Why hasn’t U.S. poverty improved in 50 years? Pulitzer-prize winning author Matthew Desmond has an answer

[beijingwalker]

Why hasn’t U.S. poverty improved in 50 years? Pulitzer-prize winning author Matthew Desmond has an answer​

Annie Nova@ANNIEREPORTER
PUBLISHED THU, MAR 23 20239:00 AM EDT

KEY POINTS

• In his new book, “Poverty, by America,” Matthew Desmond says that poverty persists in the U.S. because many Americans and large companies profit from it.
• “I want to be clear: I’m not calling for redistribution,” Desmond said. “What I’m talking about is less rich aid and more poor aid.”
• The author also has tips on how people can become “poverty abolitionists.”

Why US hasn't solved poverty

Over the last 50 years, Americans have eradicated smallpox, reduced infant mortality rates and deaths from heart disease by around 70%, added a decade to the average American’s life and invented the internet.

When it comes to the national poverty rate, however, we’ve made almost no progress. In 1970, a little more than 12% of the U.S. population was considered poor. By 2019, around 11% was.

In his new book, “Poverty, by America,” sociologist Matthew Desmond proposes a reason for that stagnation: We benefit from it.

I spoke with Desmond this month about his argument that many individuals and large U.S. companies profit from tens of millions of Americans living in poverty, and how things might finally start changing.

His last book, “Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City,” won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction. (Our interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.)

Annie Nova: Your book starts with a quote by Tolstoy: “We imagine that their sufferings are one thing, and our life another.” How are we able to be so detached from the state in which so many others are living?

Matthew Desmond: The country is so segregated. I think many of us can go about our daily lives only confronting poverty from the car window or in the news.

AN: Many financially comfortable and well-off Americans, you write, live as “unwitting enemies of the poor.” How so? Can you give an example?

MD: Sure. We have this national entitlement program that’s just not for the poor. In 2020, the nation spent $53 billion on direct housing assistance to the needy, things like public housing or vouchers that reduced rent burden. That same year, we spent over $190 billion on homeowner tax subsidies. Those are things like the home mortgage interest deduction, which homeowners are entitled to. Protecting and fighting for those subsidies leaves less money with which to fight poverty.

AN: So you think there should be fewer tax breaks like the home mortgage interest deduction and more policies to help poor Americans?
MD: I want to be clear: I’m not calling for redistribution. That entails giving up something that is mine and that I’ve earned. What I’m talking about is less rich aid and more poor aid. There was a study published recently showing that if just the top 1% of us just paid the taxes we owe — so not pay more taxes, but just stop evading tax bills — we as a nation could raise $175 billion more every year. That’s almost enough to pull everyone out of poverty.
AN: So getting the IRS to do more enforcement.
MD: Absolutely. When you are trying to fight for ambitious, bold solutions to poverty, you immediately run up against people saying, ‘Well, how will we afford it?’ And the answer is staring us right in the face. We could afford it if we allowed the IRS to do its job.

We can confront this issue in such a more robust way than we have. And it should shame us that we haven’t.
Matthew Desmond
SOCIOLOGIST AND AUTHOR

AN: Thinking that poverty in the U.S. is avoidable makes its existence feel so much worse.
MD: It makes it so much worse morally. We are such a rich country. We can confront this issue in such a more robust way than we have. And it should shame us that we haven’t. It should shame us that so many people are living with such uncertainty and agony.
AN: In what way do large companies in the U.S. profit from poverty in America?
MD: As union power started waning, wages started slagging. And then CEO compensation started growing. Corporations have used that economic power and transferred it into political power to make organizing hard and to combat unionization efforts.
AN: As a child, you blamed your father when he lost his job and the bank took your house. Why do you think that was?
MD: When you’re in the middle of something, you often grasp at the explanation that is closest to you, which is often about shame and guilt and blame. When I wrote my last book on families facing evictions, a lot of the families who lost their homes would blame themselves. But I think it’s the sociologist’s job, to quote C. Wright Mills, to turn a personal problem into a political one. Millions of people are facing this every year. This is not on you.

AN: You call on Americans to become “poverty abolitionists.” Why use the word “abolitionists”?

MD: I think that it shares with other abolitionist movements a commitment to the end of poverty. It views poverty not as something that we should get a little better at, but something we should abolish. Because it’s a sin. It’s a disgrace.

AN: What are the most impactful actions people can take to fight poverty?

MD: You can go to your Tuesday night zoning meeting in your community and you can support the affordable housing project that a lot of your neighbors are trying to kill. And you can say, “Look, I’m not going to deny other kids opportunities that my kids have had living here. I’m not going to embrace segregation. That ends with me.” You can shop at places that do right by their workers, and that don’t try to bust unions. There are also all these amazing anti-poverty movements in every state.

AN: I know you don’t have a crystal ball, but if more attention and resources aren’t directed at reducing poverty, what could the future look like for us?

MD: For folks who are struggling, it means a smaller life. It means diminished dreams. It means illnesses that don’t get solved. And for those of us who enjoy some security and prosperity, it means an affront to your sense of decency. If nothing improves, it really belies any claim to national greatness.

Why hasn't U.S. poverty improved in 50 years? Pulitzer-prize winning author Matthew Desmond has an answer

In his new book, "Poverty, by America," Matthew Desmond says that poverty persists in the U.S. because many Americans and large companies profit from it.

www.cnbc.com

 

[ST1976]

What the data says about food stamps in the U.S.​

The food stamp program is one of the larger federal social welfare initiatives, and in its current form has been around for nearly six decades. But many misconceptions remain about the program and how it works. (For one thing, no actual stamps are involved.) Here’s a closer look at the food stamp program, based on data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Census Bureau and other sources.

How many Americans use food stamps?​

The numbers vary from month to month. But in April 2023, the most recent month with available figures, 41.9 million people in 22.2 million households received SNAP benefits. That translates to 12.5% of the total U.S. population.

On average, 41.2 million people in 21.6 million households received monthly SNAP benefits in the 2022 fiscal year, which ran from October 2021 through September 2022.

The program operates in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam and the Virgin Islands. A separate nutrition assistance program covers Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands.

How has the number of food stamp recipients changed over time?​

The current food stamp program began in 1964 but took several years to ramp up. It wasn’t until July 1974 that states – which share administrative duties over the program with the federal government – were required to extend it to all jurisdictions within their borders. That year, 12.9 million people, or 6.0% of the total U.S. population at the time, received SNAP benefits.

Total participation has ebbed and flowed over the ensuing decades, driven both by economic conditions and changes in eligibility rules. Between fiscal years 1980 and 2008, the share of all U.S. households receiving SNAP benefits oscillated between about 7% and about 11%. But that percentage rose rapidly during the Great Recession and peaked at 18.8% in fiscal 2013 – representing 23.1 million households, or 47.6 million people.

In March 2020, as the nation headed into COVID-19 lockdowns, Congress authorized extra SNAP benefits for recipients and suspended work and training requirements for the duration of the declared public health emergency. The number of recipients immediately jumped from 37.2 million in March 2020 to 40.9 million one month later, and topped out in September 2020 at just over 43 million recipients, or 13% of the resident population.

Who is eligible for food stamps?​

In general, a household qualifies for the program if it has a gross monthly income at or below 130% of the federal poverty level as well as a net monthly income at or below 100% of the federal poverty level. For a family of four in 2023, this works out to $3,007 in gross monthly income and $2,313 in net monthly income. (These limits are higher in Alaska and Hawaii.)

Households with older people (defined as ages 60 and older) or people with disabilities only have to meet the net income requirement. And households of all types are limited in how much they can have in cash, investments and other assets and still qualify for SNAP.

In addition, households receiving other types of aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI), may be eligible for SNAP automatically.

States have a certain amount of latitude in how they administer the SNAP program. For example, they can decide how broadly to extend its benefits to people receiving other TANF-funded benefits, whether to count vehicles as household assets, and whether to count child support payments as income. In addition, there are somewhat different eligibility rules for Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Virgin Islands.

What, if any, work requirements are there for receiving food stamps?​

In general, most Americans ages 16 to 59 who aren’t disabled must register with their state SNAP agency or employment office; meet any work, job search or job training requirements set by their state; accept a suitable job if one is offered to them; and work at least 30 hours a week. Failure to comply with those rules can disqualify people from getting SNAP benefits.

In addition, nondisabled adults without dependents must either work or participate in a work program for 80 hours a month, or participate in a state workfare program. If they fail to do so, they can only receive SNAP benefits for three months out of any 36-month period. Until recently, this additional work requirement applied to people ages 18 to 49. The debt limit deal recently enacted raises the maximum age to 54, a change that will be phased in over three years starting in October. The new law also exempts veterans, homeless people and young adults aging out of foster care from all work requirements.

What do we know about food stamp recipients in the U.S.?​

The most comprehensive data source we have is the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation, although its most recent data is from 2020. That year, 23.6 million SNAP recipients (63%) were adults, and 13.8 million (36%) were children.

Non-Hispanic White people accounted for 44.6% of adult SNAP recipients and 31.5% of child recipients in 2020. About 27% of both adult and child recipients were Black. Hispanic people, who can be of any race, accounted for 21.9% of adult recipients and 35.8% of child recipients.

The vast majority of both adult and child recipients were born in the United States – 82.3% and 97.1%, respectively.

Among adult recipients, 62.4% had a high school diploma or less education in 2020. And despite the program’s work requirements, 61.6% said they had not been employed at all that year.

The Census Bureau also looked at households where at least one person received SNAP benefits. More than six-in-ten of these households (61.7%) reported having no children in 2020, including 34.4% who were people living alone. More than 40% of SNAP-receiving households were in the South, the highest percentage of any region.

How much do food stamp recipients get each month?​

In April 2023, the national average benefit was $181.72 per person and $343.00 per household. That was a sharp drop from February’s averages ($245.44 per person, $464.36 per household), reflecting the expiration of the extra benefits put in place during the pandemic.

The nationwide averages conceal a considerable amount of state-by-state variation. SNAP beneficiaries in New York received an average of $212.09 per person in April 2023, while recipients in Oklahoma got $127.32. (These rankings exclude Alaska, Hawaii, the Virgin Islands and Guam, which have a different scale to reflect higher food costs in those places.)

Why do benefits vary so much by state? One reason is that benefit amounts are largely determined by recipients’ income, minus certain expenses. Household size also factors into the calculation. So a state’s demographics and the condition of its economy will influence how much its residents can receive through SNAP.

The maximum amount of SNAP benefits is based on the Thrifty Food Plan, an estimate by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of how much it costs to buy groceries needed to provide a “nutritious, practical, cost-effective diet” for a family of two adults and two children. That amount is adjusted for other household types when determining benefit levels. The Thrifty Food Plan was updated in 2021 for the first time in 15 years and is scheduled to be re-evaluated again in 2026.

Which states have the highest and lowest rates of food stamp usage?​

In New Mexico, 22.9% of the population receives SNAP benefits – the highest of any state, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of SNAP recipient figures and Census Bureau population estimates for July 2022, the most recent available. The District of Columbia is next-highest at 21.4%, followed by Oregon at 17.8% and West Virginia at 17.7%. (We excluded the Virgin Islands and Guam from this analysis because the Census Bureau doesn’t have 2022 population estimates for them. But using 2020 census counts instead would give them rates of 23.8% and 23.6%, respectively.)

Utah has the nation’s lowest rate of SNAP use: Just 4.6% of Beehive State residents get the benefits, according to our analysis. Other states with low rates include New Hampshire (5.0%), Wyoming (5.1%) and North Dakota (5.8%).

What the data says about food stamps in the U.S.

The food stamp program is one of the larger federal social welfare initiatives, and in its current form has been around for nearly six decades.

www.pewresearch.org

What the data says about food stamps in the U.S.

The food stamp program is one of the larger federal social welfare initiatives, and in its current form has been around for nearly six decades.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Menthol]

Most of the poverty is because of...

Single mom!

No wonder.


Free sex culture, feminazi propaganda...

Even in the past a single mom was also a problem, but not because of culture, but other reasons like war, famine, disease that killed her husband.

 

[ST1976]

Why hasn’t U.S. poverty improved in 50 years? Pulitzer-prize winning author Matthew Desmond has an answer​

Annie Nova@ANNIEREPORTER
PUBLISHED THU, MAR 23 20239:00 AM EDT

KEY POINTS

• In his new book, “Poverty, by America,” Matthew Desmond says that poverty persists in the U.S. because many Americans and large companies profit from it.
• “I want to be clear: I’m not calling for redistribution,” Desmond said. “What I’m talking about is less rich aid and more poor aid.”
• The author also has tips on how people can become “poverty abolitionists.”

Why US hasn't solved poverty

Over the last 50 years, Americans have eradicated smallpox, reduced infant mortality rates and deaths from heart disease by around 70%, added a decade to the average American’s life and invented the internet.

When it comes to the national poverty rate, however, we’ve made almost no progress. In 1970, a little more than 12% of the U.S. population was considered poor. By 2019, around 11% was.

In his new book, “Poverty, by America,” sociologist Matthew Desmond proposes a reason for that stagnation: We benefit from it.

I spoke with Desmond this month about his argument that many individuals and large U.S. companies profit from tens of millions of Americans living in poverty, and how things might finally start changing.

His last book, “Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City,” won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction. (Our interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.)

Annie Nova: Your book starts with a quote by Tolstoy: “We imagine that their sufferings are one thing, and our life another.” How are we able to be so detached from the state in which so many others are living?

Matthew Desmond: The country is so segregated. I think many of us can go about our daily lives only confronting poverty from the car window or in the news.

AN: Many financially comfortable and well-off Americans, you write, live as “unwitting enemies of the poor.” How so? Can you give an example?

MD: Sure. We have this national entitlement program that’s just not for the poor. In 2020, the nation spent $53 billion on direct housing assistance to the needy, things like public housing or vouchers that reduced rent burden. That same year, we spent over $190 billion on homeowner tax subsidies. Those are things like the home mortgage interest deduction, which homeowners are entitled to. Protecting and fighting for those subsidies leaves less money with which to fight poverty.

AN: So you think there should be fewer tax breaks like the home mortgage interest deduction and more policies to help poor Americans?
MD: I want to be clear: I’m not calling for redistribution. That entails giving up something that is mine and that I’ve earned. What I’m talking about is less rich aid and more poor aid. There was a study published recently showing that if just the top 1% of us just paid the taxes we owe — so not pay more taxes, but just stop evading tax bills — we as a nation could raise $175 billion more every year. That’s almost enough to pull everyone out of poverty.
AN: So getting the IRS to do more enforcement.
MD: Absolutely. When you are trying to fight for ambitious, bold solutions to poverty, you immediately run up against people saying, ‘Well, how will we afford it?’ And the answer is staring us right in the face. We could afford it if we allowed the IRS to do its job.

AN: Thinking that poverty in the U.S. is avoidable makes its existence feel so much worse.
MD: It makes it so much worse morally. We are such a rich country. We can confront this issue in such a more robust way than we have. And it should shame us that we haven’t. It should shame us that so many people are living with such uncertainty and agony.
AN: In what way do large companies in the U.S. profit from poverty in America?
MD: As union power started waning, wages started slagging. And then CEO compensation started growing. Corporations have used that economic power and transferred it into political power to make organizing hard and to combat unionization efforts.
AN: As a child, you blamed your father when he lost his job and the bank took your house. Why do you think that was?
MD: When you’re in the middle of something, you often grasp at the explanation that is closest to you, which is often about shame and guilt and blame. When I wrote my last book on families facing evictions, a lot of the families who lost their homes would blame themselves. But I think it’s the sociologist’s job, to quote C. Wright Mills, to turn a personal problem into a political one. Millions of people are facing this every year. This is not on you.

AN: You call on Americans to become “poverty abolitionists.” Why use the word “abolitionists”?

MD: I think that it shares with other abolitionist movements a commitment to the end of poverty. It views poverty not as something that we should get a little better at, but something we should abolish. Because it’s a sin. It’s a disgrace.

AN: What are the most impactful actions people can take to fight poverty?

MD: You can go to your Tuesday night zoning meeting in your community and you can support the affordable housing project that a lot of your neighbors are trying to kill. And you can say, “Look, I’m not going to deny other kids opportunities that my kids have had living here. I’m not going to embrace segregation. That ends with me.” You can shop at places that do right by their workers, and that don’t try to bust unions. There are also all these amazing anti-poverty movements in every state.

AN: I know you don’t have a crystal ball, but if more attention and resources aren’t directed at reducing poverty, what could the future look like for us?

MD: For folks who are struggling, it means a smaller life. It means diminished dreams. It means illnesses that don’t get solved. And for those of us who enjoy some security and prosperity, it means an affront to your sense of decency. If nothing improves, it really belies any claim to national greatness.

Why hasn't U.S. poverty improved in 50 years? Pulitzer-prize winning author Matthew Desmond has an answer

In his new book, "Poverty, by America," Matthew Desmond says that poverty persists in the U.S. because many Americans and large companies profit from it.

www.cnbc.com

Low-income Americans face a ‘hunger cliff’ as Snap benefits are cut​

Gina Melton is facing a dilemma. Like millions of other Americans, Melton and her family relied on food assistance benefits boosted by Congress to help them through the pandemic. Now that extra cash is gone.

The reduction has hit them hard. Three of her family members are disabled and one of her daughters works to take care of them through an agency. They had already relied on credit cards to pay for medical equipment that wasn’t covered by the federal health insurance schemes Medicare or Medicaid but have had to stop paying a couple of them in order to afford food.

“When you have to choose between feeding your family and paying a credit card bill, you have to choose food,” said Melton, 62.

Around 42 million Americans are currently enrolled in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) benefits. Congress increased Snap benefits in response to the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020. The last extra payments went out at the end of February in the remaining 32 states that were still issuing them, in addition to the District of Columbia, Guam and the US Virgin Islands.

The emergency allotments were authorized in tandem with the Covid-19 emergency declaration in March 2022, but in December 2022, Congress passed a law to end the allotments.

The lapse in the additional benefits will reduce Snap allotments for the average recipient by $90 a month, with some households losing $250 a month or more. Older adults at the minimum benefit level will see their monthly Snap benefits drop from $281 a month to $23.

Though Melton’s husband, a diabetic, is still recovering from a recent surgery, he has been considering going back to work part time at the age of 65 as the family struggles to afford basic necessities, including healthy food. They’ve cut back on food purchases and buy what’s on sale or in reduced-price bins.

“The extra food allotment was helping us a lot,” said Melton. “We’ve started shopping at lower-priced stores that don’t bag your groceries, but for a disabled person like myself, that requires me to go with a helper. We’ve also cut back on some more expensive necessities and are relying on the local food pantry more.”

The end of the expanded benefits comes at a time when US consumer debt has been on the rise, with 20.5 million Americans currently behind on their utility payments and nearly 25 million behind on credit card, auto loan or personal loan payments, the highest number since 2009. Low-wage workers in the US, who make less than $20 an hour, have experienced drops in wage growth compared with other workers in recent months.

Food prices have risen and are expected to continue to rise significantly in 2023 as well. The US Department of Agriculture estimated that all food prices will increase by 7.9% in 2023 – and they were already 9.5% higher in February 2023 compared with February 2022.

With so many Americans receiving Snap benefits because of low wages, unemployment and underemployment, the sudden end of the emergency allotment has been characterized as a “hunger cliff”.

Ellen Vollinger, Snap director for the nonprofit Food Research and Action Center, said: “The cliff is aptly named because this a very abrupt change in what people are going to have in their food budget and it’s affecting tens of millions of people.

“When the federal government doesn’t provide as much support for food, it doesn’t mean that hungry people all of a sudden are better off, or no longer need assistance, or they go away. The hunger is still there, people are still there, the need is there, but the federal government is too abrupt in shifting the burden and costs of dealing with that downstream, to states [and] localities, and puts a greater burden on charities.”

Vollinger noted that the end of emergency allotments leaves low-income families facing difficult choices around food, from forgoing meals and purchasing less to buying cheaper food.

“There’s a lot of stress, that’s why we call it a hunger cliff. It’s very precipitous,” she added.

Food banks have been bracing for a surge in demand as the expanded Snap benefits expire, with state agencies directing recipients to food pantries to help cope with the reduction in benefits.

Studies have shown that the extra payments worked. The Urban Institute found that the increased Snap benefits during the Covid-19 pandemic kept 4.2 million Americans out of poverty in the fourth quarter of 2021, reducing poverty by 9.6% and child poverty by 14% in states with emergency allotments. They also have a wider economic benefit. Every $1 invested in Snap benefits yields between $1.50 and $1.80 in economic activity during economic downturns.

A 2022 survey conducted by Propel found that among Snap recipients, there was a significant level of higher food insecurity in states where emergency allotments were cut off. In a January 2023 survey, there was an increase in the number of Snap recipients who reported skipping meals, eating less, visiting food pantries or relying on family or friends for meals compared with December 2022.

The end of the emergency Snap allotments also coincides with a push from Republicans in Congress to cut regular Snap benefits this year, despite the majority of Americans having favorable views of the benefits. A January 2023 survey conducted by Purdue University found that seven out of 10 respondents supported permanent expansions of the Snap program.

But an expansion looks very unlikely in the current Congress. In the meantime, recipients are facing tough choices.

“I just received the last one last week,” said Patricia Ameral, 67, of Massachusetts, referring to the Covid emergency benefits. “I am certain it will mean the difference between consuming less fresh produce and less meat, fresh or frozen.”

Low-income Americans face a ‘hunger cliff’ as Snap benefits are cut

The US food assistance program offered expanded benefits during the Covid emergency, but they ended last month

www.theguardian.com

Most of the poverty is because of...

Single mom!

No wonder.


Free sex culture, feminazi propaganda...

Even in the past a single mom was also a problem, but not because of culture, but other reasons like war, famine, disease that killed her husband.

single moms are more the problem as below:
.
=>
In Britain, the recession has left many people struggling to make ends meet, but reports have shown that young people – young single mothers in particular, are feeling the worst of austerity, and many are turning to prostitution in pursuit of financial security.

Prostitution and Poverty in the UK

In Britain, the recession has left many people struggling to make ends meet, but reports have shown that some young people are turning to prostitution in pursuit of financial security.

leftfootforward.org

.

Italy Saved From Recession by Prostitution and Drugs - Newsweek

Changes to the way the EU calculates economic output mean that Italy narrowly escaped falling into recession for the third time in six years

www.newsweek.com

 

[nahtanbob]

Why hasn’t U.S. poverty improved in 50 years? Pulitzer-prize winning author Matthew Desmond has an answer​

Annie Nova@ANNIEREPORTER
PUBLISHED THU, MAR 23 20239:00 AM EDT

KEY POINTS

• In his new book, “Poverty, by America,” Matthew Desmond says that poverty persists in the U.S. because many Americans and large companies profit from it.
• “I want to be clear: I’m not calling for redistribution,” Desmond said. “What I’m talking about is less rich aid and more poor aid.”
• The author also has tips on how people can become “poverty abolitionists.”

Why US hasn't solved poverty

Over the last 50 years, Americans have eradicated smallpox, reduced infant mortality rates and deaths from heart disease by around 70%, added a decade to the average American’s life and invented the internet.

When it comes to the national poverty rate, however, we’ve made almost no progress. In 1970, a little more than 12% of the U.S. population was considered poor. By 2019, around 11% was.

In his new book, “Poverty, by America,” sociologist Matthew Desmond proposes a reason for that stagnation: We benefit from it.

I spoke with Desmond this month about his argument that many individuals and large U.S. companies profit from tens of millions of Americans living in poverty, and how things might finally start changing.

His last book, “Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City,” won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction. (Our interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.)

Annie Nova: Your book starts with a quote by Tolstoy: “We imagine that their sufferings are one thing, and our life another.” How are we able to be so detached from the state in which so many others are living?

Matthew Desmond: The country is so segregated. I think many of us can go about our daily lives only confronting poverty from the car window or in the news.

AN: Many financially comfortable and well-off Americans, you write, live as “unwitting enemies of the poor.” How so? Can you give an example?

MD: Sure. We have this national entitlement program that’s just not for the poor. In 2020, the nation spent $53 billion on direct housing assistance to the needy, things like public housing or vouchers that reduced rent burden. That same year, we spent over $190 billion on homeowner tax subsidies. Those are things like the home mortgage interest deduction, which homeowners are entitled to. Protecting and fighting for those subsidies leaves less money with which to fight poverty.

AN: So you think there should be fewer tax breaks like the home mortgage interest deduction and more policies to help poor Americans?
MD: I want to be clear: I’m not calling for redistribution. That entails giving up something that is mine and that I’ve earned. What I’m talking about is less rich aid and more poor aid. There was a study published recently showing that if just the top 1% of us just paid the taxes we owe — so not pay more taxes, but just stop evading tax bills — we as a nation could raise $175 billion more every year. That’s almost enough to pull everyone out of poverty.
AN: So getting the IRS to do more enforcement.
MD: Absolutely. When you are trying to fight for ambitious, bold solutions to poverty, you immediately run up against people saying, ‘Well, how will we afford it?’ And the answer is staring us right in the face. We could afford it if we allowed the IRS to do its job.

AN: Thinking that poverty in the U.S. is avoidable makes its existence feel so much worse.
MD: It makes it so much worse morally. We are such a rich country. We can confront this issue in such a more robust way than we have. And it should shame us that we haven’t. It should shame us that so many people are living with such uncertainty and agony.
AN: In what way do large companies in the U.S. profit from poverty in America?
MD: As union power started waning, wages started slagging. And then CEO compensation started growing. Corporations have used that economic power and transferred it into political power to make organizing hard and to combat unionization efforts.
AN: As a child, you blamed your father when he lost his job and the bank took your house. Why do you think that was?
MD: When you’re in the middle of something, you often grasp at the explanation that is closest to you, which is often about shame and guilt and blame. When I wrote my last book on families facing evictions, a lot of the families who lost their homes would blame themselves. But I think it’s the sociologist’s job, to quote C. Wright Mills, to turn a personal problem into a political one. Millions of people are facing this every year. This is not on you.

AN: You call on Americans to become “poverty abolitionists.” Why use the word “abolitionists”?

MD: I think that it shares with other abolitionist movements a commitment to the end of poverty. It views poverty not as something that we should get a little better at, but something we should abolish. Because it’s a sin. It’s a disgrace.

AN: What are the most impactful actions people can take to fight poverty?

MD: You can go to your Tuesday night zoning meeting in your community and you can support the affordable housing project that a lot of your neighbors are trying to kill. And you can say, “Look, I’m not going to deny other kids opportunities that my kids have had living here. I’m not going to embrace segregation. That ends with me.” You can shop at places that do right by their workers, and that don’t try to bust unions. There are also all these amazing anti-poverty movements in every state.

AN: I know you don’t have a crystal ball, but if more attention and resources aren’t directed at reducing poverty, what could the future look like for us?

MD: For folks who are struggling, it means a smaller life. It means diminished dreams. It means illnesses that don’t get solved. And for those of us who enjoy some security and prosperity, it means an affront to your sense of decency. If nothing improves, it really belies any claim to national greatness.

Why hasn't U.S. poverty improved in 50 years? Pulitzer-prize winning author Matthew Desmond has an answer

In his new book, "Poverty, by America," Matthew Desmond says that poverty persists in the U.S. because many Americans and large companies profit from it.

www.cnbc.com

Tell that to all Chinese graduate students who arrived broke in America and made middle class to rich lifestyles

 

[ThunderCat]

Tell that to all Chinese graduate students who arrived broke in America and made middle class to rich lifestyles

Did all Chinese families suddenly have all that luck? Probably only a small fraction did.

 

[nahtanbob]

Did all Chinese families suddenly have all that luck? Probably only a small fraction did.

They had something better than luck

 

[ST1976]

Why hasn’t U.S. poverty improved in 50 years? Pulitzer-prize winning author Matthew Desmond has an answer​

Annie Nova@ANNIEREPORTER
PUBLISHED THU, MAR 23 20239:00 AM EDT

KEY POINTS

• In his new book, “Poverty, by America,” Matthew Desmond says that poverty persists in the U.S. because many Americans and large companies profit from it.
• “I want to be clear: I’m not calling for redistribution,” Desmond said. “What I’m talking about is less rich aid and more poor aid.”
• The author also has tips on how people can become “poverty abolitionists.”

Why US hasn't solved poverty

Over the last 50 years, Americans have eradicated smallpox, reduced infant mortality rates and deaths from heart disease by around 70%, added a decade to the average American’s life and invented the internet.

When it comes to the national poverty rate, however, we’ve made almost no progress. In 1970, a little more than 12% of the U.S. population was considered poor. By 2019, around 11% was.

In his new book, “Poverty, by America,” sociologist Matthew Desmond proposes a reason for that stagnation: We benefit from it.

I spoke with Desmond this month about his argument that many individuals and large U.S. companies profit from tens of millions of Americans living in poverty, and how things might finally start changing.

His last book, “Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City,” won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction. (Our interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.)

Annie Nova: Your book starts with a quote by Tolstoy: “We imagine that their sufferings are one thing, and our life another.” How are we able to be so detached from the state in which so many others are living?

Matthew Desmond: The country is so segregated. I think many of us can go about our daily lives only confronting poverty from the car window or in the news.

AN: Many financially comfortable and well-off Americans, you write, live as “unwitting enemies of the poor.” How so? Can you give an example?

MD: Sure. We have this national entitlement program that’s just not for the poor. In 2020, the nation spent $53 billion on direct housing assistance to the needy, things like public housing or vouchers that reduced rent burden. That same year, we spent over $190 billion on homeowner tax subsidies. Those are things like the home mortgage interest deduction, which homeowners are entitled to. Protecting and fighting for those subsidies leaves less money with which to fight poverty.

AN: So you think there should be fewer tax breaks like the home mortgage interest deduction and more policies to help poor Americans?
MD: I want to be clear: I’m not calling for redistribution. That entails giving up something that is mine and that I’ve earned. What I’m talking about is less rich aid and more poor aid. There was a study published recently showing that if just the top 1% of us just paid the taxes we owe — so not pay more taxes, but just stop evading tax bills — we as a nation could raise $175 billion more every year. That’s almost enough to pull everyone out of poverty.
AN: So getting the IRS to do more enforcement.
MD: Absolutely. When you are trying to fight for ambitious, bold solutions to poverty, you immediately run up against people saying, ‘Well, how will we afford it?’ And the answer is staring us right in the face. We could afford it if we allowed the IRS to do its job.

AN: Thinking that poverty in the U.S. is avoidable makes its existence feel so much worse.
MD: It makes it so much worse morally. We are such a rich country. We can confront this issue in such a more robust way than we have. And it should shame us that we haven’t. It should shame us that so many people are living with such uncertainty and agony.
AN: In what way do large companies in the U.S. profit from poverty in America?
MD: As union power started waning, wages started slagging. And then CEO compensation started growing. Corporations have used that economic power and transferred it into political power to make organizing hard and to combat unionization efforts.
AN: As a child, you blamed your father when he lost his job and the bank took your house. Why do you think that was?
MD: When you’re in the middle of something, you often grasp at the explanation that is closest to you, which is often about shame and guilt and blame. When I wrote my last book on families facing evictions, a lot of the families who lost their homes would blame themselves. But I think it’s the sociologist’s job, to quote C. Wright Mills, to turn a personal problem into a political one. Millions of people are facing this every year. This is not on you.

AN: You call on Americans to become “poverty abolitionists.” Why use the word “abolitionists”?

MD: I think that it shares with other abolitionist movements a commitment to the end of poverty. It views poverty not as something that we should get a little better at, but something we should abolish. Because it’s a sin. It’s a disgrace.

AN: What are the most impactful actions people can take to fight poverty?

MD: You can go to your Tuesday night zoning meeting in your community and you can support the affordable housing project that a lot of your neighbors are trying to kill. And you can say, “Look, I’m not going to deny other kids opportunities that my kids have had living here. I’m not going to embrace segregation. That ends with me.” You can shop at places that do right by their workers, and that don’t try to bust unions. There are also all these amazing anti-poverty movements in every state.

AN: I know you don’t have a crystal ball, but if more attention and resources aren’t directed at reducing poverty, what could the future look like for us?

MD: For folks who are struggling, it means a smaller life. It means diminished dreams. It means illnesses that don’t get solved. And for those of us who enjoy some security and prosperity, it means an affront to your sense of decency. If nothing improves, it really belies any claim to national greatness.

Why hasn't U.S. poverty improved in 50 years? Pulitzer-prize winning author Matthew Desmond has an answer

In his new book, "Poverty, by America," Matthew Desmond says that poverty persists in the U.S. because many Americans and large companies profit from it.

www.cnbc.com

if we have a look on the graph as below, US is twice poor than 50 years before.

families are is needed to be built a country, who don't depends on food stamp.
families needed to be built in US-west to avoid food stamp type abuses, which accounts for more than 20% US's total population
.
=>

What the data says about food stamps in the U.S.

The food stamp program is one of the larger federal social welfare initiatives, and in its current form has been around for nearly six decades.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

if we have a look on the graph as below, US is twice poor than 50 years before.

families are is needed to be built a country, who don't depends on food stamp.
families needed to be built in US-west to avoid food stamp type abuses, which accounts for more than 20% US's total population
.
=> View attachment 1024667

What the data says about food stamps in the U.S.

The food stamp program is one of the larger federal social welfare initiatives, and in its current form has been around for nearly six decades.

www.pewresearch.org

You are completely misrepresenting what SNAP is. You don't have to be poor to get SNAP benefits.
Many people who are between jobs file for unemployment and SNAP due to loss of income.

 

[Menthol]

Tell that to all Chinese graduate students who arrived broke in America and made middle class to rich lifestyles

I don't think there's a lack of jobs in USA.

But almost all the jobs required a high skill.

In any society there's always left-behind people, people who don't want to improve themselves, people who take the wrong path in life, disability.

11% of poverty is actually a normal number.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

 

[SaadH]

Reaganomics and neoliberal economic policies. Downward spiral of late stage capitalism. As soon as dollar loses it reserve status, game over for US.

 

[nahtanbob]

I don't think there's a lack of jobs in USA.

But almost all the jobs required a high skill.

In any society there's always left-behind people, people who don't want to improve themselves, people who take the wrong path in life, disability.

11% of poverty is actually a normal number.

There are tons of jobs in government and healthcare sectors that pay a good living. Of course you have to show up for work and live within your means

 

[ST1976]

11% of poverty is actually a normal number.

Getting SNAP doesn't mean you are in poverty..it just means the amount of money you are making is low enough to qualify for benefits.

Many people who are between jobs apply for SNAP simply because they are eligible for free benefits.

The US poverty rate just had the largest one-year increase in history, but some regions still struggle far more​

The U.S. poverty rate saw its largest one-year increase in history. 12.4% of Americans now live in poverty according to new 2022 data from the U.S. census, an increase from 7.4% in 2021. Child poverty also more than doubled last year to 12.4% from 5.2% the year before.

The U.S. poverty level is now $13,590 for individuals and $23,030 for a family of three. The new data shows that 37.9 million people lived in poverty in 2022.

The Surprising Poverty Levels Across the U.S.

How U.S. poverty differs state by state is vital to understand

time.com

 

[ST1976]

U.S. Poverty Rate Highest in 15 Years - Sociological Images

The Society Pages (TSP) is an open-access social science project headquartered in the Department of Sociology at the University of Minnesota

thesocietypages.org