Featured Image -- 7807

More U.S. Children Live In Poverty Now Than During the Recession

Eupraxsophy:

The world’s wealthiest nation by a wide margin, which has experienced steady economic growth over the past several years, which counts more billionaires than any other country in the world (indeed, than the next dozen or so country combined), and child poverty is both stubbornly high and actually growing.

There is not much else to say.

Originally posted on TIME:

In mid-September 2010, almost exactly two years to the date since the monumental collapse of Lehman Brothers, the New York Times published a bleak statistic: the ongoing Great Recession had driven the U.S. poverty rates to their highest in a decade and a half.

Five years of fitful economic recovery have not yet bettered this situation. According to a new report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, more than one in five American children, about 22%, were living in poverty in 2013. Data for 2014 are not yet available, but the report anticipates that the child poverty rate remains at an “unacceptably high [level].”

The figure for 2008 was 18%.

[newsletter-the-brief]

General terms are insufficient when explaining the economy’s post-recession rebound. There are a number of conflicting statistics — the fall in unemployment versus the rise in poverty, for instance — but even efforts to compare and assess these inconsistencies…

View original 213 more words

Lessons From Mexico On Combating Poverty

Given all its present woes, Mexico would not strike most as a model to follow. But as I have mentioned before, for all its political and socioeconomic challenges, namely with respect to crime and corruption, one of the world’s largest economies has a lot going for it. As a “newly industrialized nation” with a broadening middle class, the country of 120 million is taking steps to better harness its burgeoning economic potential.

A good place to start is with the agricultural workers who make up a bulk of the country’s most impoverished people. One state is taking a simple yet profound approach to the problem, as The Atlantic reports:

In the Mexican state of Baja California, which exports huge amounts of strawberries, cucumbers, and tomatoes to the U.S., labor is taking a different tack that might take some of that pressure off of employers, for better or for worse: The local government is reportedly leaning toward paying a portion of farmworkers’ wages, bringing them up to 200 pesos (about $13.30) per day.

The terms of the agreement between farmworkers and the government have yet to be nailed down (for example, how much of the wage increase will be shouldered by government versus industry) but it is refreshing to see a government recognize that significant amounts of workers simply don’t make enough money to live comfortably, and to try to do something about it. And wages are only one part of the equation. The agreement would also have the government take pains to make sure workers are receiving the healthcare and social-security benefits they’re guaranteed by law, and hopefully would make it rarer for crew bosses to sexually harass female farmworkers.

In essence, the government is filling the gap between livable wages and what most companies offer. This might seem like an unlikely or unwarranted solution to most Americans, but it is already the reality, albeit less directly:

A recent study from UC Berkeley’s Labor Center found that nearly three-quarters of people participating in government programs such as Medicaid and food stamps are in families headed by workers. The authors, calling this a “hidden [cost] of low-wage work in America”, estimated that through these programs, taxpayers provide these families with about $150 billion in public support. Additionally, programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit essentially subsidize the wages of workers whose income is below a certain level.

Shouldn’t companies be making up this difference instead of taxpayers? That’s how some state legislatures feel. Starting next year, California will publicly name any company that has more than 100 employees on Medicaid. And in Connecticut, state legislators are considering a bill that would require large employers to pay a penalty for each worker on their rolls earning less than $15 an hour.

Ultimately, what the government of Baja California intends to do is improve the situation that workers are in—something, one would hope, that companies start feeling the pressure to do as well.

It is very telling that the forces that most strongly oppose raising the minimum wage, or providing some sort of government support to workers, are the same ones directly responsible for underpaying their workers and shifting more and more of their companies’ profits to shareholders and top executives.

If businesses (and their supporters) do not want to do more to compensate their employees better, yet also do not want the government to help make the difference, then what exactly is the end game? A sclerotic economy where everyone is just barely getting by, and the demand for goods and services — which these same businesses claim is woefully lacking — remains low? Why should poverty — in any nation, much less the richest one — be seen as an unavoidable fact for so many working people?

_83014550_ironfish_children

How An Iron Fish Can Help Millions of People

Anemia, caused mostly by iron deficiency, is one of the most widespread and consequential health afflictions in the world, impacting 30 percent of the world’s population, mainly children, teens, and young mothers. From constant fatigue and headaches, to potentially deadly hemorrhaging, it literally weakens entire communities and makes the already laborious lives of the poor even more miserable.

It is easy to take for granted the prevalence of iron in most developed-world diets. But for most people living in the developing world, such as in Cambodia, it can be difficult to grow or access iron-rich food, let alone take expensive and equally unavailable iron tablets. It is one of those problems that should not be so widespread and intractable, indicative of the pervasive neglect and inequality of many economic and political systems (and indeed the world).

The BBC highlights a promising solution by Canadian scientist Dr. Christopher Charles so simple and cost-effective that there can be no excuse for not implementing it.  Continue reading

How To Lift Families Out Of Poverty

NPR reports on an international study with a vital, yet surprisingly novel, goal: finding out whether or not humanitarian is actually effective for lifting people out of poverty. Despite the billions of dollars going into global aid of some form or another every year, there is an unfortunate dearth of data on what is most effective and how.

In response, a Yale university professor has teamed up with several humanitarian groups around the world (including MIT’s Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab and the nonprofit Innovations for Poverty Action) to rigorously test poverty reduction programs with “the same method doctors use to test drugs (that is, randomized control trials).” Listen the result here or read the following excerpt:

They teamed up with a network of researchers and nonprofits in six developing countries. They went to thousands of communities and found the poorest families.

Then they divided the families into two groups. They gave half the families nothing. And the other half a whole smorgasbord of aid for one to two years. They gave them:

  1. Some livestock for making money, such as goats for milk, bees for honey, or guinea pigs for selling. “Depending on the site, there were different things specifically appropriate for that context,” Karlan says.
  2. Training about how to raise the livestock
  3. Food or cash so they wouldn’t eat the livestock
  4. A savings account
  5. Help with their health — both physical and mental

Karlan and his colleagues reported the results of the massive experiment in the journalScience this week.

So what did they find? Well, the strategy worked pretty well in five of the six countries they tried it in. Families who got the aid started making a little more money, and they had more food to eat.

“We see mental health go up. Happiness go up. We even saw things like female power increase,” Karlan says.

But here’s what sets this study apart from the rest: Families continued to make a bit more money even a year after the aid stopped.

“People were stuck. They give them this big push, and they seem to be on a sustained increased income level,” says Justin Sandefur, an economist at the Center for Global Development in Washington, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“What I found exciting and unique about this study is that the impact of the aid was durable and sustainable,” he added.

The results suggest that the right kind of aid does help people in multiple places. It lifted the families up just a little bit so they could finally start inching out of extreme poverty.

The researchers caution that while the data is positive, there is still a lot to be done. For starters, most recipients remained very poor, with incomes and food consumption together only increasing by around 5 percent on average.

Moreover, it is still unknown how sustainable even these modest bumps are, as the study only followed the results for a year after the aid stopped.

Even so, the findings are very important, as they show aid groups that fairly basic strategy can often work. Even a little bit of extra money can make a huge difference in improving families’ lives, whether it is allowing them to make gains in their nutrition or health, send their kids to school, or simple hope.

 

U.S. Leads Developed World in Child Poverty

Over the past six years, America’s wealth expanded by over $30 billion — a growth rate of 60 percent — despite the weak recovery. During the same span of time, another metric grew by that percentage: the number of homeless and food insecure children.

As Raw Story reports, despite its vast and ever-growing wealth, the world’s richest country by a considerable margin lags behind most other developed nations in measurements of child poverty.

America is a ‘Leader’ in Child Poverty

The U.S. has one of the highest relative child poverty rates in the developed world. As UNICEF reports, “[Children’s] material well-being is highest in the Netherlands and in the four Nordic countries and lowest in Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and the United States.”

Over half of public school students are poor enough to qualify for lunch subsidies, and almost half of black children under the age of six are living in poverty.

$5 a Day for Food, But Congress Thought it was Too Much.

Nearly half of all food stamp recipients are children, and they averaged about $5 a day for their meals before the 2014 farm bill cut $8.6 billion (over the next ten years) from the food stamp program.

In 2007 about 12 of every 100 kids were on food stamps. Today it’s 20 of every 100.

For Every 2 Homeless Children in 2006, There Are Now 3

On a typical frigid night in January, 138,000 children, according to the U.S. Department of Housing, were without a place to call home.

That’s about the same number of households that have each increased their wealth by $10 million per year since the recession.

The US: Near the Bottom in Education, and Sinking

The U.S. ranks near the bottom of the developed world in the percentage of 4-year-olds in early childhood education. Early education should be a primary goal for the future, as numerous studies have shown that pre-school helps all children to achieve more and earn more through adulthood, with the most disadvantaged benefiting the most. But we’re going in the opposite direction. Head Start was recently hit with the worst cutbacks in its history.

Children’s Rights? Not in the U.S.

It’s hard to comprehend the thinking of people who cut funding for homeless and hungry children. It may be delusion about trickle-down, it may be indifference to poverty, it may be resentment toward people unable to “make it on their own”.

The indifference and resentment and disdain for society reach around the globe. Only two nations still refuse to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: South Sudan and the United States.

Aside from the obvious immorality of allowing so many millions of children to suffer during their most formative years, this abysmal performance in child well-being will leave a lasting legacy of social ills, poor children are increasingly more likely to remain poor for the rest of their lives (especially given the declining social mobility for which the U.S. was once famous).

Why Do The Poor Buy Luxury Goods?

From Tressie McMillan Cottom at TPM

Why do poor people make stupid, illogical decisions to buy status symbols? For the same reason all but only the most wealthy buy status symbols, I suppose. We want to belong. And, not just for the psychic rewards, but belonging to one group at the right time can mean the difference between unemployment and employment, a good job as opposed to a bad job, housing or a shelter, and so on. Someone mentioned on twitter that poor people can be presentable with affordable options from Kmart. But the issue is not about being presentable. Presentable is the bare minimum of social civility. It means being clean, not smelling, wearing shirts and shoes for service and the like. Presentable as a sufficient condition for gainful, dignified work or successful social interactions is a privilege. It’s the aging white hippie who can cut the ponytail of his youthful rebellion and walk into senior management while aging black panthers can never completely outrun the effects of stigmatization against which they were courting a revolution. Presentable is relative and, like life, it ain’t fair.

In contrast, “acceptable” is about gaining access to a limited set of rewards granted upon group membership. I cannot know exactly how often my presentation of acceptable has helped me but I have enough feedback to know it is not inconsequential. One manager at the apartment complex where I worked while in college told me, repeatedly, that she knew I was “Okay” because my little Nissan was clean. That I had worn a Jones of New York suit to the interview really sealed the deal. She could call the suit by name because she asked me about the label in the interview. Another hiring manager at my first professional job looked me up and down in the waiting room, cataloging my outfit, and later told me that she had decided I was too classy to be on the call center floor. I was hired as a trainer instead. The difference meant no shift work, greater prestige, better pay and a baseline salary for all my future employment.

….

At the heart of these incredulous statements about the poor decisions poor people make is a belief that we would never be like them. We would know better. We would know to save our money, eschew status symbols, cut coupons, practice puritanical sacrifice to amass a million dollars. There is a regular news story of a lunch lady who, unbeknownst to all who knew her, died rich and leaves it all to a cat or a charity or some such. Books about the modest lives of the rich like to tell us how they drive Buicks instead of BMWs. What we forget, if we ever know, is that what we know now about status and wealth creation and sacrifice are predicated on who we are, i.e. not poor. If you change the conditions of your not-poor status, you change everything you know as a result of being a not-poor. You have no idea what you would do if you were poor until you are poor. And not intermittently poor or formerly not-poor, but born poor, expected to be poor and treated by bureaucracies, gatekeepers and well-meaning respectability authorities as inherently poor. Then, and only then, will you understand the relative value of a ridiculous status symbol to someone who intuits that they cannot afford to not have it.

The Poor Have It Easy In America

That is a sentiment that appears to be widely held by the nation’s wealthiest citizens, according to a recent Pew survey reported by the Washington Post.

The center surveyed a nationally representative group of people this past fall, and found that the majority of the country’s most financially secure citizens (54 percent at the very top, and 57 percent just below) believe the “poor have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return.” America’s least financially secure, meanwhile, vehemently disagree — nearly 70 percent say the poor have hard lives because the benefits “don’t go far enough.” Nationally, the population is almost evenly split.

Here are the results in visual form; note the large minorities of poor and middle-class people that agree with this view.

Unsurprisingly, the report also found that those who identify as conservatives — around 40 percent of the most financially secure groups — are more likely to believe the poor have it good thanks to the government, and that the poor do not work hard enough. Another Pew report confirmed that around 75 percent of conservatives in general feel this way about the poor, regardless of income.

So in essence, if you are wealthy or conservative — but especially both — you are likely to take a dim view of America’s least fortunate — and conversely, to believe that wealthy people have it harder, due to perceived higher taxes, onerous government regulations, and the usual bugbears of the right.

As columnist Christopher Ingraham points out, such a perception of America’s poor is greatly at odds with reality:

But I have a hard time understanding how you could read about the experience of families relying on food stamps to eat, or those trying tomanage chronic conditions with Medicaid, and conclude that these people somehow have it easy. For context, here is a brief and wildly incomplete list of the ways life is “easy” when you’re poor:

Of course, it is no coincidence that those who think the poor have it easy also think the poor do not work hard enough and just live off the government (and by extension, live off the hardworking taxpayer). If you think that poor people get what they deserve for their laziness and irresponsibility, no amount of data demonstrating their difficult circumstances — and by contrast how much better the wealthy are doing — will sway the wealthy’s sympathy; nor will any of the evidence showing the role that external factors — from low wages to unstable business cycles — have contributed to growing and persistent poverty.

Moreover, with many of these same wealthy Americans having a disproportionate influence on our media and politics, it is little wonder that more is not being done to address the mounting socioeconomic conditions faced by a growing proportion of Americans.

As for how so many wealthy people can retain such callous views of the nation’s poor, that can be attributed to a range of factors. Richer people are increasingly holing up in gated communities or gentrified areas where poor people are largely absent. They are more likely to interact with and know only other well off or at least middle-class people. Some evidence even suggests that wealth accumulation itself contributes to an empathy gap with those who are not rich.

Whatever the cause, it goes without saying that this arrangement is not sustainable. No society has ever endured such a wide and growing gap between rich and poor without ultimately subsiding into sociopolitical instability — including revolution. While the U.S. may not necessarily go the way of 18th century France or Bolshevik Russia, it will certainly experience the same sort of underlying tensions and political problems that tend to bode ill for long-term prosperity.

It is time we start caring about the least vulnerable in America and doing more to help them, namely by promoting a more sustainable and equitable economic system. If more companies paid their employees better (perhaps by tapping into those record-breaking profits), that alone would go a long way. Of course, viewing the poor as people that deserve dignified wages and treatment would be the natural place to start — it is a shame that even needs to be a lesson to learn.

Graph: The U.S. Leads the Way in Low-Wage Work and Pay

As has sadly been the case all too often these days, one of the latest reports from the Economic Policy Institute, an American think-tank, is grim: low-wage workers (the 10th percentile of wage earners) have seen their real pay decline by five percent over the 1979-2013 period, despite concurrent productivity gains of 64.9 percent.

Consequently, American low-wage workers fare the worst in the developed world: according to the OECD, as of 2012, they earned just 46.7 percent of what a median worker worker does, far below the OECD average of 59.9 percent; to catch up to that average, U.S. low wage workers would need a 28 percent raise in their wages.

The graph below highlights this issue rather starkly:

Note that over a quarter of America’s labor force — 25.3 percent to be exact — is low wage, which is defined as earning less than two-thirds of the median wage. On this metric, too, the United States ranks the highest among the 26 countries surveyed, and far higher than the OECD average of 16.3 percent.

Thus, the U.S. has the largest number of low-paid workers in the developed world, and they in turn are the lowest paid in the developed world. And while several countries, such as the U.K., Ireland, and Canada, come close, most of them at the very least have more developed social safety nets to offset the shortfall among low-wage workers (universal healthcare alone is a major mitigating factor, given that medical bills account for many cases of bankruptcies among the American poor).

Setting aside the considerable amount of misery that comes with low paying and often menial labor, the broader impact on the long-term prosperity of the nation cannot be understated: with one out of four workers (and their dependents) having so little income, consumer demand — the lifeblood of the economy — stagnates. Fewer people are able to afford an education or vocational training, leading to a lot of untapped and desperately needed potential.

All this despite the nation’s economic elites — its executives, shareholders, and investors — broadly doing better than ever. Is it really so untenable for companies to spare some of their record, post-recession profits to improve the plight of their beleaguered workers — i.e. the consumers and patrons they all so badly need?

 

In any case, this is a point I have made too many times before, so instead of retreading it once more, I will leave you with this illuminating report by  Elise Gould (also from EPI) on Why America’s Workers Need Faster Wage Growth—And What We Can Do About It. As always, feel free to share your thoughts and feedback.

A Quick Guide to the Guaranteed Basic Income

Although not a new idea, the concept of a guaranteed basic income — also known as a guaranteed minimum income or universal basic income — seems to be gaining a lot more traction lately. Amid concerns about rising poverty and inequality, as well as greater scrutiny on the failings and inefficiencies of current welfare programs, the allure of a more streamlined and equitable income for all seems obvious; hence why thinkers and activists across the political spectrum — from Martin Luther King, Jr. to Milton Friedman — have advocated one form of it or another.

If you would like a great breakdown on what this idea entails and how it would be implemented, check out this article on Vox.com. It does a pretty good job of introducing the subject in a balanced and holistic way, including analyzing the various arguments for and against a basic income by conservatives, liberals, and libertarians. What do you think?