-Caveat Lector-
---------- Forwarded message ----
Citation: Social Work May 1999, v.44, 3, 201(1)
Author: Rank, Mark R.
Title: The likelihood of poverty across the American adult
life span. by Mark R. Rank and Thomas A. Hirschl
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT 1999 National Association of Social Workers Inc.
One of the most significant and far-reaching issues in the social work
profession has been the condition of poverty. Whether the discussion revolves
around welfare use, racial inequalities, single-parent families, infant
mortality, economic insecurity, or a host of other topics, poverty underlies
each and every one of these subjects. Ultimately, it is one of the great
challenges that the profession and society as a whole must face.
Yet how we confront this challenge depends in part on an accurate assessment
of the magnitude of the problem. Until recently, the longitudinal dynamics of
poverty in America were largely unknown. Point-in-time estimates gathered from
cross-sectional surveys such as the decennial census were the sole source of
information available to researchers. However, with the advent of several
large national panel studies, considerable insight has been gained over the
past 20 years.
Analyses of these data sets have revealed a number of important dimensions
surrounding the longitudinal dynamics of poverty. Yet in spite of this growing
body of knowledge, a pivotal question that remains unaddressed - the answer to
which would significantly contribute to our research and policy understanding
- is, What is the likelihood of an American's experiencing poverty at some
point during his or her adult lifetime? This article represents the first
attempt to answer this fundamental question.
Literature Review
With the advent of several national panel studies, including the Panel Study
of Income Dynamics (PSID), the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, and the
Survey of Income and Program Participation, considerable light has been shed
on understanding the longitudinal dynamics of poverty spells. These data sets
have allowed researchers to observe and track the individual dynamics of
poverty and income mobility. Several broad conclusions can be drawn from this
body of work.
First, most spells of poverty are fairly brief. The typical pattern is that
households are impoverished for several years and then manage to rise above
the poverty line (Bane & Ellwood, 1986; Blank, 1997; Duncan et al., 1995; U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1996; Walker, 1994). They may stay there for a period of
time, only to experience an additional fall into poverty at some point.
Because their economic distance above the poverty threshold is often modest, a
detrimental economic event such as the loss of a job or the breakup of a
family can throw a family back below the poverty line.
In contrast, a much smaller number of households experience chronic poverty
for years at a time. These are the cases that we generally think of when the
term "underclass" is used (Wilson, 1987, 1996). Typically they have
characteristics that put them at a distinct disadvantage vis-a-vis the labor
market (for example, individuals with serious work disabilities, female-headed
families with large numbers of children, racial minority groups living in
innercity areas). As a result their prospects for getting out of poverty for
any significant time are severely diminished (Duncan, 1984).
And of course some individuals and households fall between these two ends of
the spectrum. As an example of these patterns, Blank (1997) relied on the PSID
to calculate the occurrence of poverty over a 13-year period. During the years
from 1979 to 1991, she found that one-third of Americans experienced a spell
of poverty. However, of those who fell below the poverty line, one-half were
poor for three years or less, one-third were in poverty between four and nine
years, and 14.6 percent fell below the poverty line for 10 of 13 years (only
4.5 percent of poor people fell below the poverty line for each of the 13
years).
Blank also found that the likelihood and duration of poverty varied sharply
by race. One-quarter of white Americans experienced poverty at some point
during the 13-year period compared with two-thirds of black Americans.
Furthermore, 67 percent of white Americans who experienced poverty were poor
for three years or less, whereas the figure for black Americans was only 30
percent. Consequently, black Americans were more likely to be touched by
poverty and more likely to be exposed to poverty for substantially longer
periods.
In a similar analysis, Devine and Wright (1993) used the PSID to examine the
dynamics of poverty from 1969 to 1987. They found that 38.1 percent of the
total population experienced a spell of poverty during this time, but that
only 1.1 percent of the sample were poor during all 19 years. They also
reported that race was a powerful factor in increasing the probability of
experiencing poverty, particularly long-term poverty.
Research into the dynamics of poverty also has shown that many households
will re-experience poverty in the future. For example, using annual estimates
of poverty from the PSID data, Stevens (1994) calculated that of all people
who had managed to get themselves above the poverty line, more than half would
return to poverty within five years.
Thus, although the typical spell of poverty may not last long, poverty can
touch a fairly large percentage of the overall population. This is illustrated
in the work of Devine and Wright (1993):
While the proportion of families officially designated as poor in any given
year is somewhere between 11% and 15% (for the years in question), the
proportion who experience at least one year of poverty over a two-decade span
is nearly 40 percent - two or three times the annual poverty rate. If one
could extend this analysis over the average lifetime of a family, the
proportion experiencing at least a year of poverty would have to increase and
might easily reach or exceed half. Is it truly possible that half the
households in this affluent, postindustrial society are destined to spend at
least one of their years beneath the poverty line? Remarkably, the answer
appears to be yes. (p. 105)
The hypothetical that Devine and Wright have proposed is precisely the
question that we confront in this analysis. Specifically, what is the
likelihood of experiencing poverty across the entire adult life span?
Furthermore, how do these probabilities vary with respect to race? This
article provides the first empirical basis within the social or behavioral
sciences for estimating such probabilities. To do so we turn to the PSID data,
which allow us to construct a set of life tables estimating the lifetime
probabilities of poverty for the adult American population.
Method
The PSID is a nationally representative, longitudinal sample of households
and families interviewed annually since 1968 (see Hill, 1992, for a detailed
description of the PSID). It constitutes the longest running panel data set in
the United States and was specifically designed to track income dynamics over
time. Therefore, it is ideally suited for the purpose at hand.
The PSID initially interviewed approximately 4,800 U.S. households in 1968,
obtaining detailed information on roughly 18,000 individuals in those
households. The PSID tracks these individuals annually, including children and
adults who eventually break off from their original households to form new
households (for example, children leaving home, separations, divorce). Thus,
the PSID is designed so that in any given year the sample is representative of
the entire nonimmigrant U.S. population. Throughout the analysis we used the
sampling weights to ensure that the PSID sample would accurately reflect the
U.S. population.
We used household and individual levels of information from the initial wave
of 1968, through 1992. Taken together we had 25 years of longitudinal
information embedded in our analysis, which translates into roughly 245,000
person-years of information. Our analytical strategy was to use the household
income and demographic information on individuals throughout this 25-year
period to construct several life tables that estimate the risk of poverty
across the adult life span. We focused on the adult years, rather than the
entire life span, for conceptual clarity. The experience of child poverty is
of a sufficiently distinct nature to justify separating those years out (for
example, children are dependent on adults for their economic well-being, and
consequently their poverty is a direct result of their parents' poverty).
The life table is a technique that demographers and medical researchers
often use. Although primarily found in mortality analysis, it can be applied
to other areas of research as well (Namboodiri & Suchindran, 1987). The life
table examines the extent to which specific events occur across intervals of
time. In this analysis our time intervals comprised each year an individual
aged. During any one of those years, we can calculate the probability of an
event occurring (in this case poverty) for those who have yet to experience
the event. Furthermore, based on these probabilities, the cumulative
probabilities of an event occurring across the life span can be calculated.
These cumulative probabilities represented the core of our analysis.
The process of arriving at the specific probabilities is as follows: For
each wave (or year) of the study, we had information about the age of an
individual and the total household income. From this information we were able
to determine whether the household (and hence the individuals in the
household) fell below the official poverty line. If they did not, this
information was noted, and the individual was allowed to continue to the next
year. If on the other hand they did experience poverty, this information also
was noted, but the individual was then removed from any further analysis. In
other words, once the event of poverty had occurred, the individual was no
longer at risk of experiencing poverty for the first-observed time and was
excluded from the calculations of probabilities at later age intervals.
Therefore, each age interval contains a large number of individuals who have
not experienced poverty and a much smaller number of individuals who have.
>From these numbers the overall proportion of the population experiencing a
first-observed spell of poverty at each specific age is calculated. Finally,
from these age-specific proportions we can generate the cumulative proportions
that span the adult life cycle.
One of the consequences (and we believe advantages) of this approach is that
period effects are smoothed out within and across age intervals. For example,
some of the 10,122 individuals in the 20-year-old group, experienced their
20th year in 1968, some in 1975, some in 1992, and so on. The advantage of
this approach is that historical effects such as recessions will not unduly
affect any particular age group or our hypothetical cohort as a whole (which
can happen if one uses only one point in time to construct a life table). From
1968 to 1992 the overall rate of poverty was fairly stable, averaging between
11 percent and 15 percent (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998).
Individuals may contribute from one to 25 person-years in the life table.
For example, a woman in the PSID study who turned 20 in 1975 and then in 1979
experienced a year below the poverty line would have contributed five
person-years within our analysis. In this case, she would be included in the
estimates for ages 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24.
To extend our analysis beyond the 25 years of data points, we allowed
individuals to enter our life tables during the ages at which they entered the
study, rather than simply at age 20. For example, an individual who was age 30
in 1968 (the start of the study) would have been included in our 30-year-old
age-specific probabilities and then followed accordingly (although obviously
he or she would have been excluded from the 20 to 29 age-specific
probabilities). This procedure enabled us to extend the life table
probabilities out to age 85. In addition, it allowed us to use the full array
of data found in the PSID, which ensured ample sample size for all age
categories from which we derived our estimated probabilities.
A consequence of this approach, however, was that it introduced left
censoring into the analysis. Left censoring occurs for individuals who enter
the study in midstream and for whom we do not have information as to whether
the event (in this case, poverty) occurred prior to the age of entry. If the
behavior of individuals who are left censored is similar to individuals who we
know are not left censored (and therefore have yet to experience the event),
then there is no bias introduced into the life tables (Allison, 1984;
Namboodiri & Suchindran, 1987). However, one could argue in the case of
poverty that the behavior of left-censored individuals may be slightly
different in that some of them undoubtedly have experienced poverty at an
earlier point in their unobserved ages. On the basis of the previous research,
we can surmise that individuals who have experienced poverty in the past are
at a greater risk of experiencing poverty in the future compared with
individuals who have not experienced poverty. As a result, our age-specific
and cumulative estimates in the life table could be upwardly biased.
Fortunately, we were able to detect and correct for such bias using the
following procedure. First, we constructed our life tables for the initial 25
years (ages 20 to 44) according to the previously mentioned method. Then we
produced a second group of life tables, but with the left-censored cases
removed. By comparing the two, the pattern and extent of any bias resulting
from left censoring could be examined. In general, the two sets of estimates
were fairly close, with our original probabilities tending to be slightly
higher than those without the left-censored cases. This pattern was fairly
stable across the ages. From these comparisons we could determine the overall
amount and direction of bias in our original estimates. A correction factor
then was used to adjust our age-specific life table probabilities accordingly.
In this fashion we were able to detect and correct for the fact that left
censoring was present in our estimations.
Our measure of poverty is identical to that used by the Census Bureau in
estimating the overall U.S. poverty rates (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998).
Total household income is the measuring stick for determining whether
individuals fell below the poverty line or not. Households below specific
income levels are considered poor. These levels represent what is considered
the least amount of income needed for a household to purchase a minimally
adequate basket of goods (for example, food, clothing, and shelter) throughout
the year. To account for inflation, the actual dollar amounts are adjusted
each year in accordance with changes in the consumer price index. Thus, the
dollar values pertaining to the specific poverty levels for households during
the 25 waves of the PSID will vary each year according to changes in the rate
of inflation.
The level itself also will vary depending on household size. For example, in
1997 a household of one was considered poor if his or her income fell below
$8,183; a household of two was counted as poor if their income was under
$10,473; for a household of three, the level was $12,802; a household of four
was considered poor if income fell below $16,400; and so on (U.S. Bureau of
the Census, 1998).
As a whole, rates of poverty derived from the PSID tend to be somewhat lower
than those derived from the Census Bureau data. This is most likely the result
of a more complete accounting of income in the PSID (Duncan, 1984; Minarik,
1975).
In addition to the official measurement of poverty, we examined those who
fall below one half of the poverty line as a yardstick for extreme poverty.
This benchmark also is consistent with the reporting practice of the Census
Bureau. For an extended discussion on various aspects of poverty and its
measurement see Institute for Research on Poverty (1998), National Research
Council (1995), and Ruggles (1990).
Results
Poverty Risk for Total U.S. Adult Population
Beginning with age 20 and continuing through age 85, Table 1 lists the
age-specific proportions experiencing poverty, the cumulative proportions, and
the cumulative percentages at five-year intervals. The same calculations with
regard to the likelihood of falling below one-half of the official poverty
line also are included. Our sample sizes for each of the specific ages are
very large, allowing for substantial confidence in the estimates. For example,
at age 20 (for poverty estimations in Table 1) there are 10,122 cases, by age
50 there are 2,890 cases, and by age 75 there are 1,053 cases.
Looking first at the cumulative percentages of experiencing poverty, by age
30, 27.1 percent of the adult U.S. population will have spent a year below the
poverty line. At age 40, slightly more than one-third of the population will
have experienced poverty, and at age 50, 41.8 percent. By age 65 our
probabilities indicate that just over one-half of all adult Americans will
have lived at least a year in poverty, and by age 85, two-thirds.
It is estimated that the average life expectancy for 20-year-olds is an
additional 57 years (National Center for Health Statistics, 1997).
Consequently the mean length of time that such individuals are at risk of
poverty is from age 20 to 77. When used in conjunction with the probabilities
in Table 1, we can estimate that on average, 60 percent of 20-year-olds in
America will experience poverty at some point during their adult years.
What this analysis strikingly reveals is that rather than being an event
occurring among a small minority of the U.S. population, poverty is an
experience that will touch a clear majority of Americans at some point during
their adult lifetimes. By taking a life table approach, we arrive at a much
different understanding about the nature of poverty than either the
cross-sectional snapshots provided by surveys such as the U.S. Census Bureau's
or the earlier cited studies of limited longitudinal duration.
Looking at the age-specific proportions, we can see that they are higher at
the early ages (partially because this is the starting point for our
analysis), decline to a low point during the 40s, start to increase in the 50s
and early 60s, and increase more rapidly from age 65 on. Thus, they reflect a
U shape with regard to the age-specific risks of experiencing poverty for the
first time. This U-shape pattern is consistent with that found for
age-specific poverty rates in general (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998).
In the three right hand columns of Table 1, we estimate the incidence of
experiencing dire poverty, as measured by falling below one half of the
official poverty line. Here we can see that by age 40, 18.4 percent of
Americans will have experienced a year in dire poverty; by age 55,
one-quarter; by age 75, one-third; and by age 85, 37.1 percent. Again,
referring back to the [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 1 OMITTED] average life
expectancy of an additional 57 years at age 20, our estimate is that 33.7
percent of 20-year-olds will experience dire poverty at some point during
their adult years. The likelihood of experiencing extreme poverty is therefore
substantially less than that of falling below the official poverty line, but
nevertheless will be felt by one-third of the U.S. population during their
adult lifetimes.
The age-specific proportions display a somewhat different pattern than those
pertaining to the official poverty line. In contrast to the U-shape pattern
found earlier, the probability of dire poverty levels off in the early 30s and
remains fairly stable for the remainder of the life span (averaging between
one-half and two-thirds of 1 percent annually).
Poverty Risk by Race
Our second and third tables break down the likelihood of experiencing
poverty by race. We limit our analysis in Tables 2 and 3 through age 75 as a
result of diminishing sample sizes in the black population beyond that point.
In addition, our sample sizes do not allow us to construct life tables for
other racial or ethnic groups, such as Hispanics.
Previous research has shown that race is perhaps the most important
background factor in predicting poverty at any point in time among individuals
(Blank, 1997; Devine & Wright, 1993; Oliver & Shapiro, 1995). Yet we know
little about the lifetime risk of poverty for black and white Americans and
how it might vary across these two groups. Our tables reveal a remarkable
story indeed.
Table 2 indicates that by the age of 25, 48.1 percent of black Americans
will have experienced at least one year in poverty. At age 40 the figure is
two-thirds, and by age 50, more than three-fourths of the black population
will have spent some time below the poverty line. For black Americans who
reach age 75, 91 percent will have been touched by the experience of poverty
(this is made more remarkable by the fact that our analysis precludes the risk
of poverty during the first 19 years of life). Although this figure appears
startling, it becomes less surprising when considering that on average in any
given year, approximately 30 percent of the black population is below the
poverty line (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998). Now consider that Table 2 is
projecting over the course of 56 years. As a result, nine of every 10 black
Americans [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 2 OMITTED] who live out a normal life span
will at some point encounter poverty.
This experience overshadows that of the white population. Here we find that
by age 75, slightly more than half (52.6 percent) of white Americans will have
spent one of their adult years below the poverty line. The fact that more than
one of two white Americans eventually are touched by poverty is a sizeable
percentage indeed. Nevertheless, it pales in comparison to the enormity of
poverty's grasp in the black population. This contrast is illustrated in
Figure 1, which plots the cumulative distribution of experiencing poverty for
black Americans, white Americans, and the total population.
Another way of viewing this striking contrast is in the following manner: By
age 28 the black [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 3 OMITTED] population will have
reached the cumulative level of lifetime poverty that the white population
arrives at only by age 75. In other words, black Americans have experienced in
nine years the same risk of poverty that white Americans do in 56 years.
Table 3 extends the black-white contrast by analyzing the risk of
experiencing dire poverty (equivalent to spending a year below one-half of the
official poverty line). Again, the divergence between the black and white
cumulative percentages is striking. By age 30, one-third of black adults will
have spent at least a year in dire poverty; by age 45 the figure is one-half;
and by age 75 slightly over two-thirds. In contrast, by age 75, 26.6 percent
of whites will have spent at least one of their adult years in dire poverty.
Figure 2 illustrates these divergent distributions by graphing the cumulative
risk of dire poverty across the adult life span.
Again putting this into a slightly different metric, by the time black
adults reach age 25 they will have experienced the overall cumulative level of
dire poverty that white adults arrive at only by the age of 75. Thus, black
Americans as a group will have been exposed in six years to the same risk of
extreme poverty that white Americans have been after 56 years.
Finally, for each of the 56 ages in Tables 2 and 3, we estimated individual
logit models to determine whether the black-white age-specific differences
were statistically significant. In all but a handful of models, the racial
difference at each age was significant at the .001 level.
The thrust of our racial results leads us back to DuBois's (1935/1983)
classical formulation that in American society the dynamics of race and class
are organically interrelated. The fact that virtually every black American
will experience poverty at some point during his or her adulthood speaks
volumes about the economic meaning of being black in America.
Summary and Implications
We believe that our findings in Tables 1 through 3 shed a startling new
light on poverty in America. First, poverty is an experience that at some
point will touch the vast majority of Americans during their adult years. On
average, 60 percent of all American adults will experience at least one year
of living below the poverty line, whereas one-third will experience dire
poverty. Rather than an isolated event that occurs only among what has been
labeled the "underclass," the reality is that the majority of Americans will
encounter poverty firsthand during their adult lifetimes.
Second, our analysis has revealed that nearly every black American adult in
this country will at some point experience a year below the poverty line. By
age 75, 91 percent of black Americans will have experienced at least one year
in poverty, and 68 percent will have encountered the stark experience of
extreme poverty.
Finally, even among white Americans, poverty is an event that will
eventually touch more than half the population. For those who believe that
poverty is a risk only among black people in this country, these numbers
clearly contradict such a position. Hence, poverty is a "mainstream" event
experienced by the dominant racial group and not something that can be easily
dismissed as a condition of marginalized groups.
What are the implications of such findings for the profession of social
work? Although there are many, we conclude by focusing on two of the broader
ramifications. They deal with the ability of the profession to make a
persuasive argument for why the United States should focus more of its efforts
toward addressing poverty.
Concern for the poor and the alleviation of poverty have always been central
to the profession. As Simon (1994) wrote, the original twin missions of social
work were "those of relieving the misery of the most desperate among us and of
building a more just and humane social order" (p. 23). This statement remains
as true today as it was in the past. For example, the NASW (1996) Code of
Ethics begins by stating, "The primary mission of the social work profession
is to enhance human well-being and help meet the basic human needs of all
people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who
are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty" (p. 1). Likewise, the
curriculum policy statement of the Council on Social Work Education (1994)
begins its discussion of the purpose of social work by stating, "The
profession of social work is committed to the enhancement of human well-being
and to the alleviation of poverty and oppression" (pp. 97, 135).
Social work has placed a heavy emphasis on poverty and its alleviation for
two core reasons. First, poverty has been viewed as undermining the concept of
a just society (Gill, 1998; Reamer, 1993). In an affluent nation such as the
United States, it appears patently unfair that many not only are left out of
such prosperity, but also are living in debilitating and detrimental economic
conditions. From the profession's perspective, a just and equitable society
ensures that a certain minimum standard of resources is available to all to
meet the basic human needs.
Second, social workers have understood that poverty underlies many of the
problems and issues they confront on a daily basis (Ewalt, 1994). As stated in
the beginning of this article, whether the discussion revolves around racial
and gender inequalities, family stress, juvenile delinquency, physical
illness, learning disabilities, or other topics that social workers routinely
confront, research indicates that poverty plays an important role in each of
these subjects (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Schiller, 1998; Sherman, 1994;
Vosler, 1996; see Mayer, 1997, for a somewhat different interpretation).
Consequently, poverty is perceived to be a core issue that must be dealt with
to strive toward the goal of being able to "enhance human well-being and help
meet the basic human needs of all people" (NASW, 1996, p. 1). An extension of
this argument is that poverty affects many of the social problems that our
society faces. Thus, alleviating poverty indirectly benefits us all by
reducing the costs associated with such problems.
As a result, the social work profession historically has been engaged in
advocacy, organizing, and lobbying at the local, state, and federal levels for
policies and social programs that address poverty (Popple & Leighninger,
1996). The profession has argued that such efforts and goals are warranted on
the basis of economic and social justice and on the basis of the longterm
benefits that will accrue to society.
What the findings in this article suggest is that a third powerful argument
can be made to justify resource allocation in alleviating poverty. It is an
argument that until now has not been fully revealed - for the majority of
Americans, it is in their direct self-interest to have programs and policies
that alleviate and provide protection from the ravages of poverty.
Poverty often has been perceived by the U.S. public as something that
happens to others (Gans, 1995). Yet by looking across the adult life span, we
have been able to demonstrate that poverty will touch a clear majority of
Americans. Assuming that most Americans 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 (Blank, 1997) and has been elaborated
most notably by Rawls (1971).
The reason 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 recognize that at some point we may
be involved in a serious traffic accident that could incur sizeable costs.
Hence, we are willing to pay for automobile insurance now 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 an individual loses a job, becomes
ill, sees his or her family split up, or experiences countless other
circumstances, he or she runs a risk of dwindling income, resulting in
eventual poverty (Rank, 1994). Just as automobile insurance is a form of
protection against an unforseen accident, the social safety net is a form of
insurance against the accidents that occur around the rough edges of the
freemarket system.
Yet in spite of 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 in this article 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. An argument for addressing poverty based on self-interest is a strong
complement to those based on economic justice and long-term societal benefits.
As the former Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam noted, "The punters know
that the horse named Morality rarely gets past the post, whereas the nag named
Self-Interest always runs a good race" (Andrews, 1993, p. 824).
Our findings have an additional implication that social workers can draw
from in making an effective case for their stated goal of alleviating poverty.
Much of the general public's resistance toward assisting poor people and
particularly those on welfare is that they are perceived to be undeserving of
such assistance (Katz, 1989). That is, their poverty is the result of a lack
of motivation, questionable morals, and so on. In short, poor people are
fundamentally different from the rest of us and, therefore, do not warrant
sacrifices on our behalf.
Although the causes of poverty have not been examined directly in this
article, our analysis suggests 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 (Patterson, 1994).
Or take the case of unemployment as described by sociologist C. Wright Mills
(1959),
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 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. (p.
9)
In many ways poverty today is as widespread and systematic as in these
examples. Yet we have been unable to see this because we were 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. The ability of social workers to break down this barrier with
effective arguments and evidence is a significant step toward increasing
social and political support for poverty alleviation (Hoechstetter, 1996).
In short, by conceptualizing and measuring impoverishment over the adult
life cycle, we have been able to calculate a set of proportions that we
believe 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.
References
Allison, P. A. (1984). Event history analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
Andrews, P. (1993). The Columbia dictionary of quotations. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Bane, M. J., & Ellwood, D. T. (1986). Slipping into and out of poverty: The
dynamics of spells. Journal of Human Resources, 21, 1-23.
Blank, R. M. (1997). It takes a nation: A new agenda for fighting poverty.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Council on Social Work Education. (1994). Handbook of accreditation
standards and procedures. Alexandria, VA: Commission on Accreditation.
Devine, J. A., & Wright, J. D. (1993). The greatest of evils: Urban poverty
and the American underclass. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
DuBois, W.E.B. (1983). Black reconstruction in America: An essay toward a
history of the part which black folk played in the attempt to reconstruct
democracy in America, 1860-1880. New York: Atheneum. (Original work published
1935)
Duncan, G. J. (1984). Years of poverty, years of plenty: The changing
economic fortunes of American workers and families. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute
for Social Research.
Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1997). Consequences of growing up poor.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Duncan, G. J., Gustafsson, B., Hauser, R., Schmaus, G., Jenkins, S.,
Messinger, H., Muffels, R., Nolan, B., Ray, J., & Voges, W. (1995). Poverty
and social-assistance dynamics in the United States, Canada, and Europe. In K.
McFate, R. Lawson, & W. J. Wilson (Eds.), Poverty, inequality and the future
of social policy: Western states in the new world order (pp. 67-108). New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Ewalt, P. L. (1994). Poverty matters. Social Work, 39, 149-151.
Gans, H. J. (1995). The war against the poor: The underclass and antipoverty
policy. New York: Basic Books.
Gill, D. G. (1998). Confronting injustice and oppression: Concepts and
strategies for social workers. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hill, M. S. (1992). The panel study of income dynamics: A user's guide.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Hoechstetter, S. (1996). Taking new directions to improve public policy.
Social Work, 41, 343-346.
Institute for Research on Poverty. (1998). Revising the poverty measure.
Focus, 19, 1-55.
Katz, M. B. (1989). The undeserving poor: From the war on poverty to the war
on welfare. New York: Pantheon Books.
Mayer, S. E. (1997). What money can't buy: Family income and children's life
chances. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Minarik, J. (1975). New evidence on the poverty count. Proceedings of the
Social Statistics Section, 544-559.
Namboodiri, K., & Suchindran, C. M. (1987). Life table techniques and their
applications. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
National Association of Social Workers. (1996). Code of ethics. Washington,
DC: Author.
National Center for Health Statistics. (1997). Report of final mortality
statistics, 1995. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, 45, 1-80.
National Research Council. (1995). Measuring poverty: A new approach.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Oliver, M. L., & Shapiro, T. M. (1995). Black wealth/white wealth: A new
perspective on racial inequality. New York: Routledge.
Patterson, J. T. (1994). America's struggle against poverty: 1900-1994.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Popple, P. R., & Leighninger, L. (1996). Social work, social welfare, and
American society. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Rank, M. R. (1994). Living on the edge: The realities of welfare in America.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Reamer, F. G. (1993). The philosophical foundations of social work. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Ruggles, P. (1990). Drawing the line: Alternative poverty measures and their
implications for public policy. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Schiller, B. R. (1998). The economics of poverty and discrimination. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sherman, A. (1994). Wasting America's future: The children's defense fund
report on the costs of child poverty. Boston: Beacon Press.
Simon, B. L. (1994). The empowerment tradition in American social work: A
history. New York: Columbia University Press.
Stevens, A. H. (1994). The dynamics of poverty spells: Updating Bane and
Ellwood. American Economic Review, 84, 34-37.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1996). Who stays poor? Who doesn't? (Current
population reports, Series P70-55). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1998). Poverty in the United States: 1997.
(Current population reports, Series P60-201). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Vosler, N. R. (1996). New approaches to family practice: Confronting
economic stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Walker, R. (1994). Poverty dynamics: Issues and examples. Aldershot,
England: Avebury.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the
underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Mark R. Rank, PhD, is associate professor, George Warren Brown School of
Social Work, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130. Thomas A. Hirschl,
PhD, is associate professor, Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY. The authors thank Paul Allison, Shanti Khinduka,
Krishnan Namboodiri, Bruce Turnbull, Nancy Vosler, Sally Ward, and James
Herbert Williams for their helpful comments and suggestions.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
