According to the 2010 Census data, the poverty rate for Americans is up to 15.1 percent, matching the rate from 1993. 46.2 million people are living below the poverty line, a level delineated by earning less than $22,314 a year for a family of four or $11,139 a year for an individual. 22 percent of children under the age of 18 are living in poverty.

It’s easy to say that a family of four earning $22,314 a year can’t have it all that bad. After all, in developing countries, families get by on much less. That’s not always a relevant analogy because living in a developing country has little bearing on a person’s experience living in the United States.

Poverty is a societal problem, and it needs societal solutions. These problems tend to be ignored when the middle class is concerned with their own suffering, however, and the upper middle class and the wealthy are concerned with investments accounts losing value. Assuming equal economic opportunity for all in the United States, it comes down to individual decisions to avoid poverty. The rags-to-richest stories of the family who beat the odds to break free from poverty to thrive in the middle class are always popular, but it’s not that common.

Here are ways that individuals and society as a whole can reduce poverty at home or across the country.

Education

The key to reducing poverty is not particularly education itself, it’s the idea that education is something to be valued. Requiring quality education from grade school through high school is only part of the solution. Parents need to be equipped to continue the learning at home. For families in poverty, the parents may not be able to support their children’s cognitive development. It’s not necessarily that the parents are uneducated, but they might be unavailable to be there for the children because they are stuck in low-paying jobs with schedules that conflict with their ability to help the kids with homework.

From a societal standpoint, more needs to be done to support education in poverty-stricken areas, but the answer isn’t just giving money to schools for more materials. Schools need to attract highly-qualified teachers. Many individuals who could be great teachers don’t even consider teaching as a profession because talented people are in demand in the private sector and can find better-paying jobs in their field.

There need to be more programs that help kids develop into professional young adults. A financial company with which I’m familiar offers an intern program in a city with one of the lowest socio-economic profiles in the state. For two months, high school students had the opportunity to see what it was like working in an office (well, a cubicle). Some may have been scared away from the middle-class corporate job, but others will see the possibility to earn a living and be mostly financially independent.

There should be some type of encouragement or assistance for parents who for whatever reason can’t assist their children with learning outside of school, including affordable or free after-school programs. Most importantly, there needs to be instilled in the public the idea that education is one thing that can practically ensure a life above the poverty line.

Money management

Families considered working poor might receive a paycheck or might receive their pay in cash. Either way, there’s a general mistrust of the financial industry. Rather than banks, many families living in poverty visit check cashing storefronts or payday lenders. Depending on where they live and the transportation available, these operations may be all that’s convenient, making banking as in its middle-class form all but impossible.

Sometimes the difference between living in poverty and not is having savings. Establishing savings is hard enough for people not living in poverty; it’s even more difficult for those who are. The idea is simple: manage to put 10% of your earnings aside. It’s not so easy when all you can afford is food for your family. The key is to start as small as possible and to make saving a priority.

Avoiding debt may seem impossible as well. Families living under the poverty line may not have access to mainstream credit options, like credit cards and mortgages, and instead need to make use of payday loans and short-term advances. To say that debt is slavery minimizes the true horribleness of real slavery, but there are certainly some aspects in common. For example, when your life is consumed by interest payments, the work you do doesn’t result in money for you and an increase of wealth, your work exists only to pay back your creditors and you have little to show for it at the end of the day.

Finally, we should be encouraging more participation among the poor in mainstream financial institutions like banks and credit unions. The finance industry won’t go for it for a variety of reasons, mainly due to the fact that these customers would not be profitable in the way banks like their customers to be profitable. They don’t make large deposits and they don’t qualify for credit cards. Many mainstream banks follow in the footsteps of payday lenders offering similar products at severely high prices when allowed.

Find better jobs

Leave the minimum-wage or just-above-minimum-wave jobs for middle-class teenagers who need a job to buy their first car. With a high school education, even someone living in poverty can find a new opportunity that pays better. If you can earn enough so that you can afford food and put money into a savings account or pay off debt, it will be much easier to move out of poverty. I know what it’s like to feel trapped in a job, and when you’re counting on every single cent of income, it can be difficult making any changes that might upset the pattern.

Life choices

Beyond valuing education, completing high school, managing money, and using mainstream savings vehicles, poverty is often the result in life choices that end up making all of the above more difficult. Having children at a point when a family is not equipped to do so is one way to increase the chances that life will be difficult. A high school child having a baby of her own will face difficulties completing education, particularly if the family is already within poverty. This isn’t The Secret Life of an American Teenager, this is people already struggling somehow needing to find a way to make life work with a new set of responsibilities and expenses.

It’s easy for someone on the outside to look at poverty and see the possibilities for improvement. It’s easy to say that we live in a country where everyone has an equal opportunity and the fact a family lives in poverty is that family’s own fault. There are societal and cultural pressures that make class mobility difficult, though. Many families appear to be fully functional in poverty, but there is untapped potential.

You can’t just tell someone that they can take control of their financial life to improve their condition and place in the world and expect it to work. Families in poverty must see the opportunities for themselves and find a way to break through. It helps to have an a philosophy based on an internal locus of control, but if there’s nobody to guide a family through this realization, it’s unlikely to happen.

To summarize, here are some keys to moving past poverty:

• Belief that everyone has an opportunity to succeed, despite their upbringing and community.
• Philosophy that anyone can control his or her own outcomes.
• Recognition of the value of education and the support for learning outside the school.
• Ability to save even a little bit of income and trusting that saving to a bank to earn compound interest.
• Desire to eliminate debt, especially patterns of repeat debt like payday loans.
• Opportunities for jobs beyond minimum wage.
• Rejection of having children too early.

{ 25 comments }

The following is at least as much opinion as fact, but if I say something that isn’t factual, please tell me.

Our American version of democracy has never been pure or particularly representative. From women’s suffrage to civil rights to lobbyist influence to rumors that can spread around the world before truth gets up off the couch, something has always gotten in between a citizen’s wishes and her elected leaders.

I had thought things were moving in a positive direction with the proliferation of the Internet. It’s never been easier to encounter dissenting opinions or do your own research. I’ve been having some healthy (and some insipid) debates through Facebook for the last couple of years, the kind that would’ve otherwise happened only with friends or co-workers. I like having those. It’s incredibly important to be available to hear other points of view. Not to mention the continued release of government data available for analysis by anyone. Together, we can help each other get to the truth.

A giant step backward

Yesterday, our Supreme Court ruled that since money is considered a kind of free speech, and because corporations are considered a kind of people, (I’m not sure I agree with either of those assumptions), then corporations are free to spend as much as they want to promote or condemn a particular political candidate.

The problem, from my point of view, is that corporations only ever have one priority: increase profits. And especially in America, they want to increase profits in as short a time-frame as possible. We don’t take a long view in this country, as they tend to do in Europe and Asia. That’s why, for example, the electric car took an extra few decades to go into production, and why we’re still dumping toxic chemicals into otherwise useful water. We avoid doing the right thing, because that would be expensive, and shareholders would not be pleased.

You and I, as individuals, are limited to donating $2,400 to a federal candidate. Corporations can now spend as much as they want. Not in donations, exactly, but in other creative ways.

Two days ago, the Shell Corporation would’ve been unable to produce and distribute a feature-length movie explaining that oil is the obvious and only logical way to fuel your car, and therefore you should vote for Sarah Palin.

Clearly, I made up that example. But I feel confident that if Shell could spend a billion dollars to elect a candidate that would help them realize $4 billion in profit, they would.

Is this a partisan issue?

(For the record: I’m registered Independent, and always have been. I tend to vote Democratic, because Republicans push me away with their talk about abortion, civil rights, lower taxes in the face of enormous deficits, and the general idea that individuals fending for themselves is more American than people coming together to help each other out.)

The Supreme Court didn’t have to make such a large ruling. They specifically asked to review the long-standing precedent while in the middle of a much smaller case. Conservative opinion holds a majority in the Supreme Court at the moment.

In 2008, Barack Obama was able to raise more than John McCain by switching from federally-supplied election funds to private sources. The Obama campaign raised a previously-unheard-of amount through “micro-donations”, such as the $160 I donated over the course of three or four months.

But corporations, because they are almost always motivated only by profit, will want Republicans to win more than they want Democrats to win, because Republicans tend to vote to protect profits more than anything else. And corporations will always have more to spend on candidates than individuals will.

I acknowledge that some corporations, while incapable of having their own ethics, are run by ethically-minded people. Not all of them want to see America continue its dependence on foreign oil, High Fructose Corn Syrup, ammonia-laced beef and unnecessary medical tests.

But really all it comes down to is who is willing to spend the most money in an election. It could be Starbucks, it could be Walmart, it could be Sichuan Tengzhong, that previously-obscure Chinese business that recently bought the Hummer brand.

Wait, foreign-owned corporations?

Yes. There’s no difference, according to the law. Chinese, Saudi, German, Australian, it doesn’t matter. Any corporation operating in the U.S. is equally unrestricted.

What about unions?

Yes, this recent ruling also allows unions and other advocacy groups to spend as much as they want in a given election. But who has more to spend, the American Federation of Teachers, or Microsoft? There’s no contest between unions and corporations.

Is there a silver lining?

One possible silver lining to what the SCOTUS did yesterday is that the already-existing problem of “corporate personhood” will be apparent to more people. I’ve never much liked that precedent. It’s illogical to equate a business with a person. A business is a collection of contracts and bank accounts. It doesn’t have a brain with which to generate opinions, so I don’t think free speech applies to it.

Additionally, before the millions start flowing, the Federal Election Commission will have to come up with updated regulations and enforcement processes. I don’t really know what to expect here, though.

What can be done?

To begin with, I’m throwing my lot in with a group who is pursuing a Constitutional Amendment to clarify that corporations are not people. Frankly, I’m worried for my country that it’s come to that: we have to write down that a business and a person are different things. But in general, once the Supreme Court has spoken, changing the Constitution is the last thing you can try.

Here’s a pretty good video explaining what happened, what it means, and what can be done:

Landmark Supreme Court ruling allows corporate political cash, Reuters, 21 Jan. 2010

Free Speech for People

{ 27 comments }

You’ve seen it before. Perhaps you’re watching the Academy Awards and expecting the winner of Best Supporting Access to give a quick acceptance speech thanking her cast, director, crew, and family, but perhaps she takes more time to pontificate about human rights, war, or politics. Most people I know groan when yet another entertainment superstar shares his opinion about issues unrelated to acting, singing or dancing. But skills in entertainment may not always preclude intelligence or sincerity.

Tom Hanks knew this when he published his stump video for Barack Obama on Youtube. He says sarcastically, “As an official celebrity, I know my endorsement has just made your mind up for you.” (Hanks managed to slip into his endorsement a mention of George Washington’s transference of power to John Adams, an event recently depicted in the John Adams miniseries he recently produced for HBO, but perhaps that is beside the point.)

I like Tom Hanks’ approach. By posting a Youtube video, he is not forcing anyone to listen to his message; those who are interested can seek it out. Additionally, I find Tom Hanks to appear to be an intelligent figure in entertainment, always making smart and challenging choices in his own career. I would then extrapolate and assume that he is likely just as intelligent with other decisions as well. But his argument in favor of any presidential candidate is only as persuasive to me as I want it to be.

This is just a recent example, but there is no doubt that it is common for celebrities to use their voice and popularity to bring awareness to a human rights or political cause. Perhaps the type of popularity in which individuals have the ability to reach an audience of millions instills responsibility or desire to reach people in a way that not many others can. Anyone in their place who cares about an issue would regret not bringing awareness before they no longer have the ears of a wide audience if given the fleeting chance.

I believe that anyone with the ability to communicate to millions of people and touch so many lives has the responsibility to raise awareness to important issues. However, the most uncouth outbursts at an inappropriate time (think Michael Moore at the Oscars blasting President Bush) make the celebrity seem like a jerk for using their status to spread their message and take attention away from *the issue* and place it on *the celebrity.* Don’t forget that celebrities all along the political spectrum use their status for awareness, including Charlton Heston with his From My Cold, Dead Hands call as chairman of the National Rifle Association.

Should celebrities just shut up and entertain us, or does great responsibility follow great popularity? Is it right for some celebrities but not others, or is it the timing or situation that makes the message acceptable to hear? Or do you believe only the celebrities who agree with you should have the opportunity to speak out for issues that they find important?

Photo credits: Alan Light and Legendary Classic

{ 8 comments }