Where Do I Begin?...

Introduction

Not really knowing where to start, I logged onto the internet and began my research on poverty. My purpose for writing my first blog for my social welfare class was initially to explore poverty as a whole, find statistics, common arguments, myths, and stereotypes, and delve into the unknown. Little did I know that I would find a little girl’s powerful and heart wrenching story (written by Andrea Elliot) that would shift my entire blog post to exploring children living in poverty?  The purpose of this blog is to examine Dasani's story, children and poverty as a whole, the affects of poverty on children, and why it is important to address.  

Who is the Girl in the Shadows?

"She wakes to the sound of breathing.  The smaller children lie tangled beside her, their chests rising and falling under winter coats and wool blankets.  A few feet away, their mother and father sleep near the mop bucket they use as a toilet.  Two other children share a mattress by the rotting wall where the mice live, opposite the baby, whose crib is warmed by a hair dryer perched on a milk crate."

Dasani is an 11-year old girl, who lives in New York with her family of nine. They are homeless and stay at the Auburn Family Residence, which is city-run shelter for the homeless. Dasani is among 280 children at the shelter. Her mother and father are unemployed, have a history of arrests, and are battling drug addiction. She attends dance classes a few times a week. She attends school but often loses focuses due to the emptiness of her stomach.  Despite her hunger, family life, and uncertainty of her future, she is still able to keep up with her school work without even trying. She believes that the sky is the limit and she has endless possibilities. She is also adamant about not living the life of drugs and poverty that her parents have lived and are living now.

What About Children and Poverty?

Sadly, Dasani’s story is not unique. Some 46 million Americans live in poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). It is 3rd highest poverty rate among developed nations, ahead of Turkey and Mexico.   More than 16 million children live in the United States.  22% of those children live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level.  That's roughly one in five American children that are now living in poverty, giving the United States the highest child poverty rate of any developed nation except for Romania.  According to the National Center For Children in Poverty, on average families need an income of about twice the level to cover basic expenses.  Using this standard, 45% of children live in low-income families.

How Does Poverty Affect Children?

Many families that are living in poverty cannot afford a lot of healthy foods.  Poor diets results in vitamin deficiencies, which can cause long-lasting neurological deficits when untreated.  Many families living in poverty may also stay or live in a place that had lead-based paint.  Lead poisoning, also common in children living in poverty, can adversely impact brain function. Asthma, also much more prevalent in the low-income population, can also interfere with learning. Many poor children must also cope with environmental stresses that impact their schooling. Homeless students face the greatest challenges for they lack the basic securities that allow for them to concentrate on their studies during and after the school day. Homeless children are more likely than other children to be held back a grade.

Why is it important?

Individuals, especially children, need to know that they are more than their poverty.  Young children are unable to provide for themselves so they must depend on their families to do so. The rise in child poverty, therefore, reflects the rise in the inequality of their parents’ earnings.  I think one way to combat child poverty is to start with policy.


Another great video on children and poverty: 

Poor Kids of America

The Face of Poverty

Poverty in the United States has many faces today…“For a homeless man on the Streets of Los Angeles, it means not knowing where he will spend the night or where his next meal will come from.  For a young child in rural Alabama, it means going without breakfast and wearing hand-me-down clothes that are little more than rags.  For a New York businesswoman laid off by her company, being poor means having no income and feeling a rising sense of panic over finding a job.  For a teen in the suburbs of Cleveland, it means giving up the dream of college to search for work and help support a struggling family.”

Introduction:
What if I told you that in 2012, the official poverty rate was 15.0%?   That’s about 46.5 million people living in poverty.  This rate is 2.5% points higher than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession.  What is I told you that research indicates that 40% of Americans between the ages of 25 and 60 will experience at least one year below the official poverty line?  Today, poverty has become an event that a majority of Americans will experience.  For some, it is only a matter of time before they experience poverty for some period of time.  For many, a loss of a job, hours being cut back, families splitting up or parents getting divorced, and developing an illness could be the only thing that a family needs to be thrown into poverty.  The purpose of this blog is to examine a topic that is surrounded by many debates, misconceptions, and stereotypes: poverty.  I have divided this blog into three categories: the old face of poverty, the new face of poverty, and the changing face of poverty.

The Old Face of Poverty

They are many myths and stereotypes surrounding the topic of poverty.  The old face of poverty was disproportionately young children, minorities, elderly individuals, disabled individuals, mentally ill individuals, criminals, and females.   Most groups and subgroups of people in living poverty did not show a statistically significant change.  Poverty among children has risen, fallen, and risen again. Today, of the 100 million Americans living at or near the poverty line, 70% are women (42 million) and children.  Poverty among African Americans is still twice the rate for whites, but it’s dropped from 41% after President Johnson’s “War on Poverty” to 27% in 2012.  Poverty among Hispanics has risen.  More than half of the 22 million person increase in official poverty between 1972 and 2012 was among Hispanics.  Poverty among the elderly has fallen.  They are far fewer elderly (over the age of 65) individuals who are poor today. In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor but in 2012, only 9.1% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor. 

The New Face of Poverty

Today, the face of poverty has shifted.  Some of the most prevalent and damaging stereotypes still exist today. These include but are not limited to individuals who live in poverty are “lazy, unskilled, stupid, prefer poverty, and uneducated.”   However, among those living in poverty today are college educated, former middle-class worker, suburbanite and the homeowner.  Today, being poor doesn’t mean being unemployed.  Many individuals are finding themselves working lower skilled and waged jobs. More than 5% of the workforce works 2 jobs to make ends meet but they still live in poverty.  More than half (57%) of the nation’s poor are in their prime working years.  Many individuals suggests that the “new poor” of the 20^th century are entirely different from the poor in the 19^th century because few opportunities for advancement exists. 

Also, family structures are very different than they were many years ago.  More and more families are finding themselves living at or below the poverty line, today.  Some families are living paycheck to paycheck, just to make ends meet.  11.2% of households, more than 1 in 10, say they struggle to feed themselves.  The US Census Bureau reported that 88% of low income, working families include a parent 25-54 years old.  In 1973, more than half (51.4%) of poor families were female-headed, while 38.9% were headed by married couples.  In 2012, the family poverty rate and number of families in poverty were 11.8 % (9.5 million).  In 2012: 6.3% of married couples, 30.9 % of families with female householder, and 16.4% of families with a male householder lived in poverty.  As evident from the statistics, having a two-parent household with both parents working full-time does not guarantee absolute stability.  Suburban poverty is currently higher than urban poverty.  In 2008, researchers argued the opposite.

 The Changing Face of Poverty
Researchers argue the face of poverty is the result of policy choices or the absence of policy.  The fact that the face of poverty is changing is very significant. It is evident that there has been a lot of work done (example: Social Security, Food Stamps, Earned-Income Tax) that has helped individuals and families stay out of poverty.  But I believe that more needs to be done.  For starters, I think the way in which we measure poverty needs to be reexamined.  There are a lot of things that it does not take into consideration.  This changes could make a huge difference in the composition of poverty.  Changing the way we look and measure poverty could potentially change the face of poverty even more.

The Working Poor

“Our nation, so richly endowed with natural resources and with the capable and industrious population, should be able to devise ways and means of insuring to all our able-bodied men and women, a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.” 

-President Franklin Roosevelt

Introduction
Many individuals are working for a living but are not receiving a living wage in return for their work. Today, minimum wage is no longer a “living wage.” The other grim reality is that many Americans are working and still living at or below the poverty line. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the “working poor” are individuals who spent at least 27 weeks in the labor force (working or looking for work) but incomes still fell below the official poverty. Out of the 46.2 million individuals who were living below the poverty line, 10. 4 million individuals are among the working poor. The notion that an individual can work full-time and still remain under the poverty line is something I just cannot fathom. This blog explores who the working poor are, what is being done behind closed doors, and what are some of the solutions, plans of action, and considerations that researchers have proposed.

Who are the working poor?
There appears to be a type of profile of the working poor, when you examine the statistics and research side by side. Although, some argue that the concept of poverty is gender-less, race-less, age-less, etc. I would argue that there appears to be groups and subgroups that are most affected by poverty and often labeled as the “working poor.”

Gender and Race

 Women were more likely than men to be among the working poor (5.5 million vs. 4.9 million). Blacks and Hispanics were more likely than Asians and Whites to be among the working poor. In 2011, 13.3 percent of blacks and 12.9 percent of Hispanics were among the working poor compared to 6.1 percent of whites. 



Age Groups 

Young workers are more likely to be poor than are workers in older age groups. This is in part because earnings are lower for younger workers, and the unemployment rate for young workers is higher.



Education & Occupation 

Individuals who complete more years of education usually have a greater access to higher paying jobs than those with fewer years of education. Despite having a college degree, 2.4 percent of college graduates were classified as the working poor. Also, due to the scarcity of jobs, many college graduates are taking jobs that only require a high school diploma. I would argue that this greatly affects individuals who are not as skilled or experienced because it takes jobs away from them. The likelihood of being among the working poor was lower for individuals employed in management, professional, and related occupations than those employed in lower skilled positions. For example: cashiers, food preparation and service workers, and personal home care aides.



Families 

Among families with at least on family member under the age of 18 years old were about 4 times more likely than those without children to live in poverty. Families maintained by women were more likely than families maintained by men to be living below the poverty level.



What is being done behind closed doors?
There are a lot of things that are going unnoticed or are not talked about in the general public, which is one of the major issues. First, working poor go without many of the things that their counterparts have. According to the United States Department of Labor, about 12 percent of the working have health care. 12 percent of the working poor have retirement benefits, less than 25 percent get paid sick leave, less than 50 percent get paid vacation. Second, workers are not fully getting paid for all of their work. Many low wage workers have part of their earnings stolen by their employers. For example, not being paid full minimum wage, not being paid overtime, and stealing from tipped employees.



What are some solutions, plans of action, and considerations?

There have been many possible solutions, plans of action, and considerations presented by various individuals on both the economic side and education side. First, some individuals propose that the government subsidizes the incomes of low-wage workers. Second, some individuals propose that the government subsidizes the incomes of low wage workers BUT the subsidies are financed by taxing those companies that hire low-wage workers. Third, Dr. Amy Glasmeier of Penn State University even went as far as proposing a “Living Wage Calculator.” This calculator estimates the hourly wage needed to pay the cost of living for low wage families in the United States. Fourth, some individuals propose creating education programs that help individuals attain higher education and skills.



Finding and proposing a solution is one area of this subject that I continue to struggle with. I do not know how exactly to fix the issues of the working poor but I do know that it is something that needs addressed. Many individuals would argue that our nation is a nation that values the work done by its citizens. It is imperative that we dedicate the time and effort in helping the working poor and making work pay. By not addressing this problem, some individuals and families are stalled and restricted to low wage jobs that provide little opportunity for advancement.

Feminization of Poverty

“Poverty need not always wear a women’s face.”

 

Introduction

What if I told you that 70% of all Americans living at or near poverty are women and children? That is 42 million women in the United States live at or near the poverty line. The number of women living below the poverty line in shocking to me. Women also constitute the majority of the 1.5 billion people living on just $1 a day or less. My interest in this topic was sparked after reading the Brownsworth blog for class. This blog explores what feminization of poverty is, what causes feminization, the racialization of feminization of poverty, and why it is important to address this issue.



What is the “feminization of poverty?”
The term “feminization of poverty” originated in the United States in the late 1970’s, when it was discovered that the fastest growing type of family structure was that of female-headed households. The high rate of poverty among these households was illustrated in the growing number of women and children who were poor. The “feminization of poverty” is a phenomenon in which women are experiencing poverty at higher rates that are disproportionately high in comparison to men. Some individuals argue that there is such a thing as feminization of poverty. Others argue that there is no such thing as the feminization of poverty because a growing proportion of men have fallen on hard times.




 What causes the feminization of poverty? 
According to my research 7 perceived causes were identified:

(1) Temporal dimension:

Women are often primarily responsible for childcare and household duties, for which they receive no pay for. Women often participate in “second shifts.” The term “second shift” refers to the unpaid labor that women participate in once they have completed their paid workday (labor force by day and domestic work by night). Some individuals have equated some women’s lack of income or lack or unpaid employment as a result of having to devote so much time to fulfill other responsibilities. Young children necessitate constant care and society has identified the mother (“in traditional families), rather than the father, as a person primarily responsible for the care of children, the mother either needs to forgo earnings to provide that care or, if she wishes to continue in paid employment, her returns from earning decline as she purchases care.


(2) Employment segmentation dimension:

Women have historically and naturally been classified as caretakers. Because of this, women have been pushed into specific lines of work and professions and clustered in “feminized” occupations. These include but are not limited to teaching, caring for children and the elderly, domestic servitude, and factory work. Women also continue to be subjected to discrimination through the hiring and promoting processes.


(3) Valuation dimension:

Despite the fact that some women work more than their counterparts, the unpaid labor that they perform is sometimes less valued than paid labor. That is, the unpaid labor that women perform in taking care of family members and other household chores is considered of far less worth than positions that require formal education or training.  

 (4) Increasing prevalence of female-headed household:

There have been many changes seen in today’s families. Many individuals are delaying the age in which they first marry. There has been a rise in divorce and separation among individuals. Because women are perceived as natural caregivers, women often take care of whatever children they may have. Furthermore, there has been decreasing amounts and awards of child support. There has been an increase in children born outside marriage. Women are also more likely to have higher life expectancies. Because more women are likely to live longer than men, their retirement income has to stretch over more years.


 (5) Lack of education:

Sometimes upward economic mobility through higher-skilled employment is not possible for women who lack high degrees of education. A majority of women are minimum wage workers. Women who are in charge of households may especially find it difficult to achieve higher education attainment if the must care for their children and work long hours, in hope of providing for their family.


(6) Discrimination:

 “The most urgent issue facing America is not the glass ceiling,

rather it is what she calls the sinking floor.”

Women may be subject to inequalities to wages and benefits. Despite President Kennedy’s Equal Pay Act in 1963, which made it illegal for women to be paid lower wages for comparable work, it still happens in work places today. Women earn approximately 77 cents for every dollar men make for comparable work. Women tend to go into lower paying professions and places that hire women are often part-tome, seasonal, and may lack benefits. Women’s earnings can make the different between a poverty level of income and an income level comfortably above the poverty line.



What about the racialization of the feminization of poverty?

Not only can poverty be feminized, it can also be racialized. Minority women face a double dose of discrimination, which can significantly affect their lives as well as their families. Minority women specifically, Black and Latina women are twice as likely as white women to be living in poverty


Why is it important to address the feminization of poverty?

Individuals on the outside looking in may think that feminization of poverty does not occur in the United States but feminization of poverty occurs all over the world. Our constitution defines men and women as equal. Some women have been able to obtain high positions of power and influence.

We have many resources but have yet to address and create policy that will decrease or eliminate this phenomenon. By allowing this to occur, we are potentially harming the health and well-being of generations to come. I am not certain of the direct steps we should take in dealing with this issue. I would argue that programs to eliminate or alleviate poverty requires attention to gender inequality and women’s human rights. Biases within households, labor markets, legal codes, and social and political systems should also be addressed.