OSU HOME | EXTENSION HOME | ONLINE CATALOG | ORDERING INFORMATION

Extension Service

Other articles in Part 2 The best and worst of times Poverty research Education plays key role in poverty Minimum wage fails to keep up Do the poor pay taxes? Graph: Full- time minimum wage falls below poverty line Related links Unintended Consequences: How Government Policies Hurt Oregon's Poor

Why are some people unable to earn a living? story by Tom Gentle How do you explain why some people are unable to earn enough money to live at a reasonably decent level? Social scientists, social workers and others have offered a number of explanations. Bradley Schiller, an economist at American University, groups them into three types: Explanations that focus on the personal values, attitudes and behavior of the poor. Explanations that point to larger societal or institutional causes that restrict opportunities. Explanations that blame government and the welfare system itself. Blaming the individual According to this point of view, the causes of poverty are found in the shortcomings of the poor themselves. Perhaps the most common explanation of poverty focuses on what has been called the "flawed character" view of poverty. Causes of poverty attributed to the flawed character of the poor range from loose morals, drunkenness and drug addiction to physical or mental illness, laziness and lack of intelligence. Another explanation points to a culture of poverty among the poor that passes from one generation to the next. Raised in isolation from the mainstream culture, the poor fail to develop the values associated with work-discipline, responsibility, resourcefulness. Another explanation involves what social scientists call "human capital." Human capital is the investment we make in ourselves. Music lessons for the youngster who grows up to be a rock star. A college education. The burger flipping job that leads to a career as a chef. According to the human capital explanation, poverty persists because the poor lack the appropriate education or work experience-the human capital-to get jobs that pay a living wage and are either unable or unwilling to make the necessary self-improvement. The strong value American culture places on individualism and self-reliance give these explanations wide appeal. Not surprisingly, public opinion polls consistently show a majority of Americans believe the poor bear most of the responsibility for their impoverishment. Critics of these explanations point out that many of the poor simply don't fit the description. For example, a large percentage of the poor in Oregon are single- and two-parent working families, many of them with full-time jobs. Moreover, statistics show that poverty tends to be a temporary condition with nearly 60 percent of the poor moving out of poverty within a year. Blaming the economic and social systems Explanations that point to societal or institutional causes of poverty portray the poor as victims of economic or social forces beyond their control. Economic explanations describe the poor as casualties of capitalism and the free market system. Proponents of this explanation point to the widening gap between the haves and have-nots, the increasing numbers of the poor in spite of low unemployment, and the failure of the economy to provide jobs that pay a living wage. Social critics contend that significantly higher poverty rates among blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics and Asians compared to whites are explained by continuing racial and ethnic discrimination in education and the workplace. More tolerant social attitudes about marriage and unwed motherhood, according to this point of view, explain the high numbers of single women and children in the ranks of the poor. One out of two marriages now ends in divorce. Births to unmarried mothers jumped from 16 percent in 1980 to 31 percent in the early 1990s. Both trends, divorce and unmarried motherhood, shift many children into families headed by women and increase the possibility of poverty because female-headed families tend to have lower incomes. And once people become poor, they are less likely to escape poverty because the system of financial benefits and rewards works against them, according to this point of view. Because they earn less money, the poor have less disposable income to invest in their own education and assets-a car, a personal computer-that might increase their chances of future financial success. Moreover, poor people tend to live in poorer communities with generally lower quality schools that contribute to lower educational success. As persuasive as these explanations may be, critics say they release the poor from any responsibility for their poverty and create a victim mentality that provides an excuse for the poor to expect others to help them rather than helping themselves. Blaming government and the welfare system According to this perspective, government intervention, no matter how well intended, has produced a record of failure. More than 30 years of poverty programs and trillions of dollars have destroyed work incentives and caused the poor to become dependent on government handouts. As a result, the population of the poor has risen rather than gone down. In addition, welfare rules that provide more benefits to mothers whose husbands have abandoned them actually encourage low income men to leave their families. Thus, the rise in families headed by females is one consequence of misguided welfare rules. Tax policies also hurt the working poor, according to a paper published by the Cascade Policy Institute, a free market think tank in Portland. In "Unintended Consequences: How Government Policies Hurt Oregon's Poor," author Martin Buchanan points to payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare, workers compensation and others) and indirect taxes (property taxes passed on in rent) as "the greatest burden on the working poor." While all the debate is focused on the personal income tax, writes Buchanan, scant attention is paid to these other taxes. He recommends they be included in the debate and proposes that Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance be converted into savings accounts owned by individual employees. Furthermore, government-imposed wage and benefit requirements, safety regulations and hiring practices have raised the cost of labor. As a result, businesses resort to technology and mechanization as a substitute for employees, and use temporary and part-time workers who do not receive employee benefits. Critics of this perspective say the economy is to blame for the rise in poverty and that government programs have kept it from rising even higher. Each of these broad explanations "attracts people who hold different ideologies, political values, and economic interests," writes Gene Summers, a rural sociologist at the University of Wisconsin. Because poverty has many causes, each explanation contributes to our understanding of the issue. But none of them sufficiently explains the complexity of poverty.   Article 2 of 7 in Part 2   back to top

Produced and distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914. Extension work is a cooperative program of Oregon State University, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Oregon counties. Oregon State University Extension Service offers educational programs, activities, and materials without discrimination based on age, color, disability, gender identity or expression, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or veteran's status. Oregon State University Extension Service is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Copyright © 1995- Oregon State University. Disclaimer.