In his 1839 book titled, The Voyage of the Beagle, Charles Darwin wrote, “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” As costs of food, education, healthcare, and housing rise and the availability of well-paying jobs decrease, poverty rises. For many of those living below the current poverty threshold it is not by choice, but by birth or even by race. If our institution caused poverty or hardship for some of our citizens we should do everything in our power to assist them in getting on their feet by providing low cost education, housing assistance, and/or affordable healthcare. I chose poverty as a topic because I read “Evicted” by Matthew Desmond this year and found the sheer deprivation of those living and struggling in inner cities to be jaw dropping. Having to decide between paying rent in order to stay off the street and whether or not to feed your family is disheartening. The fact that this is happening in one of the wealthiest countries in the world is mind boggling. While I have never lived below the poverty level, I feel that understanding a problem makes us more empathetic to those who do face these problems. That understanding and empathy helps us determine appropriate solutions that work for the people experiencing these problems. How can we better allocate aid and government resources to those living in poverty in the United States?
Before moving forward, I felt it was important to define how poverty is measured. In a 2017 article published in Social Science Quarterly titled, “Income Poverty and Multiple Deprivations in a High-Income Country: The Case of the United States” authors Sophie Mitra, an economist, and Debra L. Brucker, a public policy researcher, looked at the way poverty is quantified in the United States versus internationally. While poverty is judged by multidimensional rational in other parts of the world to include family income, education, health status, employment, etc.; here in the United States, poverty guidelines are largely focused on income thresholds set by the United States Census Bureau and family size. However, in their research, Mitra and Brucker found that by basing the poverty threshold solely on income we miss an entire group of people who face multiple deprivations and require assistance yet do not qualify (Mitra and Brucker 50). Under the current income threshold which utilizes 2016 census statistics, 12.7% of Americans are considered to fall below the federal poverty threshold and looking at the information from the Census Bureau shows that this number dropped .8 percent from 2015 (Semega). Yet, Mitra and Brucker found that the number of people who have multiple deprivations that do not include income who need assistance, but do not qualify, to be around 5.5% of the United States population; or 17.1 million people (Mitra and Brucker 38). That is 17.1 million Americans that are missed under the current income-only poverty determination. These percentages and thresholds are important because many government assistance programs utilize them to determine whether or not a person is eligible for its services.
The majority of assistance offered to struggling Americans is income based, but as I learned from the study by Mitra and Brucker, basing poverty and assistance on an income threshold leaves out an entire subset of people. Looking further into this, a study done by the United Way recognized this group of people whose income is above that of the Federal Poverty Level, but not making enough to afford basic cost of living needs such as housing, food, health care, or heat as one representing 40% of Americans (Hoopes). While these families may not be facing deprivations, per se, there is a significant struggle that should be taken into account. The United Way calls these housholds, “Asset-limited, Income-constrained, Employed” or, ALICE. The report published in 2018, titled “ALICE: The Consequences of Insufficient Household Income” was a collaboration by researchers across the country showing data that families even above the Federal Poverty Level are struggling to get by. They recognize that the consequences of this are that families sometimes have to live further away from their jobs in order to afford adequate housing, which drives up transportation costs; that they are living paycheck to paycheck; have lower credit scores which lead to higher, unaffordable interest rates for housing and vehicles; and face numerous other difficulties. They attribute these struggles to the rising income for those in the highest income brackets, but stagnant wages for those in the lowers. Unlike the United States Census Bureau which sets the Federal Poverty Level at one level nationwide, the ALICE looks at geographic location and how much a family would need to earn to meet basic needs and set the standard at that threshold.
The programs most often utilized by those living under the Federal Poverty Level are the same programs that people living under the ALICE level need to meet basic needs but do not always qualify for (FAQ). Those programs are outlined on the Department of Health and Human Services webpage and include programs such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Head Start, Medicaid, and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). There is mixed research for how effective these programs are at lifting families out of poverty. In a 2013 study released by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities titled “Various Supports for Low-Income Families Reduce Poverty and Have Long-Term Positive Effects on Families and Children” researchers Arloc Sherman, Danilo Trisi, and Sharon Parrott found that the most utilized government assistance programs do play a role in helping families out of poverty. They note that, “Long-term studies that followed children who participated in Head Start have found that it raises school completion rates and improves other outcomes years later.” Utilizing Head Start Programs also gives parents access to low-cost childcare giving them an opportunity to search for sufficient work opportunities to adequately provide for their families. The research also showed SNAP as being successful, “The reasons are easy to understand — if you are worried about your family’s next meal, it is hard to focus on your future” (Arloc et al.). Once the stress and worry of not being able to afford food, housing, heating and electricity, as well as child care are taken away, families are able to improve their socioeconomic status. It should be noted that the majority of families that receive government assistance have at least one member of the household who is employed, that is, employed but still falling under the Federal Poverty Level and not making enough to provide basic needs for their families.
There has been talk of raising the minimum wage to a “living wage” to pull some families out of poverty and reduce government welfare spending. There are two sides to this argument though, in a study published in Economic Policy Institute titled, "Balancing Paychecks and Public Assistance: How Higher Wages Would Strengthen What Government Can Do” researcher David Cooper, a proponents for a living wage, argues that by mandating workers be paid a wage in which a family can afford basic needs such as housing, food, transportation, and childcare would pull these families out of poverty and reduce the reliance on government programs for assistance. On the opposing side in a response to the research put forth by Cooper, Tim Worstall, a Senior Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute which works for promoting free markets, writes in an article, “A Higher Minimum Wage Doesn't Reduce Welfare Costs To Taxpayers” published in Forbes that raising the minimum wage to a living wage will reduce the number of jobs and create a situation where families who may have been partially reliant on welfare programs are now wholly reliant on government welfare programs to meet their basic needs due to their now unemployed status. The differences in this argument seem to fall to the way poverty is interpreted. Worstall quotes a study that states, “Among those who would be affected by a $15 minimum wage, just 12% are SNAP recipients and just 10% are Medicaid recipients” attempting to show that raising the minimum wage would not be of benefit to most of the people who receive government assistance. Cooper disagrees, “Raising wages for low-wage workers (defined as those in the bottom three wage deciles, who earn up to $12.16 per hour) would unambiguously reduce net spending on public assistance, particularly among workers likely to be affected by a federal minimum-wage increase.” If we recognize that poverty or deprivation does not only affect those that fall below the Federal Poverty Level we have a better understanding of who will benefit and not benefit from specific government assistance programs and how they may benefit from access to these programs.
From my research I recognize that the issue of poverty and how to provide better assistance is complex. It is important that researchers delve into how welfare spending is affected by a minimum wage increase that meets the actual cost of living to better provide ideas. When the United States creates policy, they should also be looking at how those policies will affect its citizens in order to ensure that we are not pushing people and families further into poverty. I did not look into how much more the government would need to spend if they broadened the poverty threshold to include multiple dimensions, but I think that is an important statistic to look into as the more we understand the needs of citizens, the better we can allocate assistance. Which would be a more effective way to combat poverty? Higher wages, better access to assistance programs, or a multidimensional approach to tracking poverty; or will it take recognizing all three are equally important to fully recognize the scope of what is needed? In closing, there is a quote by Atul Gawande, a surgeon and public health advocate that says, “Better is possible. It does not take genius. It takes diligence, it takes moral clarity. It takes ingenuity. And above all, it takes a willingness to try.” Citizens of the United States should not be fully employed and yet have to struggle to provide for their families. We can do better.