Mired in the
Poverty Maze
Poverty is an issue that affects
every single person in the United States.
Some experience the stranglehold of poverty firsthand. Others experience it secondhand—perhaps they
know a single mom on welfare or pass by a homeless person every day on their
way to work. All of us help wage the war
on poverty, willingly or not, through taxes deducted from our paychecks. Murray Weidenbaum speaks to the issue of
poverty in his article, “Lack of Commitment Perpetuates the Underclass,” promoting
the theory that people can avoid poverty and even climb out of it through
individual choices. In addition, he
believes the government “can and should” play a role, but that individuals hold
the key to success through their own actions (224).
Weidenbaum
begins his article with the oft-debated question of whether or not the
disparity between rich and poor in the United States is increasing. He quickly lays that question aside as
missing the point. Many people are poor,
he says, so questions should be directed to alleviating poverty instead of
simply analyzing it. He proposes two
questions that he answers in his article:
“How do people fall into poverty?
How can they be helped to move out of poverty?” (222)
Weidenbaum
assures his readers that “it is inaccurate for Americans to castigate
themselves as a heartless society” because, in fact, the government spends huge
amounts of money to fight poverty (222).
The problem, however, is that “the large outlays have not produced the
promised results” (222). The larger
issues that need to be addressed, according to Weidenbaum, are the “personal and social problems” of the poor (222). He proposes that family dysfunction such as
single-parent families, lack of education, and unemployment perpetuate the cycle
of poverty (223).
So how can
the cycle be broken? Weidenbaum
continually emphasizes the responsibility of the individual although he
concedes that society can help. He
offers a simple, three-part solution for those who are poor: finish high school, stay married, and keep
working (223). He seems, though, to
focus on being married as the key, clearly implying that single mothers are the
most likely to be poor. He also claims
that if “a woman on welfare takes on a full-time job, the odds are overwhelming
that she is lifting herself out of poverty” (224).
Weidenbaum
concludes by pointing out actions the government can take to combat
poverty: work toward a strong economy
with a plentiful supply of jobs, improve education, and supply funds “to
alleviate distress” (224). However, he
also emphasizes again that personal responsibility is the key factor “required
to escape the poverty trap” (224).
On some
counts I agree with Weidenbaum.
Certainly, unemployment, lack of education, and single-parent households
help create and perpetuate the cycle of poverty. Moreover, I find his emphasis upon personal
responsibility refreshing. However, I
also believe he is viewing the problem of poverty simplistically and
unrealistically.
Weidenbaum
conveniently pigeonholes all the poor into his simple stereotype: uneducated, unemployed, and unmarried. While I do not doubt that these are
significant factors, neither do I believe they are the sole factors behind
poverty. I know this too well, because I
spent nearly a decade of my adult life mired in the quicksand of poverty. Yet I was married and had a college
education. My husband worked full-time
at minimum wage jobs and I stayed home, except for several part-time stints,
with the children. Some would say I
should have worked. But my college
education, as enriching as it was, did not qualify me for any decent-paying
job. It didn’t take too much calculating
to realize that I would take home next to nothing once daycare and
transportation costs were taken from minimum wage earnings. Perhaps a stereotype of the poor is a
helpful generalization, but it is also too simplistic. Weidenbaum completely ignores other causes of
poverty: unavoidable lay-offs,
catastrophic medical emergencies, disability, minimum wage employment, or—as in
my case—poor academic planning.
Besides
being simplistic, Weidenbaum is also unrealistic. His claim that a woman going from welfare to
full-time work will lift herself out of poverty is absurd. Just what kind of job can a welfare mom
expect to find? Probably minimum
wage. If she must pay daycare, she will
be lucky to be able to pay her rent, utilities, and any other bills, let alone
purchase groceries. Besides, unless
health insurance is offered as a benefit, she will be unable to afford it. Some states have programs for qualifying
children, but she will have to forego insuring herself.
While I
agree that personal responsibility plays a huge role in breaking the poverty
cycle, I also believe that poverty can be an inescapable maze. Favorable circumstances must present
themselves so the individual can exercise personal responsibility. Not everyone is as fortunate as I was. Simply taking a low-paying job to supplement
my husband’s low income would not have helped due to daycare costs, and I was
not qualified for higher-paying jobs despite my college education. The situation seemed hopeless until, on a
whim, I decided to look into graduate school.
I found that in two years I could earn my master’s degree while working
as a graduate assistant teaching freshman-level courses. For that, my tuition would be waived, and I
would receive a small monthly stipend—just enough to cover daycare,
transportation, and miscellaneous expenses associated with school and
work. We could continue to scrimp by on
my husband’s income while I worked toward increasing my earning power.
For me there
was a happy ending, a way out of the poverty maze. Despite Weidenbaum’s naively optimistic
outlook, there are many U.S. citizens who continue to scramble through the maze,
looking for a way out but never finding it.
I am one of the lucky ones.
Work Cited
Weidenbaum,
Murray. “Lack of Commitment Perpetuates
the Underclass.”
Poverty: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Katie de Koster. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1994. 221-224.
No comments:
Post a Comment