THE POLITICS OF POVERTY

Dal nostro corrispondente dalla California, Tony Tasca, riceviamo e volentieri pubblichiamo una riflessione sulle politiche contro la povertà attuate negli USA. Buona lettura 


The Politics of Poverty

Recently, as I was surfing through the TV channels, I ran into a discussion on C-SPAN that caught my interest. The AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington, D.C hosted the conference by the National Economic Association.  Darrick Hamilton, the CEO of the association, facilitated the discussion.

Leading economists were the presenters. They shared with the audience their research findings on a number of topics ranging from incarceration to militarization of the police, to unemployment.

I came away intrigued by several proposals to solve the problems under discussion. In particular, the call for a federal job guarantee for everyone able to work, the elimination, in other words, of involuntary unemployment, and the setting up of a baby trust account of $ 20,000 to shield each child from poor decisions by parents.

Flashback to Graduate School

I recall vividly two important lessons from graduate school, lessons that shaped my own approach to organization consulting throughout my working career.

Lesson one came in a statistics class. The instructor told us that statistics are interesting by what they reveal, but they are limited by what they hide, perhaps more vital. In other words, he encouraged us to always look beyond the obvious and explore the other side.

Lesson two came during my dissertation defense. One of the Ph.D. committee members asked me a question that had me stumped for a minute. I had used a questionnaire to gather responses to a number of policy questions I was researching.  His question was: “Tony, what question you did not ask that perhaps was more important than those you asked?” After colleting myself, I humbly replied that I did not know, and acknowledged a limitation of my research.

I did not realize until recently why I have been interested in hearing both sides of an argument, shunning the notion that one ideology has all the answers and none of the downside. Some folks might label me a skeptic, bordering on the pessimist; I defend myself by invoking realism. I guess you, the reader, will be the one to judge.

Income Inequality

This issue is a significant one in America. How can we in the land of plenty permit economic inequality? The statistics are staggering! The average income of the 99% in 1998 was $ 48,768. The average income of the remaining 1% was $ 1.36 million or 22% of all income generated in the country. These statistics depict a disproportionate, and I might add, gross example of inequality.

I drilled down to a study by the University of Michigan (UofM) regarding extreme poverty. This study concluded that the average person in extreme poverty receives $ 2 per day cash assistance. Shocking, to say the least!

C-SPAN came to my rescue once more. I tapped into a discussion about the problems with the survey methodology used by the UofM scholars.

The UofM researchers had apparently made the same mistake I had made as a graduate student. They failed to ask the most important question. In this case, how much does the person in extreme poverty spend per day? The answer, they found, was $ 20 per day. How can this be possible? The UofM study had focused on just one source of income and overlooked that there are all together 80 programs that provide assistance to the poor. They also found that those classified as extreme poor had a television set, a computer, a mobile phone, and more square footage in their residence than before. Obviously, you could not do all this on $ 2 per day.

By now you should be as confused as I was. What is the real story? Who do we believe? Anyone?

Since the 1960’s America has spent trillions on its war on poverty. Yet the number of poor people has not significantly diminished. Although some folks have surely gained by this largesse.

Experts tell us that the problem is not going away any time soon. In fact, it is probably going to get worse. Globalization is forcing lower level workers to compete with 3 billion other people for jobs and wages. College educated men will tend to marry college educated women. Single parent families will surely become poorer.

A Question of Self-Interest

I think it was Freud that taught us that all interest is self-interest, and that all behavior is motivated. Obviously, the researchers in the UofM study had an agenda, and so did those who basically demolished their findings. In this Ping-Pong game of gotchas, the average person is left bewildered and confused. 

See, the average person wants to know what to believe. Politicians to promote their agenda will cherry pick research, which proves their point ignoring the research that disproves it.

We are all created equal, but no two people are alike. Some are more intelligent, others more motivated, others harder workers, and son. Hence, there is resistance to adopt socialistic or communist practices, long discredited. Income redistribution by taxation has long term unintended consequences because wealthy people are able to move money overseas and reach markets world-wide.

Where We Go From Here?

We need to resolve this issue with a sense of urgency. I am not sure that politicians left to their own devices will do it correctly. They will pander to their constituencies currying favor and hopefully more votes in the process. They will set one group against another; choosing winners and losers, and seeding further division and distrusts. They will take the short view and overlook the unintended consequences. They will kick the proverbial can down the road.

We need to examine further the structural and systemic causes that entrap people and families in poverty. We know what some of the causes are: break-up of the family unit, lack of good education, disappearance of jobs more efficiently performed by machines, shift of jobs to low cost areas, crime, and drug abuse.

We need a bi-partisan approach. This is a “wicked” problem, meaning that there are no technical answers or experts, that no one group alone can solve it, and that there might not even be an immediate solution.

Tony Tasca