They are the people who never seem to break free of poverty. Neither do their children, nor their grandchildren and their parents were poverty struck as well. They are born to poverty, and it seems like it is their heritage, one they can never shed; a curse unto seven generations.
The problem of the underclass is an old one. Victorian England dealt with it, and so, for that matter, did both Republican and Imperial Rome. It is a death spiral which seems impossible to escape.
Today it is with us as well and the old debates play out as they always have. The poor, it is said, deserve it. If only they had more discipline, if only they didn’t marry young, or do drugs, or have so many children, or have children out of wedlock. If only they stayed in school and got a better education. If only they did things the way the middle and upper classes did, if only, well, they wouldn’t be poor.
Liberals respond that if only, if only, the government were to provide education and daycare and other government care for these people, if only, then they’d be able to get themselves out of this mess.
Today we’re going to run through what makes you poor and keeps you poor.
The Parents Argument and the Education Argument
The best predictor for success in America is still (barely) education. The best predictor for education is… your parents education. Location is what matters here. If you live in an upscale neighbourhood then you have good housing values. They pay for more money for schools, those schools perform better on aggregate (there are exceptions, they are statistical anomalies). So if your parents can afford to live in a wealthier ‘hood you’re probably going to get a better education.
Real love of learning starts in the home. Children whose parents read, read. Children whose parents don’t read, don’t read. Children who get proper nutrition perform significantly better in school. Children whose family situation is stable and non-threatening perform better in school. While none of these things require that you live in a rich or even middle class home all of them do correlate non-trivially with money. You can be rich and miserable. But you’re more likely to poor and miserable. This connection does decrease as the income scale increases, but it does not decrease until after the poverty threshold has long been passed.
Families with a good income are also less likely to require that children stop going to school to support the family.
The Modeling and the “Right Crowd” Argument
A fairly convincing argument has been made that what effects children’s attitudes the most is their friends – the crowd they run with. Run with a group which values education and achievement and safe sex and you’ll tend to value those things as well (it shouldn’t be hard for anyone to understand that people want the approval of the people they spend their time with and that the best way to get that approval is to take on the same attitudes.) What’s the most important predictor of who your friends are? Where your parents live.
Acting like your peers is just a watered down example of “modeling”. Simply put the very best, simplest and surest way to succeed at something is to find someone who has succeeded at what you want to do and to model yourself after them. To do what they do. Act like they do. If they’ll cooperate, to work with them and watch how they work. Even better, find a few people who are successful in your field and learn from each one of them.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that in most modern downscale neighbourhoods there aren’t a lot of successful models available. And the most visible models may well be people you may not want others modeling – drug dealers, gang leaders and other criminals. This used to be less of a problem. In the standard American immigration wave, while some immigrants who got successful would leave the Irish/Jewish/Italian ghetto, most stayed. They pulled other people up with them. In modern ghettos people get successful – and most of them then move to middle class suburbs. The people who make it pull out rather than pulling up.
The Credit Argument
Simply put, true success in America comes mainly in two ways – credentialization leading to professional work, or creating your own business. To create your own business you need money. You’re going to have to borrow it. There are three main places you can get money from – banks, family/friends and crime; successful minority groups have used all three (yes even Jewish immigrants had crime syndicates, and the Irish ran organized crime before the Italians. Since the Italian fall other immigrant groups have taken over the lucrative industry.) Banks don’t usually work – there’s an old joke, that is effectively true, that banks only lend you money if you don’t need it. Unless it’s a credit card. But for all intents and purposes underclass citizens have trouble even getting a checking account and a credit card let alone a business loan. Forget it.
The second option is family and friends. You can see this dynamic really work, when it works. Watch an immigrant community like the Sikhs or many Chinese and you’ll see a dynamo which works much as follows. The first person gets in, usually the most educated young adult. He or she works like a dog and lives with other immigrants in horrific circumstances. Any money earned is saved or used to bring in more family members. They all work like dogs. Eventually a fair number are in and they have enough money to buy a small business. They do so. A few of them work their butts off in that job while the others bring in money from outside jobs. They all move in together, with everyone living in one house on the cheap. They save up enough to buy another business. Eventually they sell the businesses they have built up and move onto more profitable ones. Eventually they are at least affluent, and for the most successful ones, actually wealthy. And they’ve earned every little bit of it.
But they were successful not because of their individual efforts, or even those of the nuclear family (a dysfunctional stub when it comes to really dealing effectively with economic duties), but because they had a functional extended family. A person alone generally can’t do this. Neither can a couple. It takes a family – a big one.
The other way this works is very simple. Most entrepreneurs get some or all of their money from friends and family. If you’ve got a well off family, you’ve got a source of credit. If you don’t, you’re SOL. This has especially hit the modern black community very hard because of the breakdown of extended families and because successful blacks leave their communities. You can’t hit somebody up for a loan if you don’t know them.
Then there’s organized crime. For organized crime to be effective at raising a community up it has to have deep ties into that community. You need leaders and members who are family men. You need stability. You need the sort of syndicates who want peace, because peace is good for business and who want some respectability. For reasons too extensive to go into in this article, that model of organized crime has faded from the American scene. Frankly, it’s missed. Some types of crime organization /are/ better than others. Crime will always be with you, but the type and the amount are a choice government and society makes. America has chosen a very anomic disassociated violent form of organized crime.
Then there’s the elephant in the room….
Racism
Yes, it does make a difference. Especially in American (and Japan, but a full discussion of Japanese Koreans and Ainu will have to wait another opportunity.) If a white has the exact same resume as someone with a “black” name they will get more than twice as many calls for interviews. The argument that racism does not effect job prospects has been disproven far, far beyond any reasonable doubt.
But the black “problem” is far larger than simple racism. It has to do with disproportionate incarceration rates, with black men committing the exact same crimes as whites getting stronger longer sentences and with the effect that has had on black families. It has to do with the disparate way drug crimes are treated between blacks and whites (how often to executives go to jail for coke use, for example?)
It has to do with labeling. Simply put, once you’re in the justice system, you are branded ever after with the mark of Cain. Ever get yourself convicted of any crime and you will probably never, ever, have a decent job.
And black youths are much more likely to be charged and convicted for the exact same crime as white youths.
At that point their prospects in the legal system are effectively gone. The choice to migrate to illegal activity is their only chance. It probably won’t work – but at least their aren’t background checks. At least they stand a chance. And if they’re the moral type who wouldn’t walk that path, well, they can’t walk any other path. They can’t get education loans, they can’t get decent jobs – they’re down and out. In America you only get one chance.
And this trend is continuing. Many companies, for example, are using credit ratings to determine if they should hire you. If you have trouble even getting a checking account, you aren’t going to have a good credit rating (if you’ve never had credit, you have a bad rating because they figure those who aren’t used to managing credit aren’t good at it.)
Things like background checks and credit checks are wonderful from a corporate point of view. They keep out the wrong sorts of people (blacks who have become middle class and assimilated middle class culture are not such a problem) and they appear race neutral.
But in a society which isn’t race neutral they have effects that simulate the effect of bias very effectively, without ever requiring anyone to actually tell the undesirables that you don’t hire nigger/spics/wetbacks/slants/micks or whatever.
I once explained the underclass to someone with the following metaphor: you have a hundred people. If they can bench press a hundred pounds they can leave the room. If they fail their kids will have to take the same test. Some of those people, of certain races, have someone pushing down on the bars. As a result, as a percentage, more of them fail. Next generation more of their kids are in the room. A larger percentage of them fail.
Over time the room begins to have more of that race than the simple ability to lift a hundred pounds would predict.
That’s the effect of race on class. There are strategies that can overcome it, but it is an obstacle and sometimes the strategies don’t work (a discussion of the life cycles of immigrant minorities may be forthcoming at a later date.)
Concluding Remarks
If you don’t break out of the underclass in the first generation your family falls into it, the odds shift dramatically against your children. They have worse schools, less access to credit, few good people to model themselves after and face a society in which apparently impartial mechanisms produce results that tend, over time, and in aggregate to keep them in their place.
In a game where the dice are weighted against you, which is the only game in town, what do you do?
Do you roll the dice?
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

zed?
Very good article. A few typos:
“The argument that racism does not effect job prospects”
AFFECT, not effect, here. Also in same paragraph, a little earlier, I think you meant America or United States, not “American.”
Kudos for a thoughtful, well written article…
Ha! Would probably have had the zed had I not taken the editorial route :-P :-) Congrats Dakine ;-)
Another consideration is that the sort of economy we have pretty much mandates an underclass that will take the cheap jobs everyone is scrambling to get away from. Plus if you have hyperrich, you will have poverty.
Still musing…
It’s been a while since I was a student in a public school..Seems to me that we valued sports. We would have loved to have some sex, safe or otherwise…”academics” was a bore. Somehow we made it through OK…
I’ve read that the Japanese take their version of high school VERY seriously- and then screw off in college. Americans do it the other way around. Makes more sense to me.
Ian, I wish I could say something more profound than wow! thanks! You lay it out so clearly why we must invest in the future.
I read the other day that 60% of stocks are owned by one percent of the people. Is this roughly the case?
I look at the move to school vouchers and even home schooling as right-flight.
In my hometown, the turn for the worse occurred when our light industrial jobs left town. Before then, if you wanted to labor, there were plenty of union jobs paying the equivalent of $20-$40/hr in the current economy.
With unions doing so poorly, and with the influx of so many undocumented workers, no matter how hard an unskilled worker sweats, he or she still can’t support a family…
And what do we say about those who borrow money strictly to invest that money to make more money? Some argue these folks are not producers. And many say there are two kinds of people. Those that produce and those that don’t.
Some make the appeal that a serious redistribution of wealth is part of the antidote to poverty.
Stop the wars, increase taxes and put the savings into education, health care, environmental safeguards and infrastructure.
I think education is the biggest problem, and I think there is at least two thing you missed. First, the rich have good reasons to short change the entire education process. They are the ones who benefit from a malleable and barely competent workforce. They don’t want their precious spawn to have to compete with the smart kids in the underclass, they want pliant workers, especially because they have been trying to ship all the brain jobs overseas to cheaper workers. They use religion to keep women down, and to keep the workers from paying attention. They offer circuses instead of guidance.
Second, the parents are unwilling to let their children go.
But, now I have to go sing Samson et Dalilah, so I don’t have time to finish this thought.
And what of the “work ethic”? Is that as strong as ever?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 11
A New Deal needs to be hammered out…!!! 8-)
Elliott @ 8
Well, yeah. The move, especially in the south, to all the private/”Christian” schools and home schooling was to “escape” from integration and being forced to deal with realities. Now the vouchers are to pay for this move with taxpayers.
Once again attempting to destroy public education.
Excellent article. Something else to be considered is money management. If you are taught to save up and then buy things, rather than buying on credit, you will be more financially stable.
And if you are taught the differences between things you want and things you need, you will also be more financially stable.
This is a brilliant post and a topic which is at the heart of a just society.
Without equality of opportunity, we will grow the underclass until we have lords and vassals.
We’re close to that now.
One meme that the poor hang on to is becoming a rock star, a sports star, the only way to shoot out of the ghetto. And they do this because of the rags to riches BS which is always pushed. If you really want something hard enough, you can achieve it? Oh really?
I heard a speech on the local public radio station a few years ago, but I can’t remember who the speaker was. He talked about all these studies on predictors for success, and it came down to family income. If poor kids were moved into a well funded school, they did somewhat better in the short run.
He basically agreed with you, Ian. If the family was poor it was extremely difficult for the children to succeed.
The problem with breaking free of poverty today is that the playing field is not nearly as level as it once was. And that can be blamed on politicians.
dakine01 @ 16
I’ve always liked the more and better education argument myself.
On topic
House of the Rising Sun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRV9QCXLtHQ
And just how does a middle-middle class family, let alone a lower middle class family, not to mention a lower class family afford to send their children to college?
The credit poison pill that we have swallowed is really what the big boys do… debt financing their businesses.
No biz or bizman has the cash to grow or stand up a biz. They borrow. This concept has been ported over to personal wealth, so people believe that they can get now and pay later. The problem is that debt financing a biz is to produce revenue and personal credit is simply a scheme for banks to make interest and fees, from people who they could make interest and fees from. Instead of savings where interest is paid, they sell us debt where they can earn interest.
Banks are evil!
My family was poor. Between the emphasis on education and the money management lessons, all the kids are upper middle class. But the link between education and a well-paying job is weakening. I don’t know if we would have been as successful today.
Sean Hannity never went to college I believe.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 24
Getting to the point where they can’t. Working poor and lower middle class almost never get their degree — but the upper class does. This has become much worse over the last couple decades.
Elliott @ 8
It strikes me as part of the cult aspect of the right. They get their followers to isolate themselves culturally, informationally (no network news for them), and educationally. This can be dangerous for the kids if they are never taught what life is like for most of America.
I don’t care for the notion of class, we need a classless society not a larger middle class.
America is a country which believes in competition. In competition, someone wins and someone(s) lose. You can’t have winners without losers.
The entire mindset creates class and poverty.
You can’t have wealth creation unless there is value added. That is where you extract wealth from the labor of others. This is a one way and self fulfilling feed forward loop and why the more successful the capitalist class is the more poverty there will be.
The rich are doing very well in this economy. Very well. Everyone else is downsliding or treading water. The wealth is being sucked upwards.
Please forgive the rudeness of this OT but KENTUCKY BEATS LSU IN 3 OVERTIMES 43-37!
Oklahoma kiddo @ 24
The only hope many families have is scholarships, either academic or sports. Financial aid is getting harder and harder to come by.
The thing an in-law always mentioned was the GI Bill after WW2. That created a huge group of people who actually got enough benefits to live and go to school.
Wow, UK beat LSU 43-37(3OT)!!!
The upper class would do well to spread some serious wealth around, lest the natives WILL grow restless and there will be trouble.
The wrong approach is to grow the national security state, gated communities and so forth.
What you see in the very poor communities in the ME is complete desperation and that leads to radicalism and violence. When there is no chance of escaping misery before dying, why not strike a blow against the preceived oppressors.
Millions of people in the USA live on less than $7 per day. Ha?
dakine01 @ 31
INCREDIBLE!!
great game, great game!
Margot @ 33
Absolutely. Thousands of people went to college who never would have thanks to the GI Bill.
Here’s the anecdote that scares me the most. A few years back Toyota was deciding between putting a factory in southern Ontario and a southern state (don’t recall which one.) They decided on Ontario, becuase they didn’t want to train employees using picture books, which is what they had to do in their last southern plan. Now when you consider those are good jobs they would have picked the top 5% or 10% for, you can’t tell me that the majority of the working class and middle class in that area aren’t functionally illiterate.
How you get through 12 years and wind up functionally illiterate is beyond me, but it’s clearly more widespread than official stats paint.
Mr. Welsh, I read today that the top 1% has increased their share of national income from 18% to 20%. Do you think that is significant, or just normal fluctuation?
The measures proposed by FDR were essentially socialism. The right considers him and his policies those of the enemy. The GI bill and the WPA and all the measures to give people work and opportunity are considered coddling the lazy by the right.
The post is correct in framing the issues and the perception of poverty. They blame the poor for being poor and make it impossible for them to do anything about it.
TheOtherWA @ 32
A lot of the professors I had in college used the G.I.Bill for their education. They are mostly retired at this point.
Ian Welsh @ 38
Well, they’ve gotten past that idea as they have factories in Georgetown, KY (outside Lexington) and here in San Antonio, TX.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 24
My friend who graduated law school and passed the bar works at the Post Office, so you know can tell how it will work out.
Ian Welsh @ 38
IIRC, Oh Canada has 13 yrs of Public Education, Eh, Ian??? ;-)
Sandman @ 39
Part of the long term trend. There may be some retrenchment when the property bubble pops, as there was around 2001/2 – but the trend, from the late 70’s, has been a long term increase. All the factors are still in place, so it should continue.
Sandman @ 39
IIRC the last time it was like that was early 1920’s. If it is normal fluctuation, it is a hell of a long cycle length.
dakine01 @ 42
When did they make the commitment to open them?
CTuttle @ 44
Most provinces don’t, and I think Ontario has stopped as well.
Bush is functionally illiterate.
All the trends are accelerating. Rich getting richer faster and poor becoming poorer faster. Poverty is spreading, not wealth.
The tax policies are not doing what they should be… redistributing wealth to some extent by creating opportunity for all.
We will see an economic collpase and only then maybe can we stand up a more just system.
Our entire economy went from agrarian to industrial to service to financial service. This means that all we do is money lending. We destroyed our sustainable economy and so we ensured our demise.
Ian Welsh @ 47
Checking the web sites, It looks like (and this fits my memories) the Georgetown plant opened around 1987 and it looks like the San Antonio plant started around 2003.
dakine01 @ 50
Yeah, the decision on ONtario was made, iirc 2004/5 – they learned from their experience in those plants.
Ian Welsh @ 48
When I started out in Alta, it was 13 yrs, yet, that was quite a few years ago…!!! ;-)
Hiya Ian. Hi y’all.
We are low income but we are not lower class. We live in the part of town with the best schools ON PURPOSE so me and my cousin can get scholarships to college. We would rather live in a small apt than have all our own rooms but be where the schools are not good.
My mom finished college and Aunt Betsy did also, and she has a masters. My brother did HS and then military training and specialist training for helicopters and deisel trucks. We won’t be low income forever.
Mr. Welsh do you favor a law to cap CEO’s salaries are some level. The growth is astounding, from 40x a normal worker to 400x in only about 40 years.
why is my comment in mod?
Ian Welsh @ 38
I remember that. There were two problems with building that plant in America. The educational level of the local residents and health care costs. Choosing Canada solved both problems.
Ian Welsh @ 51
Well, that may be, but they’ve also expanded the plants in both locations in the last couple of years.
snarKassandra @ 55
Freed Cassie. Hard refresh. please.
Ian, would you consider dyslexia a defect or is it a difference — one that is currently an adaptive disadvantage?
considering that humans developed writing only several thousand years ago
Aunt Betsy says the only way to fix education is “parents as teachers” classes when kids are still in pre school.
Sandman @ 53
Not necessary if you raise the Capital Gains Tax! Coupled with raising the SSA Income ceiling to 250K would divert the wealth flow in the proper direction…!!!
I am sorry Mr Welsh. I should not be saying IAN.
CTuttle @ 61
But they could just ask for a larger salary, the Board of Directors is very friendly to most of them.
I wonder how much things have changed? I grew up white trailer trash. Mom’s first three kids were all born out of wedlock in the 1950s/60s and each has a different father. She is not a reader and hated school as a kid.
Somehow, at a very early age, I saw education as my way out and studied hard from at least the 4th grade. I often say I got my education despite the public schools at the time. Though from what I read and hear about public schools today, I practically went to the MIT of public schools.
I got out but my brothers did not. I did what I could at the time to tell them, “Screw softball/football/basketball, do your homework.” I didn’t get my message through and today they remain in dead end manual labour jobs.
I’ve tried to provide an example and incentives to my nieces and nephews. I think I have reached two of them despite their step mother (white trailer trash, all four of her children have different fathers, her motto remains “school is stupid, work hard and you’ll do ok in life”).
I love school, except when it gets boring. I love to learn and I want to make a good life and have a career and do good things in the world and I think going to college will be the best thing for me after HS. Starting next year I will have AP exams so I can get college credits in HS.
From WSJ: Income-Inequality Gap Widens The wealthiest 1% of Americans earned 21.2% of all income in 2005….The bottom 50% earned 12.8% of all income, down from 13.4% in 2004…
http://online.wsj.com/article/…..ts_news_us
Maybe the greedy pigs in the top 1% have insatiable appetites. Who else will clean their houses, watch the children, wash their cars, and fight rich men’s wars?
If I had to decide between subsidizing the garbage weekly pickup or the govenor’s salary, garbage pickup wins hands down. Those guys directly affect the health and cleanliness of my community. The govenor is just another politician with his hands in my pocket.
I have a question. People say that I have a good chance to get a scholarship because I am smart and non=white. But if I leave Texas, will the color of my skin make it harder to get a job? Or harder to move up after I get a job?
Sandman @ 54
Yup.
A lot of folks here at FDL are familiar with Bob Somerby and his devastating critiques of the MSM which he posts at The Daily Howler. Some of you might not know that he was a grade school teacher in inner-city Baltimore for a while. Somerby writes quite a bit on the subject of No Child Left Behind and the issues surrounding the education of children from low-income households.
There’s a whole lot at The Daily Howler about how more money, higher standards and better teachers might not provide much in the way of improved results when it comes to teaching low-income kids. Let me offer up passages from two Somerby posts (yes, these are inappropriately long for this forum but I’m posting them anyway because they are quite important):
*********************
*********************
Why do low-income kids do so poorly in school? Tough supplies a bit of history. “There had, in fact, been evidence for a long time that poor children fell behind rich and middle-class children early, and stayed behind,” he writes. “But researchers had been unable to isolate the reasons for the divergence.” After listing a string of possible answers, Tough turns to Hart and Risley’s 1995 research. People who care about low-income schooling need to consider this matter well. For that reason, we quote at some length:
Ouch! By age 3—long before formal schooling began—this vocabulary gap was large, as was the gap in those IQ scores. And, as we have noted above, Hart and Risley concluded that “the size of each child’s vocabulary correlated most closely to one simple factor: the number of words the parents spoke to the child.” Of course, we could easily imagine remedial efforts which would erase a vocabulary gap. But the difference in early upbringing goes beyond that, Tough says. Hart and Risley found that professional parents spoke to their children much more often. “What’s more, the kinds of words and statements that children heard varied by class,” Tough writes. Again, we quote at some length:
Advantage, the children of professional parents! “In the years since Hart and Risley published their findings, social scientists have examined other elements of the parent-child relationship,” Tough writes, and “their conclusions all point to big class differences in children’s intellectual growth.” One more large chunk of Tough talk:
Arrgh! “Taken together, the conclusions of these researchers can be a little unsettling,” Tough writes. Their work “suggests that the disadvantages that poverty imposes on children aren’t primarily about material goods.” Rather, “the real advantages that middle-class children gain come from more elusive processes: the language that their parents use, the attitudes toward life that they convey. However you measure child-rearing, middle-class parents tend to do it differently than poor parents—and the path they follow in turn tends to give their children an array of advantages.”
*******************
*******************
Obvious point—Bob Herbert’s heart is in the right place when it comes to American education (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/29/05). But sadly, that just isn’t enough—and it hasn’t been enough for the past thirty-five years. During that time, well-meaning liberals have mouthed bland cant about the problems of urban schools—and little real progress has been made in fighting the problems which Herbert describes. How bad are the actual problems? In Monday’s column in the New York Times, Herbert discussed the latest new study of American schools, this one commissioned by two liberal think tanks. Just try—just try—to comprehend the gravity of the situation described here:
Try to grasp the meaning of that highlighted sentence! After attending school for three years, low-income students are “about three grade levels behind” non-poor students! Say it again, and let it sink in: After three years, they’re three years behind!! But Herbert shows no sign of grasping the enormity (or the absurdity) of the situation described here. Nor do the business-as-usual bafflegabs who authored this latest new study, bafflegabs who complain at one point that American kids attend school 180 days per year while the international average is 193. After three years in school, low-income kids are three years behind—and those thirteen days seem the culprit? But so it has gone for thirty-give years as detached, inept but credentialed elites tut-tut about schools they have never set foot in, offering worthless “recommendations”—recommendations which often stand out for their lack of scale or their grinding illogic.
********************
********************
Again, Somerby has a lot to say on the subject of teaching low-income inner-city kids. You can find more of his thoughts on the subject by poking around his site with the search engine there.
Ian Welsh @ 68
I should clarify, it’s not the best solution. Ideally you just have very high marginal tax rates with no loopholes.
OT: President Bush may think it’s a done deal, and First Lady Laura may be measuring for drapes. An architect has been chosen, and the project is proceeding to raise $500 million. And Karl Rove, who actually may be running the entire show, is also likely lining up a host of conservative think-tankers. Much of the media that covered the story only a few months ago appear to have lost interest. However, before the George W. Bush Library, with its attached public policy institute, are built at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas, Texas, they must overcome rising objections within the nationwide United Methodist community.
snip
More intrigue has surfaced in the race to land the George W. Bush presidential library after it was disclosed that Southern Methodist University (SMU), Dallas, long considered a front-runner, had received a $35 million gift from Dallas businessman Ray Hunt. The gift, according to the Dallas Morning News, was used to purchase a shopping center that could become the library site. The extraordinary gift was made last fall but curiously remains unannounced by university officials, who told reporters details have not been finalized.
CMike there is a difference between low income and inner city. You can have a good education and still be poor. When my dad left we lost our house and we were poor but we still did homework and my mom still read to me and it was still middle class in some ways. Even when we didn’t have enough food I could still get help with my homework.
snarKassandra @ 67
I have a question. People say that I have a good chance to get a scholarship because I am smart and non=white. But if I leave Texas, will the color of my skin make it harder to get a job? Or harder to move up after I get a job?
May I make a gentle suggestion? Don’t worry about such things. When you present yourself as the whip-smart and talented young lady that you are, those things will take care of themselves.
Wanna be a paralegal for me? *g*
Talent is talent, and despite what you might think now, employers are much more interested in finding people who can *help* them, than they are in in meeting nebulous quotas.
snarKassandra @ 67
Keep doing what you are doing and always look ahead. You have a very bright future probably because your aunt makes you do the dishes. IIRC Eurasian? I have no data but it’s probably a slight advantage.
Elliott @ 8
I look at home schooling as improving the student teacher ratio. Home schooling is a lot like “progressive” schools in the 70’s, where the individual is allowed to acquire knowledge at their own pace.
What’s a paralegal?
I look Mexican. But I am half white.
snarKassandra @ 75
You do everything a Lawyer does, except, argue in court, or advise…!!! 8-)
CTuttle @ 77
Work your ass off for less money?
Education is not going to change the structural problems of class.
We still have a racism problem in this country. Any dark skinned person can tell you that. Try hailing a cab while black in NYC.
Obviously having skills means you can get a better job, earn more money and lift yourself up.
But in NYC for example the schools in the poorer neighborhoods are not as good as they are in the rich neighborhoods.
Our system needs an underclass and its not going to change.
Steve-AR @ 77
Basically…!!! ;-)
SK @ 67
It depends a lot on where you work. The company I work at seems to be pretty colorblind (and definitely promotes without gender bias: several of the top management are female, including the CEO.)
—
What I wonder about is how many of the jobs for which companies demand that applicants have degrees really need someone with a degree, or if they just use that as another way to weed out minorities?
—
If you’re poor, and have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet, you’ll probably be too poor to take time off for the doctor or the dentist, and then it’s a downward spiral in health terms.
I know someone who worked as a a paralegal and the firm ultimately funded her law degree.
I graduated from high school many years ago but it surely doesn’t sound like things have changed that much.
I graduated in the top 10% of my class but also was into sports. In fact, I won a football scholarship to a major university. After 5 years of college (red-shirted the 1st year), I received a degree in math. Building on that I eventually became an actuary and did quite well in business.
The fact is though I grew up in a slum, lived in a 3 room cold water shack, many of the people I knew back then wound up in jail or died in gang wars. Even in grammar school I realized there was a better life and was determied to do well. It was tough but things did work out.
Steve-AR @ 78
In Cassie’s case, it’s a temp job, available while she continues to go to school..
Excellent analysis–also, though, consider demographics.
I was born in the middle of the Great Depression when many fewer children were born than in say, post WW II. (Amazing, yes? Both birth control and abortion were illegal, but somehow people who were desperate managed not to have the child they could not feed.)
OK, so I was one of a very small generation coming of age just when there were a lot of job openings (1950s). I was an educated white female when there were many, many jobs that only white females were allowed to fill. (A male secretary or clerk? Hell, no. Even the thought smacked of homosexuality. A black woman–even movie star beautiful–at the receptionist desk? Forget about it.)
For years I thought the reason I was always hired was because of my superior skills. I was a good employee, but I was making pretty good money mainly because of market conditions.
snarKassandra @ 72
Well then, never mind.
My brother has two jobs and my aunt has 3 or 4, but they’re all little. I baby-sit in the summer but I don’t have any other jobs.
You are skimming the surface of a deeper understanding that others now share. The values of the classes differ, therefore, so do their behaviors. Acquaint yourself with the “Bridges Out of Poverty” work by Ruby K. Payne.
Mr. Welsh, recently Bush signed into law, a new National Debt Ceiling of $9.815 trillion and yet it received almost no media attention, I was just shocked.
Sandman @ 89
The media has no attention span.
Kirk’s upstairs on the farm
Graduates versus Oligarchs
2006-02-27, New York Times
The 2006 Economic Report of the President tells us that the real earnings of college graduates actually fell more than 5 percent between 2000 and 2004….like being a college graduate, wasn’t a ticket to big income gains. But income at the 99th percentile rose 87 percent; income at the 99.9th percentile rose 181 percent; and income at the 99.99th percentile rose 497 percent. Should we be worried about the increasingly oligarchic nature of American society? Yes, and not just because a rising economic tide has failed to lift most boats.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/inc…..es-0-10000
The Ivy League Schools are nothing more then the good ole boys legacy network passed on to
junior’sJunya’s or II, or III unto another. Ah, yes they do allow a percentage of the middle-class in (to wipe-out their savings), and to give Junya a toe in the pond in dealing with their future subordinates. and Ivy will finance the few poverty-stricken with full scholarships, as they look down their noses with a benevolent smile. The Annuit coeptis (God has favored us) Aristocracy never share title and wealth with the peasants. Well, for goodness sake, who else will serve the aristocracy if we were economic equals?Ian Welsh @ 28
With a few statistical anomolies. By the time i get my degree for a Nationally Certified Pharm Tech, i’ll be one of maybe 3 in my family on both sides to have actual degrees in some subject or another. But it’s still hard as hell, i’d love to have a purely academic degree on top of that but i can’t afford it. The credit trap AND if you fail classes because of health issues, you’re still stuck. Because the loan companies will only give you so much before they cut you off at the knees. You have to be young and immortal in order to keep getting money from them. (then you pay through the nose afterwards to pay them back)
Ian Welsh @ 38
Actually, it was TWO southern states. Each offering over $100 million in tax bribes. But Toyota also realized they could save money on health insurance, since Canada has universal health insurance.
So in the end, a better educated work force, and lower labor costs because of a government health plan won the deal. Proving once again that good education and health insurance is good for business.
Everyone should see the PBS series COUNTRY BOYS about two poor teens in Appalachia. One of the things they show is the “family first” trap, and how the elder generation uses this logic to pull kids out of school to provide free labor for the family. So mom gets moved into a new trailer, and her son doesn’t go to college. It’s beyond dysfunctional. You can see how the bromides, pep talks, and pledges to yourself mean nothing if your Mom is relying on your disability check to pay the family’s rent.
I’ve been on a kick reading Denise Mina, a Scottish mystery writer who shows how poor families can both be a source of strength and quicksand, holding the younger generation back. And that it takes a remarkable generosity on the parent’s part to end the cycle.
Mme Racine @ 95
But some poor families want the kids to do well.
mook @ 75
Depends on who’s doing the home schooling, and why. Most homeschoolers are Fundies.
The well-to-do are a confederacy of the most scrupulous, the least scrupulous, and the just plain lucky.
Ian Welsh @ 38
rwcole @ 5
Mr. Welsh,
I think rwcole has already answered your question.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 24
They take out loans, which for a decade or more places the student in debt (and we all know about the current Student Loan scandals), or they take on jobs WHILE going to school…which inevitably affects their ability to focus on their education and extends the amount of years they have to spend in school.
There are a couple of options to reduce these burdens which are kept pretty quiet. One is to sign up for a program committing oneself to teach in underserved public education or (in some states) in the State University System. Loans are often forgiven, in whole or part.
Another is to attend Community College for the first or second year of ones education, forgoing admission to the “name” University until one has acquired a lot of units in “basic” courses. Make sure you know what you want to do in terms of an academic career. And then transfer into the “name” University…and take courses in ones major and a few electives from the best that institution has to offer. Be sure to actually INTERACT with the faculty, get involved in their projects, or work with them to establish your own.
Most students go to University, even the best ones, and wander about their freshman and sophomore years, changing majors and simply wasting time socializing with friends. That’s stuff that can be done at a Community College, as well, at far less cost.
SanderO @ 27
Really? I thought he went to NYU and dropped out due to “finances”-which I guessmeans that the little loafer spent to much moiney on beer and other useless things. And if he was really so poor, where was NYU’s Financial Aid? Or maybe his parents simply didn’t judge that he was worth “investing in”. People make choices.
I thought he also attended UC Santa Barbara…he certainly got the student radio station there in loads of trouble. But I suspect that he simply USED a state- and student-funded radio station to jump-start his career as a hate-spewing shock-jock. Ironically it was that bastion of Free Speech that defended Hannity when he was suspended, resulting in his re-instatement after he was suspended.
From Wiki-
“Hannity hosted his first talk radio show in 1989 at the volunteer college station at UC Santa Barbara, KCSB-FM. The show aired for 40 hours of air time[6] and, according to Hannity, he was terrible.[7] Hannity’s weekly show was cancelled when KCSB management charged him with “discriminating against gays and lesbians” after two shows featuring the book The AIDS Coverup: The Real and Alarming Facts about AIDS by Gene Antonio. The station reversed its decision to dismiss Hannity due in part to a campaign conducted by the Santa Barbara Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Hannity decided against returning to KCSB.[8]
After leaving KCSB, Hannity placed an ad in radio publications presenting himself as “the most talked about college radio host in America,” and WVNN in Athens, Alabama (part of the Huntsville market) hired him to be the afternoon talk show host.[6] “
I think the station could have suspended him for simply being “terrible”. They do that frequently for DJ’s (especially non-students)that after a a trial period don’t show improvement to reasonable quality.
And interesting to see that Hannity was part of the whole “AID’s can be passed through casual contact” hysteria drummed up by the Right-Wing to fuel their arguments for interning homsexuals and bisexuals.
Here is what “The AIDS Cover-Up?” that Hannity trumpeted actually asserted. It claims that “with the average doubling time of AIDS cases (12 months at that time, now thought to be at least 15) that as many as eight million Americans would be infected by the end of 1987 and 64 million by the end of 1990″.
“The AIDS Cover-Up?” cited mainly secondary sources such as the AIDS scare article in the March 1986 American Spectator which argued that AIDS could be transmitted by coughing, kissing, and mosquitos. Antonio, and Hannity, peddled an absurd comparison between AIDS and a completely unrelated lentivirus in sheep that can be transmitted through coughing. No contrary scientific criticism of the claims was presented. After summarizing the various categories of persons at risk, the article concludes ominously, “Who will be left?” To which the apparent answer is “nobody.” So the obvious recourse was the establishment of quaraantine centers for those infected with the virus, and widespread mandatory screening of “at risk” populations. This was all being “covered up” by the Medical and Scientific Community, of course. And if the protested, well…it was simply more evidence of that cover-up! And according to “The Aids Cover-Up?” safe sex/needle sterilization solutions were simply incapable of reducing that rate, since infection was not from sexual activity or blood exchange alone…one could get it from mere contact!
That was part of the reason that the Gay and Lesbian community, and others including the Scientific and medical community, in Santa Barbara were outraged at Hannity’s assertions.
Besides their non-disclosure of strongly countervailing scientific evidence to the assertions made in Antonio’s (a former Roman Catholic priest) screed by college dropout Hannity, he also appeared to be completely unaware of the “standard epidemiological curve”. This is a basic biological concept which shows that as a new infection spreads it’s rate of infection eventually slows as the most vulnerable potential victims are struck and only harder targets are left. Eventually the growth rate plateaus, as with syphilis or gonorrhea, or actually falls to near nonexistence, as with bubonic plague and influenza epidemics.
snarKassandra @ 67
There are likely many states more progressive than Texas. But it really depends on what you want to do. Some businesses welcome diversity, while others institutionalize efforts of “new faces” to rise through the ranks. A lot of that is done by hiring “Executives” based on their connections and prior experience at the corporate level. They’ll even go outside the company to find these folks. That means that there is a “glass ceiling”. A lot of the wage disparity so frequently cited in Statistics is because women are locked out of these “Old Tie (Buddy)” networks at the CEO level, where executives make 40-400 times the pay of their junior executives.
A poor student who fails in school does not often get a second chance. A rich kid does. Ask W.
Children from wealthier families have the luxury to fail at school or life and then to try again.
…this is an excellent article! I want to tell you as someone who has been low income all my adult life, while working my ass off and getting nowhere, I concur with all you have written about as to the reasons for poverty. with myself, loved ones and friends, I have seen all the reasons you list, sometimes one of the reasons, sometimes a combination of those reasons, and sometimes all of them together.
I think one thing you might add is sexism and lack of support for raising families. Until we see raising children as being “work” women of all races and background are at a huge disadvantage. Raising children is a full time job, and it does contribute to our country’s future ~ just consider who will pay your social security when you are old as we pay our parent’s, or who will take care of the infrastructure of your community when you retire, run your country, or fight in your wars ?
Why are we not supporting this work by paid leave, daycares that are not only 24 hour but publically supported as are schools and why do we say we”don’t work” while caring for children if we do not work for a wage?(Venezuela has started to pay stay-at-home parents for doing the honor of raising the country’s next generation, for instance).
Denigrating parenting is sexism because raising children has always been traditionally “women’s work” rendering it insignificant and not as important as making some rich man richer with your time and labor. We went even farther when we enacted Welfare Reform, which calls raising children “doing nothing” and enacted into law that a minimum wage job is “better” than a mother being there to guide and raise her children, even though it adds a huge almost impossible hurdle already and it is well known she ca work as hard as she wants and never get over the hump and she will never escape.
The sexist and racist notion that poor children are “better off” being in a daycare from 3 months of age, and refusing to allow higher education, even a GED, while mother goes off to labor for little or nothing, should cause some questions as to why this is and tell all Americans, “Something is wrong with this picture!”
My 2 cents
Cat In Seattle
Ian,
Thanks for a very good analysis, which I just got back to, after being out most of the day.
You wrote,
In your extensive catalog, there’s one important factor that you’ve left out: Alcohol.
Yes, I know, I know, some people drink and are very successful. But that’s not the whole story. (BTW, have you noticed that most of the beer commercials over the past 3 years portray men as stupid and boorish?)
I know about a different side of alcohol. One that is intergenerational, and linked to poverty, just like you’re writing about. And that is what happens when women who are pregnant drink too much alcohol: the growth of their children’s brains is stunted, producing a condition called “Fetal alcohol syndrome” (FAS).
Public consciousness about FAS surfaced as a result of Michael Dorris’ book “Broken Cord”, which was made into an ABC movie a generation ago. But that book tells only half the story. Excessive drinking can cause brain damage that is often much more subtle than depicted by Dorris. Today, a range of effects called “Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder” (FASD) is recognized. Some individuals are affected mainly by having a few points shaved off their IQ. There is a whole spectrum of effects, from very subtle to delays in social development to more severe developmental delays. But the worst part is that in families where the mother drinks too much, the father also probably drinks too much, and the family becomes dysfunctional. Women with FASD do get pregnant, and they are at elevated risk to drink too much, and so their daughters get FASD. These families are usually poor, resulting in a classic cycle of poverty that can go on for generations. American Indians are more aware of this than nice White folks, although there are probably MORE White families with the same dysfunctional cycle. You just don’t hear about them.
Meanwhile, the alcoholic beverage industry gets a free ride: they can advertise on TV! That’s right, the alcoholic beverage industry profits, at least indirectly, from the cycle of poverty.
Yes, there are other drugs that are involved in the poverty cycle, but alcohol is the biggest one.
Bob in HI
snarKassandra @ 67
Come to Hawaii, Cassie! You’ll blend right in! Everyone’s a minority here. White folks like me are called “haole.” There are more shades of brown than anyone can keep track of, between Native Hawaiians, 16 kinds of Asians, and a few Hispanics and Blacks.
Bob in HI
bobschacht @ 105
Alcohol is still probably the number one most widespread drug and probably does more harm than any others (though I hear reports about meth). Aye, I agree. No real good solution has been found, though, prohibition was a disaster overall.
Note than government action has greatly reduced if not effectively ended, severe poverty among the aged.
Not exactly on topic, but I think some balance is in order. I grew up in an Appalachian Mtn commmunity knowing many hill-country kids who did not aspire to college, but still managed to “get by”–the famous standard for low achievers in the mountains. Given the circumstances, it is not an unworthy standard. These kids drove the trucks, worked in the furniture factories, sold the tractors, or did the bulldozer work. I think they had skills, not education in the sense you have described it. Most of them to this day cannot get through a simple newspaper article, and they don’t care to. But they do live decently and their kids are all over the map—some to college, some leave the community forever, and some inherit the family bulldozing business just because they like to push dirt around.
bobschacht @ 105
As someone working in poverty, at least in this area of the nation, alcohol plays a part perhaps in that a spouse (mostly women) have had to leave the home because of abuse ~ over 75% of welfare families are on welfare because they fled an abusive situation. Less and less however, is this because of alcohol and drugs, though it can play a part. Often this abuse is done by religious spouses who are controlling and manipulative. Substance abuse makes this tendency more prevalent, but believe me (and I am saying this as a religious person myself) more and more I am seeing abuse come out of a church, cult, or other religion (particularly when they are fundamental and this can be across the board including any religion that do not value women) than from a bar or back alley.
Cat In Seattle
College is a sham.
There is almost no work, outside of technical scientific work, that requires a 4-year degree. Most work requires application of general intelligence and an ability to learn field-specific information.
The fact that employers can discriminate against people without college educations, on the grounds that college educated people are somehow “more qualified” should be the next civil rights struggle. Yes, people who have gone to college are more likely to be able to do x, y, and z — but it’s exactly in the same way that men are more likely to be better at math. It’s discriminatory, and puts people under tremendous pressure to delay their working lives and start it in debt.
But good luck getting college discrimination ended… belief in college is a cult.
If the poor speak less encouragement to their children it’s probably because they experience less opportunity for it in their own lives.
“It’s hard to be free when you’re bought and sold in the market place very day.” — Jack Nicholson in Five Easy Pieces
Probably the Rich are not Evil, though there is some evidence of it. More likely they have just learned how to play the game more efficiently and effectively and to redesign the game itself to make it more profitable. The poor do not take part in this ‘game’ in a good way. They are the muggees and feel depressed (naturally) as a result.
If we’re to fix Capitalism this inherent improvement to the system must be recognized as having broken another part.
You can’t begin the required 12-step program without saying, “Hello, my name is Rich and I’ve been making lots more money screwing all the poor guys.”
If we’re going to be a nation of opportunity, then we can’t let the Rich and Corporations simply dominate as they do today. It’s just that simple.
But, the fix involves helping them realize, hopefully before the next Great Depression, that this is the situation. The specific changes needed to fix this situation aren’t all known. There is a lot of room for creative thought and even some input from capitalists, free enterprisers and economists.
But, we have to get on with it or we’ll continue to lose the world trade competition (we started).
MarkH @ 112
To ignore is to participate. Sometimes evil is benign, it is simply ignoring the truth and pretending the lies are the reality ~ and perhaps while your belly is full and life is comfortable, the lie is reality to a few if one refuses to look outside of the bubble and see what else is going on.
My 2 cents
Cat In Seattle
Another factor that I heard about, and had previously been oblivious to, has to do with the the values of real estate.
Basically, even good neighborhoods in cities where black people could buy homes have not appreciated in value the way houses in white neighborhoods and suburbs have over the past decades. So if your white father bought a house in the 1950s, chances are it greatly increased in value over the next couple decades. So he could borrow against the equity in the family home to send you and your siblings to college, or loan you money for a business or home, or even just help you with the expenses of setting up your own household.
Meanwhile, if your black father bought a house in the 1950s, by the 1970s it had not grown in value much at all, and so the investment didn’t pay off in the same way.
It’s one of those invisible, structural effects of racism that people dismiss when they say so-and-so hasn’t worked hard enough or invested wisely… and the effects continue well past the generations where the racism was acceptable and overt.
Sikhs have faced and continue to face brutal in -yer-face racism (esp. in Canada from where Ian hails).
So have chinese and asians.
So obviously racism has nothing to do with success.