Mark Robert Rank, Lawrence M. Eppard, and Heather E. Bullock
1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Rank, Mark Robert, author. | Eppard, Lawrence M., author. | Bullock, Heather E., author.
Title: Poorly understood : what America gets wrong about poverty / by Mark Robert Rank, Lawrence M. Eppard, Heather E. Bullock.
Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2021] | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020039392 (print) | LCCN 2020039393 (ebook) | ISBN 9780190881382 (hardback) | ISBN 9780190881405 (epub) | ISBN 9780190881412
Subjects: LCSH: Poor—United States. | Poverty—United States. | Public welfare—United States. | United States—Social conditions | United States—Economic conditions.
Printed by LSC Communications, United States of America
For the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie–deliberate, contrived, and dishonest–but the myth–persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
Former U.S. President John F. Kennedy, Commencement Address at Yale University, June 11, 1962.
One study shows that more than half of Americans will experience poverty at some point during their adult lives. Think about that. This is not an isolated situation. More than half of Americans at some point in their lives will experience poverty.
Former U.S. President Barack Obama, Remarks by the President on Economic Mobility, December 4, 2013.
Introduction
Few topics have as many myths, stereotypes, and misperceptions surrounding them as that of poverty in America. The poor have been badly misunderstood since the beginnings of the country, with the rhetoric intensifying in recent times. Our current era of fake news, alternative facts, and media partisanship has led to a breeding ground for all types of myths gaining traction and legitimacy. The time would appear right to set the record straight.
To our knowledge, Poorly Understood is the first book to systematically address and confront many of the most widespread myths pertaining to poverty. Throughout our careers, each of us has encountered these myths on a routine basis. They can be found virtually everywhere—from the political rhetoric emanating out of the highest office in the land to the neighborhood gossip down the street. It would seem as if everyone has a heated opinion about the poor, with the heat rising even higher when the topic of welfare is thrown into the mix.
Yet, as we shall see throughout these chapters, the realities of poverty are much different than the myths. In many ways, they are more disturbing. The idealized image of American society is one of abundant opportunities, with hard work being rewarded by economic prosperity. Consequently, those who fail to get ahead have only themselves to blame according to this argument. It is within this context that America thinks of itself as a fair and meritocratic society in which people get what they deserve in life.
But what if this picture is wrong? What if poverty is an experience that touches the majority of Americans? What if hard work does not necessarily lead to economic well-being? What if the reasons for poverty are largely beyond the control of individuals? Indicative of this is the epigraph quote from President Obama on the front page referring to our research results showing that a majority of Americans will at some point experience poverty.
These are much more disturbing realities to consider because they call into question the very core of America’s identity. And perhaps this is one reason
that the myths continue. To consider the possibility that people do not get what they deserve is indeed disturbing.
It becomes particularly distressing within the context of the American dream. The American dream has been central to how we as a people like to perceive ourselves and our future.1 That future is thought to be full of promise as long as we work hard and play by the rules. The playing field is assumed to be level, allowing everyone to compete fairly.
Yet, as we will see, such beliefs can and do blind us to the realities of poverty. They may actually prevent us from addressing and alleviating poverty because they hold out the promise of a better life to come, thereby minimizing the need to correct for the problems of today. To paraphrase Karl Marx, the American dream may be the opiate of the American people. This, then, is one possible reason that the myths of poverty continue despite strong evidence to the contrary.
There may be other reasons as well. Could the maintenance of these myths actually be useful for particularly powerful constituencies? Does the continuation of these myths serve a purpose or function for other segments of the American population? If so, who and what might that be? We will explore these questions in greater detail in later chapters.
It should be noted that poverty and inequality are not acts of nature. Rather, they are strongly influenced by social policies and macroeconomic conditions.2 Some countries have low rates of poverty and less inequality as a result of their social and economic policies and programs. Other countries, such as the United States, have high rates of poverty and inequality largely as a result of their lack of a strong social safety net. In short, there is nothing inevitable about poverty.
And that is what makes the issue so troubling. The United States has the resources to significantly alleviate poverty. Yet, it chooses not to. As we shall see in later chapters, this approach is, to quote a familiar saying, “penny wise and pound foolish.” But once again, poverty myths prevent us from seeing clearly.
That is why we feel the importance of setting the record straight. It is vital to carefully assess the research with a clear mind in order to draw well-reasoned conclusions. We also wish to convey this information in an accessible and direct manner. Now more than ever, we should be firmly guided by grounded facts, not political rhetoric or biased perceptions pandering to particular interest groups. We believe that evidence-based arguments can ultimately dismantle the myths, although the process may be long and tenacious. Yet, as we shall argue in our concluding chapter, paradigm change can and does occur. In fact, we believe we may be on the cusp of such a change. Let us begin.
Organization of the Book
Before we started writing this book, we each sat down and compiled a list of the most common myths regarding poverty that we had encountered. Although
there were quite a few, our tallies were remarkably similar. We quickly put together an overall list and began the task of marshaling the best available evidence with respect to the many aspects of poverty that we were addressing. The result is the book that appears before you now. For each of us, the content within this book is very much in our proverbial wheelhouse. It is a subject that we know quite well, and as such, we are eager to share with you this knowledge.
Poorly Understood is divided into six sections. In the first five sections, we examine a wide range of poverty myths, while the sixth section seeks to explore why these myths persist despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, as well as discussing how we might move forward to effectively confront the realities of poverty.
We have designed each of the chapters to be concise and accessible. They can be read in sequence or as stand-alone pieces. At the end of each chapter are insights provided by an expert in the field regarding the particular subject matter. These short sections are intended to be provocative and add further to your understanding of the many aspects of poverty. We have invited scholars who span a wide range of academic disciplines, representing many of the best researchers in the field of poverty studies today. In some cases we conducted interviews with our invited experts (which were then transcribed), while in other cases the experts submitted their thoughts in writing.
Finally, in the Appendix, readers will find a short list of additional resources for exploring the chapter subject matter in greater detail. These include books and articles, websites, and multimedia sources of information.
We begin in Section I by looking at the characteristics of those experiencing poverty. Section II explores why poverty exists. We address the costs of poverty in Section III. Section IV examines the issue of welfare and the social safety net. In Section V, we turn to the wider context of inequality. And finally, Section VI pulls together our arguments in order to provide a pathway for moving forward in the future.
The chapters themselves are designed to be concise and accessible. We have written them to impart the essential information regarding each topic and to do so in an engaging manner. Each chapter is based on our pulling together the best available research on the subject. For readers interested in delving further into the individual topics, the chapter footnotes contain the original source material used to formulate our conclusions. Curious readers are encouraged to explore these source materials (along with the additional resources in the Appendix) in order to gain greater insights into the subject matter.
Defining Our Terms
There are several terms and concepts that we will refer to frequently throughout this book. The most obvious is the concept of poverty itself. Although poverty
can be defined in a number of ways, much our analysis is based on the official definition of poverty used by the U.S. Census Bureau.3 The Census Bureau defines those living in poverty as being in a household that falls below a specific level of annual income. It is thought that those who are lacking this amount of income cannot purchase the necessary goods and services to maintain a minimally adequate life. In 2019, these levels ranged from $13,011 for a one-person household, to $26,172 for a four-person household, to $52,875 for a household of nine or more people. Each year, the various poverty lines are adjusted upward to take into account inflation. This type of poverty definition is what is known as an absolute measure of poverty. In other words, there is an absolute line drawn with respect to income, and if families fall below that line, they are counted as living in poverty for the year.
Another manner of thinking about poverty is through what is known as a relative measure of poverty. This particular way of defining poverty looks at where someone is in the income distribution relative to where others are, and is used frequently when making comparisons across countries. The most common relative poverty measure is one that counts individuals as poor if they fall below one-half of a country’s median income.4 Consequently, if the median income for a country were $60,000, then households earning less than $30,000 would be considered in poverty. This measure has the advantage of allowing us to make comparisons across countries with respect to the percentage of the population falling into poverty.
A second broad concept that we will be exploring in the chapters ahead is that of economic inequality. We discuss both income and wealth inequality. Income inequality refers to how wide or narrow the overall distribution of annual income is.5 For example, how far apart are those who are earning at the top 10th percentile of the income distribution from those earning at the bottom 10th percentile? We will also examine wealth inequality. This is analogous to income inequality but is looking at the distribution of economic assets rather than income. Net worth refers to all of one’s assets minus all of one’s debts. Financial wealth is exactly the same but does not include the equity that one has built up in a home.6
A third set of terms that we will be using refer to welfare programs and the social safety net. Welfare programs are generally considered those in which an individual has to be below a certain income and asset level and fall into a particular population group in order to be eligible. These are also known as means-tested programs, with individuals only able to participate if their income and assets are low enough to qualify.7 They include a wide range of programs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as food stamps), Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Housing Assistance, and several others. The social safety net is a somewhat boarder concept than the welfare system. It includes not only welfare programs but also other government entitlement
programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, in which you do not need to be below a particular income level in order to quality.
Finally, there are several terms that we use frequently in discussing the array of research findings that we cover. When making international comparisons, we will often refer to OECD countries.8 These include the 37 countries that are a part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. They are characterized as wealthy nations with highly developed economies. They consist of all European and North American countries, along with Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, and Chile.
Our discussion of research results is intentionally jargon-free and straightforward. We do, however, refer to a few very basic statistics. With respect to measuring the amount of economic inequality in a country, we make use of what is known as the Gini coefficient or index.9 This is an overall measure of how unequal the income distribution is, and it ranges from 0 (complete equality) to 1 (complete inequality).
The relationship between two factors is what is known as a simple correlation. It also ranges from 0 to 1. As a correlation approaches 1, the association between two variables is stronger, such that by knowing what one factor is, we can largely know what the other factor is.
Finally, in discussing economic mobility across generations, we refer to the intergenerational elasticity statistic. Again, this ranges between 0 and 1 and indicates how strong the relationship is between parents’ income and their children’s income.10
With this brief tour of the book complete, it is time to start our exploration into the specific myths surrounding poverty and the actual realities that define these topics. We begin at a logical starting point: Who exactly experiences poverty?
SECTION I }
Who Are the Poor?
As discussed in Chapter 1, there are many myths and misperceptions surrounding who the poor are. The typical image is of someone who has lived in poverty for years at a time, is Black or Hispanic, resides in an inner-city ghetto, receives two or three welfare programs, and is reluctant to work. On all counts, this image is a severe distortion of the reality.
We begin our examination of poverty myths with several of the most dominant ones regarding who the poor are. The underlying theme tying these myths together is that poverty is often perceived to be an issue of “them” rather than an issue of “us”—that those who experience poverty are viewed as strangers to mainstream America, falling outside acceptable behavior, and as such, are to be scorned and stigmatized.
As we discuss in later chapters, this perspective has helped foster a strong animosity toward those in poverty and an overall reluctance to provide much assistance. Yet, as we shall see throughout these next chapters, the reality of who experiences poverty is, in many ways, more disturbing than the mythology. The truth is that impoverishment is much closer than most of us would like to think.
Most Americans Will Experience Poverty
We begin our dismantling of poverty myths with the widely held belief that most Americans will never experience poverty—that only a small minority of Americans will directly experience impoverishment during the course of their lives and, further, that the use of a social safety net or welfare program is something very much out of the ordinary.
One of the consequences of this myth is that it encourages the idea that those in poverty are somehow different from the typical or average American. For example, survey research has found that in the general population, the words “poverty” and “welfare” often conjure up images of people on the fringes of society—unwed mothers with a multitude of children, inner-city unemployed Black men, high school dropouts on drugs, the mentally disturbed homeless, and so on.1 The media, political rhetoric, and even at times the research of social scientists often depict the poor as alien and out of step with the rest of America.2 In short, being poor and using welfare are widely perceived as behaviors that fall outside the American mainstream.
Yet, it turns out that a majority of Americans will experience poverty first hand. Research indicates that most of us will encounter poverty at some point during our lives. Even more surprising, a majority of Americans will turn to public assistance at least once during their adulthood. Rather than poverty and welfare use being an issue of them, it is much more accurate to think of it as an issue of us.
Background
The life course research of sociologists Mark Rank and Thomas Hirschl has helped shed light on this issue. More than two decades ago, Rank and Hirschl were interested in asking a very basic question, “How likely is it that an American will experience poverty first hand?” Furthermore, “What are the
chances that an American will use a social safety net program at some point during their adulthood?” To answer these questions, they turned to an invaluable longitudinal data set—the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, otherwise known as the PSID.
The PSID is a nationally representative, longitudinal sample of households interviewed from 1968 onward.3 It has been administered by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan, and it constitutes the longest running panel data set both in the United States and the world. The PSID initially interviewed approximately 5,000 U.S. households in 1968, obtaining detailed information on roughly 18,000 individuals within those households. These individuals have since been tracked annually (biennially after 1997), including children and adults who eventually break off from their original households to form new households (e.g., children leaving home or adults following a divorce). Thus, the PSID is designed so that in any given year, the sample is representative of the entire nonimmigrant U.S. population.
As its name implies, the PSID is primarily focused on household information about economics and demographics. For each wave of the study, there is detailed information about the annual income for each household. Consequently, one can easily determine whether households fell into poverty across the various years of the study. The survey also asks a variety of questions pertaining to whether anyone in the household has used a social safety net or welfare program at some point during the year.
Based on these data, Rank and Hirschl constructed a series of what are known as life tables. The life table is a technique for calculating how often particular events occur during a specific period of time and is frequently used by demographers and medical researchers to assess risk (i.e., the risk of having a heart attack during later adulthood). It allows one to estimate the percentage of the American population that will experience poverty at some point during adulthood.
Risk of Poverty
Using this life table approach, the risk of experiencing poverty for the American population can be assessed. Results indicate that between the ages of 20 and 75 years, nearly 60 percent of Americans will experience living for at least 1 year below the official poverty line, while three-fourths of Americans will encounter poverty or near-poverty (150 percent below the official poverty line).4 These findings indicate that a clear majority of Americans will directly experience poverty at some point during their adulthood.
Rather than a small fringe on the outskirts of society, the majority of Americans will encounter poverty. Table 2.1 shows the cumulative percentages of the population who will be touched by poverty or near-poverty. Between
TABLE 2.1 Cumulative Percentage of Americans Experiencing Poverty Across Adulthood
Source: Panel Study of Income Dynamics, Rank and Hirschl computations.
the ages of 20 and 35 years, 31.4 percent will have experienced poverty; by age 55 years, 45.0 percent; and by age 75 years, 58.5 percent. Similarly, 76.0 percent of the population will have spent at least 1 year below 150 percent of the official poverty line by the time they reach age 75 years.
This pattern holds up regardless of how we might measure poverty. For example, in a complimentary analysis, Rank and Hirschl relied on a relative measure of poverty: They analyzed the likelihood of Americans falling into the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution as well as the bottom 10 percent. They calculated that 62 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 60 years would at some point experience living for at least 1 year below the 20th percentile, while 42 percent would fall below the 10th percentile. 5 Again, the likelihood of poverty was quite pronounced across the life course.
Using a broader definition of economic turmoil that includes experiencing poverty, receiving a social safety net program, or encountering a spell of unemployment results in even higher rates. Consequently, between the ages of 25 and 60 years, 79 percent of the American population experienced one or more of these events during at least 1 year, and 49.8 percent experienced 3 or more years of such turmoil.6
The reason these percentages are so high is that over long periods of time, detrimental events are much more likely to happen to people, which can then throw them and their families into poverty.7 These events include losing a job, families splitting up, or medical and health emergencies, all of which have the potential to start a downward spiral into poverty (discussed in Chapter 4). As
we look across broad expanses of time, the probability of one or more of these events occurring increases significantly.
Rank and Hirschl’s analyses also indicate that poverty is quite prevalent during childhood and older age. Between the time of birth and age 17 years, 34 percent of American children will have spent at least 1 year below the poverty line, while 40 percent will have experienced poverty or near-poverty (125 percent of the poverty line).8 In addition, 40 percent of older adults will encounter at least 1 year of poverty between the ages of 60 and 90 years, while 48 percent will encounter poverty at the 125 percent level.9
Likelihood of Welfare Use
Having established that a majority of the U.S. population will experience poverty, to what extent do Americans rely on the social safety net in order to help them navigate through these periods of economic distress?
The conventional image of welfare use is one of social deviancy. In fact, few behaviors are as stigmatized in American society as that of welfare use (which we examine in Section IV). Survey research has repeatedly documented the public’s considerable animosity regarding welfare programs and its participants.10 At the heart of this opposition is the belief that welfare recipients are largely undeserving of such assistance. As Martin Gilens writes:
While no one factor can fully account for the public’s opposition to welfare, the most important single component is this widespread belief that most welfare recipients would rather sit home and collect benefits than work hard themselves. In large measure Americans hate welfare because they view it as a program that rewards the undeserving poor.11
Accentuating this belief is the pervasive image that those who rely on welfare are predominately minorities, are often plagued by alcohol or drug problems, have large numbers of children, and remain on the dole for years at a time. The visual portrait is of someone quite alien to mainstream America.12 In short, for many Americans, welfare use is perceived as something that happens to someone else, and welfare recipients as diametrically opposed to the American experience.
Yet, how accurate is this assumption? To what extent will Americans find themselves economically strapped and having to rely on government assistance in order to alleviate their needs? Or, put a slightly different way, to what extent does the welfare system touch the lives of American citizens? We have seen that a majority of Americans will face the experience of poverty. Is the same pattern true of welfare use as well?
It turns out that the likelihood of using a social safety net program is also exceedingly high. Table 2.2 shows that 65 percent of all Americans between the
TABLE 2.2 Cumulative Percentage of Americans Experiencing Various Years of Welfare Receipt Across Adulthood
Number
Source: Panel Study of Income Dynamics, Rank and Hirschl computations.
ages of 20 and 65 years will at some point reside in a household that receives a means-tested welfare program (e.g., Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP], Medicaid). Furthermore, 40 percent of the American population will use a welfare program in 5 or more years (although spaced out at different points across the life course). As with the dynamics of poverty spells (discussed in Chapter 4), the typical pattern of welfare use is that of short spells. Consequently, only 15.9 percent of Americans will reside in a household that receives a welfare program in 5 or more consecutive years.13
One program that has a particularly wide reach is SNAP, better known food stamps. Approximately half (49.2 percent) of all U.S. children between the ages 1 and 20 years will at some point reside in a household that receives food stamps.14 Childhood thus represents a time of great economic vulnerability for many of America’s citizens.
Implications
Poverty has often been understood by the U.S. public as something that happens to others. Yet, by looking across the adult life span, we can see that poverty touches a clear majority of the population. For most Americans, it would appear that the question is not if they will encounter poverty, but rather, when, which entails a fundamental shift in the perception and meaning of poverty. Assuming that most individuals 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 and has been elaborated most notably by the philosopher John Rawls.15
The dynamic 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 realize that at some point we may be involved in a serious traffic accident that could incur sizable costs. Hence, we are willing to pay for automobile insurance now in order 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 we lose a job, become ill, see our family split up, or experience countless other circumstances, we run a risk of dwindling income, resulting in eventual poverty. Just as automobile insurance is a form of protection against an unforeseen accident, the social safety net is a form of insurance against the accidents that occur around the rough edges of the free-market system.
Despite 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 discussed in this chapter 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.
These findings have an additional implication. Much of the general public’s resistance to assisting poor people and particularly those on welfare is that they are perceived to be undeserving of such assistance (examined in Section II). That is, their poverty is the result of a lack of motivation, questionable morals, and so on. In short, poor people are fundamentally culpable and, therefore, do not warrant sacrifices on our behalf.
Although the causes of poverty have not been examined in this chapter, the findings presented here suggest 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.
Or, take the case of unemployment as described by sociologist C. Wright Mills:
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.16
In many ways, poverty today is as widespread and systematic as in these examples. Yet, we have been unable to see this because we are 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.
In short, by conceptualizing and measuring impoverishment over the adult life course, one can observe a set of proportions that 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.
An Expert Appraisal—Caroline Ratcliffe
Caroline Ratcliffe is trained as a labor economist and was a long-time Senior Fellow at the Urban Institute where she conducted extensive research on issues involving poverty and asset building. She recently transitioned to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, where she is a Senior Economist in the Office of Research.
This chapter highlights the reality that poverty and means-tested benefit receipt hits closer to home than many of us realize. A majority of U.S. adults—nearly 60 percent— live in poverty for at least 1 year, and along with this financial insecurity, many experience means-tested benefit programs. Some people have their own private safety net to get through tough times (they have built up a savings cushion or can turn to family or friends), but the data presented in this chapter draw attention to the fact that, for many, their private safety net is not adequate. Driving this home, a recent Federal Reserve survey found that 37 percent of Americans cannot cover a $400 unexpected expense with savings or its equivalence
This chapter also makes the point that we are not only talking about adults. As adults cycle into and out of poverty, they take their children with them. More than onethird of children will experience poverty between birth and age 17 years. And some of these children spend year after year in poverty. In fact, 10 percent of children spend at least half of their childhood living in poverty. As these children grow up, they are more
likely to become unmarried parents, drop out of high school, lack a steady job, and be poor as young adults.
The cost of child poverty is not just borne by the poor. When the expenses related to lost productivity, crime, and poor health are added up, it is estimated that child poverty costs the nation between $800 billion and $1.1 trillion per year. This is vastly higher than the estimated $90 to $111 billion per year it would take to implement a program package that would lift half of children out of poverty.
As rightly pointed out in this chapter, preserving the social safety net will help us if and when we fall on hard times and need it. But beyond this, shoring up safety net programs and investing in poor children and families can be a long-term financially sound strategy for the United States
3 }
The Poor Tend to Live Outside of Impoverished Inner-City Neighborhoods
An image of the poor often portrayed in the media and elsewhere is that of non-Whites living in high-poverty inner-city neighborhoods.1 It is a picture that reinforces the idea that the poor are somehow different than other Americans— that they reside in their own neighborhoods, far away from the rest of America. As Paul Jargowsky writes:
When poverty is discussed, the mental image that often comes to mind is the inner-city, and particularly high-poverty ghettos and barrios in the largest cities. Many people implicitly assume, incorrectly, that most of the nation’s poor can be found in these often troubled neighborhoods. 2
It is certainly true that the United States remains highly segregated on the basis of race and, increasingly, class.3 Inner cities across the country have been plagued by ongoing economic and social problems. As scholars such as William Julius Wilson have researched and written about over the decades, many of these areas are made up of the “truly disadvantaged.”4
It is therefore surprising to many people to discover that the vast majority of the poor do not live in high-poverty, inner-city neighborhoods. In fact, only approximately 10 to 15 percent of those in poverty do so. In this chapter, we explore several of these unexpected findings.
Percentage of the Poor Living in High-Poverty Neighborhoods
Based on data from the US Census Bureau, researchers are able to determine what percentage of the poor live in high-poverty neighborhoods. The Census Bureau allows one to analyze these data at the level of what is known as a “census tract” region. A census tract can be thought of as roughly corresponding
