Tom Rowley
|
|
Rethinking Poverty
How much does it take to get by these days? And would an extra $50 help?
In answer to the first question, the federal government sets the current poverty threshold for a family of four at $19,806 a year. Nine out of ten Americans, however, think the feds are wrong. According to a recent survey commissioned by the Northwest Area Foundation (nwaf.org), 90 percent of Americans think the federal poverty threshold is too low. Indeed, 64 percent think a family of four needs more than twice that--at least $40,000 a year--to make ends meet. Nonetheless, opinions on just how much is enough vary widely:
- While only a quarter of respondents earning less than $25,000 believe it takes more than $40,000 to get by, greater than half of those earning $75,000 or more think so.
- Adults of childbearing age are more likely to say it takes $40,000 or more to make ends meet.
- Half of urban and suburban residents surveyed think the magic number is greater than $40,000, but only 26 percent of rural people feel that way.
The variations, of course, stem from different perspectives on needs versus wants. Not surprisingly, the more you make, the more you think it takes. People who can afford health insurance, a car or high-speed Internet service simply can’t imagine going without. Likewise, those of us feeding and clothing kids and watching slack-jawed as college tuition skyrockets have a different take on the cost of necessities than do seniors who stopped footing those bills some time ago.
Similar statements can be made about living in the country versus the suburbs or the city, but only up to a point. Having recently relocated from Washington, DC to the Texas Hill Country, I can tell you firsthand that rural living isn’t as cheap as many believe. Yes, housing prices are lower in most cases; but that’s about the only thing. Groceries, health insurance and property taxes all cost the same if not more. On top of that, lacking public transit (not to mention sidewalks, bike lanes and a death wish) we, like most rural dwellers, drive nearly everywhere—at $2.80 a gallon and rising.
Just as opinions vary on what it takes to get by, so do opinions on what causes poverty and how to alleviate it. In a recent Rural Poverty Research Center working paper, Ted Bradshaw looks at five competing theories of poverty and how they shape anti-poverty strategies (rprconline.org). The various theories blame 1) the individual for being irresponsible; 2) subcultures that trap people and perpetuate poverty from generation to generation; 3) economic, political and social systems that create losers just as they create winners; 4) geography—whether rural or inner-city ghetto—that isolates people from resources and opportunities; and 5) the cumulative and cyclical interaction of many problems, including those listed above. Each of the theories yields its own type of solution: from penalties for not working to building roads that decrease isolation to comprehensive approaches tackling many of poverty’s roots at once.
Obviously—at least to me—the cumulative/cyclical theory is the most satisfying. While each of the first four is too limited, each, in certain instances, has some element of truth. The good thing about the final theory is that it incorporates those elements. The difficulty with it lies in the difficulty of enacting comprehensive solutions to address them. Poverty is hard to eliminate.
Difficulty notwithstanding, Americans are positive about the prospects. Eighty-eight percent of those polled in the NWAF survey think poverty in their community could be reduced. And while it’s good to be optimistic, it’s even better to be involved. So, here’s the best part: 68 percent said they’d be very likely to help by, among other things, paying $50 more a year in taxes for programs in their own community.
Would fifty bucks really help? Well, if 68 percent of adults in my county with incomes above poverty each gave an extra $50, we could put an extra $980,900 into the comprehensive programs—like job training, childcare, family mentoring and so on--needed to lift people out of poverty. Nationally, we’d have an extra $9.6 billion. Would that be enough to eliminate poverty? No. Would it be helpful? Absolutely.
|
