wealth dropped nearly 40 percent. About 62 percent of families in low-poverty neighborhoods experienced wealth losses during the recession, compared with half of families in high-poverty neighborhoods. Also, the absolute losses in median wealth were substantively higher for families in low-poverty neighborhoods ($135,281) than for families in high-poverty neighborhoods ($29,778) (see Figure 2). This is partly due to the fact that families in low-poverty neighborhoods started with greater wealth.

While families in high-poverty neighborhoods lost less wealth in absolute terms, their wealth losses reflect a 91 percent decline in their overall wealth. For families in low-poverty neighborhoods, their wealth losses reflect a 47 percent decline.

The loss in wealth in low-poverty neighborhoods during the first two years of the Second Great Depression was mostly tied to the decline in housing prices, as 70 percent of those living in low-poverty areas owned their own homes—compared to only 36 percent in high-poverty areas.

Note: In the report, high-poverty neighborhoods are defined as those with 30 percent of the population or more living in poverty, while low-poverty neighborhoods have less than 10 percent of the population living in poverty. Neighborhoods are defined by census tracts or small subdivisions of a county that average about 1,500 households and 4,000 residents.