Perceptions of Poverty and Inequality: How Support and Opposition for Antipoverty Programs Vary

How Support and Opposition for Antipoverty Programs Vary

Mallory C. Boyd

Introduction to Poverty Studies

Poverty has various definitions, few of which are totally accurate. “Poverty” has been defined in the United States as any individual with an annual income less than $11,000¹ or a family with one adult and three children with an annual income of less than $21,000.² But no single variable can define poverty. Moreover, when standards have been intentionally designed so that the problem of poverty can easily be overcome, we severely underestimate the reality of who is actually impoverished. The poor become diminished, out of sight, causing others to become unaware. They are the forgotten people, forced into certain classes, perceived to be of one race or ethnicity. The poor are reduced to a level of invisibility to fall below certain government standards; they turn into the unrecognized members of society. Reality for the poor is a constant state of adversity, where life has to move forward, unresolved. They fix our coffees, deliver our newspapers, and change our tires. They are those who make daily life possible, working low wage jobs. They are working to achieve more finical security, and hope one day to live the ‘American Dream’. For many, this dream is rarely achieved.

Poverty is a pressing issue that faces all Americans today. A majority of the 36 million Americans in poverty today are working³ in hopes of making their way upward. Yet, the minimum wages they are earning never provide enough money for them to live comfortably. The troubling persistence of poverty demands attention. Today, we must continue to consider that the factors that have contributed to the circumstances of poverty are crucial. We must look to the social, economic, environmental, and political issues that have made it impossible for the conditions of poverty to change.

Poverty has many dimensions and therefore must be looked at through a variety of indicators. These indicators include levels of consumption, social markers, and indicators of socio and political vulnerability.⁴ Most importantly, the ways in which poverty is perceived is crucial to understanding the issue. While poverty no longer elicits simple discussions of how to reduce the problems associated, all must realize the implications of continuing to reduce yet not end poverty. Poverty can no longer be seen as a distant problem simply represented as images of children starving in faraway lands. It must be recognized as an important and pressing issue by all in order to truly be changed. Those in poverty, or bordering the line of poverty, are individuals that cannot afford to continue being forgotten. Reevaluating our standards for “poverty” and understanding whom it is we see, as deserving of aid is then essential to better understanding the meaning of being poor and effectively making change.

Perceptions of poverty are influenced and explained by many factors: socio-economic status, structural and individualistic explanations, and even inevitable influences. The causes and acceptance of inequalities are more frequently emphasized in the West. Still, individual factors dominate over structural explanations regarding one’s wealth; though, it is important to note that helpful social connections and condescension are also thought to be important factors.⁵ While most nations and people around the world do share a concern for ending poverty, the perceptions of poverty and support for, or against, programs aimed at ending this crisis are varied and inextricably linked to the success of ending, or failing to end, poverty.

Official measures of poverty began as an Anglo American social indicator. The United States and United Kingdom have “official” measures of poverty⁶ however it is a relative concept. Nonetheless, in order to reduce and eventually end poverty, what works and what does not must be understood. Poverty must now be adequately defined, considered and studied. No longer can the disconnect between poverty and reality be reason enough for people to ignore or perpetuate the issues. Specifically, in the United States, where the top one percent of the population earns nearly one fourth of the national income,⁷ it seems inevitable that others must question the cycle of inequity that pervades American life today and the inability to win the “War on Poverty.” Evaluating the illusion for people between reality and the truth of poverty is key. Absolute measures may allow for the reduction of poverty to be carried out, while relative measures have only taken people out of the defining circumstances that would normally qualify as impoverished.⁸

Although the percentage of the American population “in poverty” is less than 13 percent, the proportions of those in poverty are dangerously biased. In some extreme cases such as in the sate of Idaho, where blacks make up only 1 percent of the poor, the public assumes they account for nearly 47 percent of all poor people. As a nation we also wrongly identify blacks as being impoverished: 52 percent of blacks and 55 percent of whites said that most poor people are black.⁹

Despite this lack of recognizing those in poverty, the American public has few misconceptions that life is completely equal. In fact, 83 percent of the public believes that the children of the rich have a much better chance to get ahead than the average person. Most rate opportunity for the children of the working class as equal to the average person and only 8 percent rates opportunity for this class of people as worse than average.¹⁰ One explanation for socio-economic standing may be, but is not limited to, individual causes. Although mobility is easily defined by the ability to change socio-economic status, the barriers that today are in place prevent these changes, and power becomes nonexistent and useless. When the American public was asked what influences a person’s standard of living a majority (51 percent) responded that both the individual characteristics and external factors were important causes. People believe in the importance of individual causes for social status, though some attribute their own position more to personal factors. ¹¹ Nevertheless, the reality of American life is that the class divisions are only becoming strengthened by each year and paycheck.

Classes have become unchanging conventions by which the public falsely defines their own status as lower or middle class. The indicators of class may seem obvious in society today, but like poverty, Americans have serious misconceptions of the reality. Who falls into the lower, middle, and upper classes have become an assumed, inherent truth. Status has become a social construction and a tool to wrongly induce a false consciousness into the population. While the official middle class in terms of income is an individual making approximately thirty-two thousand dollars to forty-eight thousand dollars, 36 percent of those earning approximately fifteen thousand dollars a year wrongly classify themselves as middle class. Furthermore, only about half of those making middle class income correctly identify their socio-economic status; and 71 percent of those with incomes over seventy-five thousand dollars call themselves middle class.¹² This obvious disconnect proves additional misconceptions of life in America. While the public acknowledges the lack of equal opportunity, they are wrong to assume their status as middle class. Levels of poverty and explanations for individuals without significant economic holdings are also confounded. Given the people’s recognition that upward mobility may not be universal as once perceived, do they then speak out against the levels of inequality? Or does the disconnect between the perceptions of poverty and people’s socio-economic status limit their ability to advocate for change to policies and aid to those most disadvantaged?

The character of poverty has transformed and consequently become less concentrated in urban areas while moving into suburban neighborhoods.¹³ Nonetheless, people’s assumptions perpetuate the notion of poverty as a class of people that are lazy, uneducated, unmotivated minorities unwilling to get off government assistance. In fact, for nearly a quarter of the poor and nonpoor, those living in poverty are perceived as simply “lazy” people.¹⁴ This attitude limits the possibility for change when outdated and untrue characteristics pervade Americans’ mindsets. Poverty is out of many American’s minds and therefore continues to be reduced as people are taken off the roles and moved out of low-income housing projects.

The fact that the most marginalized rarely speak out against the inequities of life perpetuates the misconceptions of who is impoverished and in need. The reality is that approximately 22 million whites live in poverty, whereas only 9 million African Americans live in the same circumstances.¹⁵ While the proportion of African Americans living in poverty may be higher, the media has distorted the reality of poverty to fit society’s assumptions of the poor. African Americans are grossly overrepresented in stories of poverty. From 1988 to 1992, roughly 62 percent of the news stories on poverty featured African Americans. As Americans stepped up to win the “War on Poverty,” African Americans became prominent in news stories on poverty as the problems of this War were examined. The “newly radicalized” understanding of poverty indistinguishably associated African Americas with the most negative aspects of poverty and they became the subject of unsympathetic critiques. African Americans became the assumed unworthy and majority of those living in poverty and benefiting from government aid. Ironic considering that by 1996, slightly more blacks were more likely to be working full-time jobs than whites.¹⁶ This inaccurate perception again translates into the public support or condemnation for anti-poverty programs and the willingness of the people to aid those in need.

A large majority of whites believe that most antipoverty agencies are for minorities, and therefore would undeniably limit support for reform from all socio-economic classes. Where opinions concerning policy changes do differ is along perceptions of whom the reforms will be aiding. Even for whites, who hold the same perceptions of blacks’ lack of intelligence and inclination towards committing acts of violence, three-quarters of whites indicated that they believe the majority of minorities are receiving food stamps and nearly 80 percent also believed this to be true for those in public housing. Yet public housing programs are more supported than food stamps: only 36 percent of the American public objects to cutting food stamps to balance the federal budget, where nearly 60 percent oppose cuts in public housing for the same purpose. The racial prejudice that exists and pervades Americans opinions towards antipoverty programs plays an important and vital role in the state of policy decisions. Moreover, the perceptions that most people will remain poor for a long time and the idea that programs such as welfare have become a “trap”¹⁷ that makes the poor dependant, and changes the “War on Poverty” to a “War on the Poor.” While the “War on Poverty” has changed the prospects of ending poverty and seeks to reduce poverty as we understand it today, it has also has excluded the undeserving poor,¹⁸ those the public deems unacceptable of government assistance.

The United States does not currently have, and seldom has, a political movement among the poor campaigning for greater equality. Never has the poorer majority voted itself out of the economic disadvantages it faces.¹⁹ The most marginalized and in need of further programs or policy changes are forced to work, left underpaid, and incapable of taking the time to speak out for what they need most – policy changes. Even though more poor than rich support progressive taxation and anti-poverty measures, at most only 55 percent strongly support aid programs for their benefit.²⁰ While the poor understand what has led to their lack of higher socio-economic status, those not forced to think or deal with poverty often choose to ignore the problem. In reality, the largest gaps in the perceptions of the poor concern the conditions that have led to poverty²¹ and the ways to distribute aid. Those in need are not unaware of the resources they are not receiving and their inability to move upward in terms of their socio-economic. Minorities rate their personal opportunity as worse than average, compared with high-status whites who have favorable considerations of their opportunity to succeed as individuals in America.²² This inability to succeed however is defined by the perception differences in the poor and non-poor. While the non-poor are much more likely to think that jobs are available for anyone willing to work, there is a 26 percentage gap between their assessment and the nonpoor. Moreover, the poor is also 19 percent more likely to think that job training is the way to fight poverty,²³ unlike the nonpoor. In order to alleviate the circumstances of poverty, proponents argue government assistance needs to be increased and the causes of poverty need to be eliminated.

Change does not come about without advocating for reform. The nonpoor may be more likely to vote for reform and advocate for change, but roughly 80 percent of those not in poverty are pessimistic that the impoverished will remain poor – compared with the 58 percent of the poor who also hold this disbelief.²⁴ Perceptions of what has led to poverty and the incapability to change these circumstances severely limit the possibility for change. The reality of poverty is that it no single force can change the situation. Collective measures must be made.

Indirect exposure to poverty and issues associated may lead to reductions in the beliefs of individuals that structures in place have led to circumstances of poverty and lower classes. Regarding the explanations of poverty, the United States in the only nation in the West to show higher preferences for individual causes of poverty. Structural explanations of poverty however are stronger among women, people with lower class hierarchy, and the long-term unemployed. In the United States, higher education makes belief in the inevitable causes of poverty less likely.²⁵ Consequently, the question of responsibility is raised. Who is capable and should be handling the alleviation of the poor is another facet of poverty that must be examined. The differences are wide between the poor and non-poor in terms of who is accountable.

Fundamentally, society and all people are concerned with the assistance offered for those in poverty. In order to secure change we must recognize the varied perceptions of poverty and how we are all responsible for changing the situation. This begins with, but is not limited to, our definition and measurement of poverty. While ending poverty may ultimately be a moral issue, as societies seek to relieve the inequities that exist within this world, we must rethink the belief that success is inevitably achieved through hard work. The measurements that today officially declare people no longer impoverished are inadequate and hides the reality that people are still left with insufficient mean to provide for themselves. ²⁶ The most important way to understand poverty is through those too often ignored and unheard – those in poverty. For those in poverty, it is to be without food, shelter, and the simple necessities. However, it extends beyond the common, everyday luxuries. Being impoverished is simple. It means to be without material, physical, or social wellbeing; being impoverished is to be without freedom²⁷ of choice, without the ability to influence or change your livelihood.

President Johnson’s declaration on the “War on Poverty” has been dragged out since its inception. The official declaration to end poverty only created measurements and definitions for poor families to overcome. The poverty line established an amount to afford basic necessities but never intended to name an income sufficient enough to live. This was misunderstood and families’ became limited to serious underestimations in order to survive²⁸. Instead of measuring the very poor and defining the level at which a household can afford the necessities, the poverty line has defined only the very poor. Because the plight of the poor is multifaceted, the government has a variety of options for alleviating its causes and the people have the opportunity to reevaluate their perceptions of who is poor.

The failure of the war to end poverty is reflected in the overall number of people classified as poor according to the federal government’s official definition and the inclusion of only the extremely poor. In 1994 alone there were more than 65 million Americans unable to afford basic necessities; but the federal government reported only 38 million as poor.²⁹ The failure of the war on poverty is reflected in the overall number of people who are classified as poor according to the federal government’s definition of poverty. Before the government set measurements and qualifications for standards of poverty, taking care of the poor was seen as a local or state issue.

Related with the inability to understand the reality for those in poverty are the policies to change or reform the system in which anti-poverty measures are created. A majority of Americans do support changes to alleviate extreme poverty in the United States; the question of who is responsible for these changes varies. Only 35 percent of the poor, and 36 percent of the nonpoor, agree that the government is responsible. The majority of the poor do agree that the government has the greatest responsibility and half, compared with less than one third of the nonpoor, believe it is better to give money to the poor than trying to eliminate the causes of poverty.³⁰ While the sympathy among the poor for the poorer may be more informed and more personal, the sympathy of the rich is just as deep, although it may be touched more with guilt. Although neither the rich nor poor may seek to redistribute wealth in the United States, but this does not mean we, as a society should no longer question its possibility. Furthermore, we cannot categorize classes of people as either supporters or opponents of redistribution of wealth in the United States, as people have different and often contradictory views of equality. After all, if existing inequalities are small and lessening, or if even the poor feel that they are pretty well off, then their silence is hardly surprising.

The United States is unique and unlike most nations that aim to lower poverty rates because of the emphasis placed on work and self-efficacy for working-age adults, regardless of situations.³¹ While most of the public agrees on the variety of causes that lead to poverty, liberals argue that since the conditions of poverty have deteriorated, making it extremely hard, if not impossible, for most of the poor to work their way out of poverty. Liberals have increasingly come to insist that many of the problems of the poor are a result of a lack decent paying jobs and agree with the structuralists perceptive in alleviating the problems associated with poverty. Conservatives in contrast, adamantly believe that individual motivation³² will determine a person’s economic status.

Still, the support and opposition to welfare and anti-poverty programs varies greatly. Support for redistribution is strongest among the poor, unemployed, and blue-collar workers. Although welfare was created to provide temporary relief for those unable to provide for themselves, most in America feel that the poor learn and begin to rely upon the government to hand them things. The common misconception is that the poor never learn the joys of middle-class diligence because they are always waiting for outside assistance and do not rely upon their own will to change their situation.³³ Rarely do individuals critical of welfare recipients consider that those that accept aid because they have no adequate means to become a part of the middle-class or change the structures and institution limit them from becoming mobile.

Welfare is intended for those incapable of using work to direct them out of the situations that have led to their current situation, one without viable options to change. Yet the system leaves those hoping to facilitate the means for change are also left frustrated, tired, and with little drive to continue working the system. In some cases, welfare pays $673 a month, and because there are 4.3 weeks in a month and forty hours a week, welfare paid only $3.91 an hour; far below minimum wage. This low amount of support only exacerbates vulnerability among recipients and makes the frustrations with the system certainly understandable. Despite their willingness to work, those receiving aid from states and government agencies are never given ideal enough conditions to cope with their real lives. Whether limited by funds or dropped completely, the social reform of welfare targets almost exclusively one gender and race: black women. ³⁴ Because no amount of work alone or emphasis on empowering the women could enable them to lead a life in a different trajectory, we must see the capacity we have to change the system and accordingly its beneficiaries. Although emphasis was placed on work and other important goals for getting off the welfare rolls and government programs, policies often showed weak results. A shot at achieving the American Dream and living a life free from dependency on government programs means that welfare will have to in fact secure a life apart from poverty. People need to be more than wards of the state governments and kids cannot simply be pushed out of the house and system in order to lower numbers. Environments need to be changed. The fight to win the War on Poverty and to “end poverty as we know it” ³⁵ means reevaluating the system and definitions. Poverty must not be defined by one variable or race and gender that seems to dominate those in need.

This means also changing the large gaps in perceptions between the poor and the non-poor concerning the conditions faced by the poor and the impact of government assistance. Though the non-poor are much more likely to think that jobs are available for anyone who wants to work and they are also more likely to think job training is the way to fight poverty,³⁶ this in most certainly not the only means for achieving the end goal of eradicating poverty from our world.

The idea that welfare needs modification(s) is understandable as is people’s opposition to increase antipoverty programs. Understanding that many, too many, Americans believe that individuals should take responsibility for their own advancement and not rely on government aid is necessary but does not mean welfare and other antipoverty programs can be done away with. Placing an emphasis on working and phasing out of government’s system may equate success for those critical of welfare, however continuing to evaluate success may be difficult to measure. No one wants to be dependent upon a system, another person, or institution to provide basic necessities for themselves or their family. If someone has found a source of income to provide for their family it seems they should also never be without the means to adequately support their livelihood. Although President Clinton signed a bill in the summer of 1996 to “end welfare as we know it,” he put no end to the broken system.³⁷ The pledge to alleviate the uncertainties of the most impoverished seems to be just as prevalent, if not worse. Reforms are not enough and have never proven to be. The only chance we have for eliminating the necessity for such programs, and poverty today, will require serious reallocations of funds, changes in social perceptions, and acceptance that changes can be made.

References

Bordoff, J. E., Furman, J., & Shevlin, P. L. (2007, December). A Hand Up: A Strategy to Reward Work, Expand Opportunity, and Reduce Poverty. The Hamilton Project. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/‌~/‌media/‌Files/‌rc/‌papers/‌2007/‌12_rewardwork_furman/‌12_rewardwork_furman.pdf

DeParle, J. (2004). American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation’s Drive to End Welfare . New York: Penguin Books.

Gilens, M. (1999). Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy . Chicago: Chicago Press.

Hagenaars, A. J. (1986). Perception of Poverty. In The Perception of Poverty (pp. 413-414).

Jeppesen, S. (2009). From the “War on Poverty” to the “War on the Poor”: Knowledge, Power, and Subject Positions in Anti-Poverty Discourses. Canadian Journal of Communication, 34, 487-508. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/‌login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=44505742&site=ehost-live

Kelso, W. A. (1994). Poverty and the Underclass: Changing Perceptions of the Poor in America . New York: New York University Press.

Kluegel, J. E., & Smith, E. R. (1986). Beliefs of Inequality: Americans’ Views of What is and What Ought to Be. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Kreidl, M. (2000). Perceptions of Poverty and Wealth in Western and Post-Communist Countries. Social Justice Research, 13(2).
Poverty Thresholds for 2009 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 years. (n.d.). Retrieved from U.S. Census Bureau website: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld09.html

Schwarz, J. E. (1998, October). The Hidden Side of the Clinton Economy. The Atlantic Monthly, 282(4), 18-21. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/‌past/‌docs/‌issues/‌98oct/‌clintec.htm

Shipler, D. K. (2004). The Working Poor: Invisible in America. New York: Vintage Books.

Smeeding, T. M. (n.d.). Poorer by Comparison: Poverty, Work, and Public Policy in Comparative Perspective. Pathways Magazine, Stanford Center for the Study of Poverty and Inequality, Winter, 2008, 3-5.

Voices of the poor. (2001, May). Poverty Reduction and Economic Management/‌ Human Development/‌ Development Economics, 40-54.

Wealth and Poverty, Attitudes. (n.d.). People Like Us: Social Class in America. Retrieved from Public Broadcasting Service website: http://www.pbs.org/‌peoplelikeus/‌resources/‌stats.html