Barbara Ehrenreich on Poverty
July 27th, 2006 | by Scott |One of the usually trotted out arguments for refusing to have a greater heart for the poor is that so many are there by choice or laziness.
That if they really wanted to get ahead in this free country where “all your dreams can come true,” then they could.
These types of arguments are largely presumptive. It presupposes knowledge of individuals that we don’t have.
And it vastly underestimates the chronic ferocity of poverty. Once it has you in its clutches it does not let go easily. Those of us who do make more the federal poverty level have experienced our own financial setbacks.
Those setbacks can be devastating. Try it when you have no safety net and it can be cataclysmic.
And 6-7 bucks an hour for any entry level job will not provide any source of long-term security.
About 5 years ago Barbara Ehrenreich wrote the classic Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. As research for the book she held several entry level jobs to see how unskilled laborers lived their lives. It is a highly informative and eye-opening read. I highly encourage it.
In her most recent blog entry Ms. Ehrenreich asks the question “Can you afford to be poor?” She writes:
…(I)t’s expensive to be poor. In fact, you, the reader of middling income, could probably not afford it.
A new study from the Brookings Institute documents the “ghetto tax,” or higher cost of living in low-income urban neighborhoods. It comes at you from every direction, from food prices to auto insurance. A few examples from this study, by Matt Fellowes, that covered 12 American cities:
- Poor people are less likely to have bank accounts, which can be expensive for those with low balances, and so they tend to cash their pay checks at check-cashing businesses, which in the cities surveyed, charged $5 to $50 for a $500 check.
- Nationwide, low-income car buyers, defined as people earning less than $30,000 a year, pay two percentage points more for a car loan than more affluent buyers.
- Low-income drivers pay more for car insurance. In New York, Baltimore and Hartford, they pay an average $400 more a year to insure the exact same car and driver risk than wealthier drivers.
- Poorer people pay an average of one percentage point more in mortgage interest.
- They are more likely to buy their furniture and appliances through pricey rent-to-own businesses. In Wisconsin, the study reports, a $200 rent-to-own TV set can cost $700 with the interest included.
- They are less likely to have access to large supermarkets and hence to rely on the far more expensive, and lower quality offerings, of small grocery and convenience stores.
So let’s have a little less talk about how the poor should learn to manage their money, and a little more attention to all the ways that money is being systematically siphoned off. Yes, certain kinds of advice would be helpful: skip the pay-day loans and rent-to-pay furniture, for example. But we need laws in more states to stop predatory practices like $50 charges for check-cashing. Also, think what some micro-credit could do to move families from motels and shelters to apartments. And did I mention a living wage?
If you’re rich, you might want to stay that way. It’s a whole lot cheaper than being poor.
Jesus said that we would always have the poor with us. He said that because that is where the disciple of Christ is called to go and minister. He did not say that so we could throw up our hands and say our work is done.
May we develop a greater heart for the poor and the forgotten.
(HT: Aaron Monts)
23 Responses to “Barbara Ehrenreich on Poverty”
By Bobby Valentine on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
Thanks for the link to this blog. I read her book several years ago and it was insightful.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
http://stoned-campbelldisciple.blogspot.com/
By Lachen on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
SO TIMELY.
I am headed to a forumn in about 90 minutes put on by local Realtors and community leaders to try to pressure our local and political leaders to end predatory lending processes. It is unreal the ways people who are not affluent are deliberately preyed upon. Ah, the sour aftertaste of capitalism.
I guess if we don’t make other people rich, it is not worth their time to do business with us.
I have never read this particular author before on any topic, but I will try to carve some time out to peruse her blog later this evening.
By jettybetty on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
O this is so where God had me today–and I had not even thought about being poor from this way.
I am pretty sure God is speaking to me about my attitudes toward the *poor*.
By greg on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
There was a story on the news just last night regarding a new free medical center opening up here in LR. It was started up by our church and another, and will provide free medical care for low-income families who cannot afford health insurance.
I remember seeing that book several years ago. Sounds like a good read.
By John on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
I was just reading something that showed some of the challenges facing the poor. It about a local food bank that had a challenge for people to try and live on what food stamps allows for a week. I was shocked by how little the assistance is, ranging from $35.47 for 1 person to $168.47 for a family of 6. There is no way you could eat good healthy food for that little a week. So with so little assistance the choice becomes eat little or use other funds for food. Not to mention the health damages of a poor diet leading to medical cost and so on.
By Scott on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
What this illustrates is a much more fundamental problem in our society. We think that if these people just employ a little bit of initiative they can pull themselves out of their condition. But every move they make comes from a disadvantage. To get a place to live they need first and last months rent, plus a security deposit.
To get that kind of money, they need a reliable job. To get hired for that job they need proof of address.
Just a snippet of our defense budget would do wonders.
By Doug Freeman on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
Scott, I understand some of what has been mentioned in this post about the poor. I have concerns also but those concerns are not so great when laziness gives way to filth. Just today, i found myself in a home where it was so filthy you could not find a clean spot to sit down. Yes they are poor but that is no excuse for homes i go to and even some that i won’t go inside. I realize this may be my take on these situations but when you stand outside and do a survey in the hot heat amid piles of beer cans and trash you tend to form opinions.
My type of work carries me to these type situations and i must admit there are clean residences and i have a special feeling for their low income status. There are a significant number of people who choose not to work and live in poverty. I don’t know how to change that, but i do know for a fact, their most common gripe is the government is not giving them enough money. I recall also a situation fairly recent where some grandparents had custody of their two grandchildren. Their household income was a 6 figure amount but they were getting free school lunches for the two kids. I wish you could accompany me on some of my trips.
By George Freeman on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
Doug’s post takes me back a few years to when I met with multiple households over a period of time as a Social Worker within Florida’s Childrens’s Protective Services. An agency that has been and is still rife with problems.
I visited nymerous households where the filth and stench was beyond belief. In most cases more than adequate aid was being received from multiple sources.
One household in particular has always remained in my memory. A family of 5 with the youngest in a crib. I would visit at least once a week following complaints from neighbors, family and the school system. I was always a tad slow in removing children from a family but will never forget the day I walked in and found a rat in the crib with the baby. Needless to say I took the children from that situation on that day.
Readers can sit in easy judgment of the protective services process. In fact, it is not easy and very complex.
Doug talks about filth and neglect. Indeed, it does exist. As a social worker I could over look that to some extent if I could see concern for the children. Usually the filth and neglect was more an indicator of self attitude and a certain endangerment to children.
By greg on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
doug, are you saying that, since you see some lazy poor people and/or people who are attempting to work the system for more gov’t money, you are therefore less interested in helping the poor? I don’t doubt there are such people, but I believe there are plenty (I like to think, a majority) that have not chosen to be where they are, yet cannot seem to get over the hump to improve their life (for any number of reasons). I also wonder sometimes if some of those who appear ‘lazy’ are not as lazy as it might appear, but have lost hope of ever escaping their situation, and have simply given up. That may not be true, but I could see that happening. There will always be people who want to abuse the system and avoid responsibility. I don’t think that’s reason enough to write off everyone else, too.
By Jason Bybee on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
Scott, I appreciate this post very much. Concern for the poor is part of our call to follow Christ. Sadly, I don’t think about the poor very often because I’m not poor myself. Your post (and Ms. Ehrenreich’s) gives me much to pray about.
I agree to Greg here. Although I’m sure there are quite a few impoverished families that might fit Doug’s “lazy” description, I tend to think most of these individuals have not chosen their plight. I understand we have a call to be good stewards but I think that call is secondary to our call to love and meet needs.
By Doug Freeman on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
Greg, I did not intend to infer that these conditions caused me to be unconcerned about the poor. I am stating that you may be poor but that is not an excuse to be filthy. I have been in places where you had to watch and not step in dog or cat poop. This is not due to a plight of being poor that causes you to neglect being clean and somewhat sanitary. Sure the poor need help but i also believe the lord helps those who help themselves. I find a lot of folks who are deserving of help and then some i am in doubt about. There are biblical principles concerning this.
By Doug Freeman on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
Scott, I had another question. The emphasis here is we must take care of the poor. What are we to do? Are you saying more gov. hand outs? We personally are giving what we can to help the poor in river city and the rescue mission. We contribute on a regular basis in addition to the church. If we say we must take care of the poor i think it behooves us to look inward and assess what are we personally doing to solve the problem. More welfare is not the answer. We need to be looking at means to put a lot of these people to work. When you have men tell you no, i am not going to work and lose my 600.00/mo gov. hand out, it does have an effect on me because at 78 i am still working and paying taxes to help provide those handouts. Sorry, but some of this touches a nerve that causes a reaction.
By Lachen on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
I agree with pieces of what everyone has said here.
Doug makes worthy points, in that poverty is not a puzzle to be solved the same way. Each person on this planet arrives at his current desintation along a different path. Poverty is a difficult beast to tackle from only one universal perspective. Pandemic, societal poverty differs from situational poverty which differs still from the outright laziness Doug talks about that does seem to exist alongside poverty in some important ways.
I find that dependence on any government for our basic living elements (food, shelter, subsidies, etc) is a CAUSE of poverty, not a cure or a help. We offload a lot of our personal responsibility as people and as Christian people on some distant entity know as the “government”. Jesus didn;t say that the government is not responsible to feed the hungry and clothe the poor. He said that WE are.
Having spent my first 9 years VERY poor (as in, our family living in one room poor), I know that the government should be left out of the equation altogether. We need to be LESS dependent on some governmental agencies or programs and more dependent on one another as people, just helping and loving people because Jesus says so. When government gets out of the way entirely, MUCH more gets accomplished.
By scott on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
Dad, if you read the last paragraph of my post you will see that I am talking about the church. Ronald Sider has figured that if every Christian tithed for the poor then we could alleviate poverty worldwide several times over.
But it’s interesting to me that we can laud the greatness of the country and its Christian values. How we can base our votes on our moral conviction on different social issues, but yet we still fail to see how our national budget is a moral document.
Yes, ultimately, the church must be at the forefront of the poverty debate. But we almost must understand that when the poor get whalloped by governmental policies, cutbacks and taxing that we have to be a voice for them.
Look back at those figures that Ms. Ehrenreich provides. Because of our myopic commitment tc competition in the marketplace, poor people can’t get health insurance.
It’s difficult for them to get a leg up. And there are governmental policies that restrict their hope. A 5.15 minimum wage being one of those.
Sure,there are people who take advantage of governmental largesse. Those tales remain largely anecdotal and missing of the larger issue.
It’s funny where we want government to be big, and where we want it to get out of the way.
By R-Liz on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
This is a great discussion and definitely has me thinking.
Lachen– thanks for the personal insight. I think most of us (our whole lives) have been on the outside looking in on this issue, so I appreciate very much hearing your thoughts.
Just to add a few comments:
– Did any of you watch the PBS series “Country Boys”? I think that’s what it was called. I found it really insightful when looking at the poverty of one family in particular that was being followed. The habits and “know-how” of how to get all the government subsidies that you can were passed down from one generation to the next. The oldest son was a main character in the series, and he was given every opportunity available to make a better situation for his future– educationally, economically. But he somehow seemed to work up some form of sabotage right before the good thing was handed over to him. I’m sure fear of the unknown and possibly not fitting in with his family anymore played some part in it.
– Have you read the book “Boundaries” by Cloud and Townsend? I read it years back and feel it’s really helped me see things in a whole new light when it comes to “helping” versus “enabling,” and it’s by Christian authors who try to show a biblical basis behind this.
– I think Oprah’s show today is about living on minimum wage. Could be interesting.
By justin on Jul 30, 2006 | Reply
The minimum wage contributes to poverty, but not in the way you might think.
The higher the minimum wage, the fewer jobs are availible for the poor because more middle class wasp teenagers vie for the jobs. If you raise the minimum wage to 10 dollars an hour, as has been proposed, those that need the jobs the most will be pushed out by those that look nicer and have more reliable transportation, and with a couple years of high school, most likely more education.
We don’t need a higher minimum wage and we don’t need more government welfare, what we need are more programs like HOPEWORKS here in Memphis that teach job skills to the poor and help them get internships to gain experience. Its the whole give a man a fish/teach a man to fish thing. Poverty will never be ended by simply redistributing wealth. I see those figures about how if every one just gave a certain amount of money away it would cure poverty. Poverty exists for different reasons across the globe, but one of the main causes is corrupt governments and lack of free markets. Without free markets and private property, the elite government workers live in largesse while the poor starve. Many who try to start businesses have their businesses destroyed by the government. The land won’t produce food for over populated areas and when we send food aid in, the tyrants take it.
Poverty exists in this country becaues of several factors. One is lack of education. If you don’t finish high school, your chances of living above the poverty line are slim to none. Same goes for if you have children before you are 18. What we need are programs that are relationship based with the poor that encourage them and help them in gaining an education (and maybe helping them will bills during education) and job skills in order to be on their own. The key in this is relationships. Welfare,until recently, rewarded those who did not work and those that had multiple children. This actually perpetuates poverty. If we have a governmental welfare system, it needs to be one that encourages people to do better.
Regardless, we need to do something, but we need to make sure that we don’t lead with our emotions because sometimes that causes more problems then were there to begin with.
By Scott on Jul 31, 2006 | Reply
Justin, I have to say this about you: your unswerving commitment to all things capitalism is amazing. And somewhat disconcerting.
Our hope is not in free markets. I do understand what you say about alleviating poverty coming through the works of the church and other benevolent sources.
But government must play a role. It cannot be oppressive. Go back to the original blog post. It’s about how difficult it makes it for people to get a leg up. I never advocated expanding welfare.
But the minimum wage, which has remained untouched for almost 10 years, must be raised. By your logic, we would be better suited to lower it. A living wage is something that will benefit all people.
And don’t get me started on that “give a man a fish” argument.
By justin on Jul 31, 2006 | Reply
If an economist tried to explain something about theology to you, something they obviously knew nothing about, you would tell them they were wrong, correct?
I’m saying that capitalism is a science, its not just some guys making up ways to hurt the poor. In my opinion, when theologians attempt to talk about government intervention in the market economy, its the same as theologians trying to tell people how the earth was created. There is substantial evidence for evolution, yet there are Christians out there who say that God created the earth in a literal three days, and they spend their lives trying to find hidden meanings in the text to try and explain how science is wrong.
I believe in capitalism because its been proven. There are flaws, but so far, its the best system for feeding the most people and raising the most people out of poverty. So what I do is I look at the mandate of Christ to help the poor, and I will help them in as many ways as are possible, but I will not support some feel good solution that isn’t going to work. Raising the minimum wage hurts the poorest of the poor. It causes job loss, it makes getting a job more competitive, it raises prices on goods… all of which hurt the poor. Right now, just as your quote said, the poor are subject to basically poor taxes by being in cities. If there were a wal mart in the middle of the inner city it would be great for them. Wages at 8 or 9 bucks an hour for unskilled workers, and goods that are far cheaper than the small groceries that exist there now. But what are governments doing? Liberal big cities have run wal mart off through taxes and wage hikes that make it impossible for wal mart to make a profit. So what do they do? They go where they can make a profit… which happens to be the suburbs and rural areas.
Economics is a science, just as is biology and chemistry. I don’t think Jesus called us to say they sky is red just because we feel better about it being that color. We know the sky is blue, so we’ll do our best with a blue sky and not try and change how things work, but use how things work to change things. I don’t know if that makes sense, but that in a nutshell is why I defend things the way I do.
By Scott on Jul 31, 2006 | Reply
Justin said, “If an economist tried to explain something about theology to you, something they obviously knew nothing about, you would tell them they were wrong, correct?”
–Not necessarily. It would be hugely presumptive of me, not to mention arrogant, to think that someone outside of my chosen field is incapable or unable to have profound insights. I can name countless people who are not theologians who have taught me profound theological truths.
And Justin, understand this, not all economists are agreed on your point of view. There is an ample serving of money minded individuals who support a minimum wage increase, who don’t believe Wal-Mart is God’s big box gift to the world.
I won’t belabor the point because I feel we are talking past each other. But those who disagree with your “science” are not burying their head in the sand.
By justin on Jul 31, 2006 | Reply
Some scientists disagree with evolution, but they are labeled as idiots, or religious fundamentalists that don’t look at the evidence. I personally think that evolution happened, but I find it very hypocritical that most of those who chastise the fundamentalists who believe that God created the world in 6 days will say that Noble Prize winning economists are wrong on this issue.
I think the main thing is, its important to make your case as to why you think a “living wage” will actually help, and not just say that people that don’t want to raise it hate poor people. I couldn’t be further from hating poor people, I want to see the kingdom break in, I just think that the methods that people come up with might not be the best ones. In my opinion, any time we try and use the government to do anything in God’s name, we’re missing the point. if the Kingdom could come through Government, Jesus would have taken out the Romans.
However, this is where I start having problems, because I want governments to bring peace to other nations… so it gets kinda sketchy. Hence my post last night
By Scott on Jul 31, 2006 | Reply
Justin, to have a valuable dialogue you must stay on point. Your first paragraph just creates two extremes. As if you are saying that any economist that disagrees with you is a raving fundamentalist idiot.
Secondly, you begin to fabricate arguments by putting words in my mouth. Have I ever said that those who oppose a minimum wage increase “hate poor people?” Have I ever said you hate poor people? No. I am convinced in your sincerity. Tone down the rhetoric.
By justin on Jul 31, 2006 | Reply
Sorry about that. I didn’t mean to imply you specifically think I hate poor people. Though many do. I’m running in a whole new crowd of people these days in the blogosphere, and I appreciate that you aren’t one of those who believes I’m just a republichristian whose beliefs are based purely on parental influence and what’s been taught in church circles.
I guess the thing is I haven’t seen a good argument for raising the minimum wage and for some methods with which people seem to think poverty can be ended purely through wealth redistribution. I kinda have a chip on my shoulder because it seems whenever I want to dialogue with people (not you though) I am faced with people making assumptions about my character. All one has to do is read some of the comments that have been made toward me over at Larry James blog to see that. I’ve been accused of racism and being brainwashed by my church hating poor people, etc. I’m sorry for letting that get in the way of our debate. I appreciate your willingness to talk through these things with me.
So, you used to be a republican, what convinced you that a higher minimum wage is a good thing?
By Scott on Jul 31, 2006 | Reply
Thanks, Justin. I do want to have the debate. To fully answer your question, you would have to read my series on “How I Got Here” in my categories. For specific thoughts on the minimum wage, look at my most recent post. Combine that with my belief that we have to be a voice for the forgotten and you get to where I am.