Brian Schmidt

lla Voltz
UWRT-1102-026
December 9, 2015
nding th Common Problm
Povrty in this nation is a univrsal trm. Its grasp rachs mn and womn, young and
old, black and whit. It affcts popl in all stats, all countris, and of all nationalitis.
Why, thn, is such a univrsal trm so commonly misundrstood? How can a concpt
that affcts so many, b supportd by so fw? In th Unitd Stats narly 40 million
popl ar considrd to b living in th condition of povrty. At th sam tim, so many
mor privilgd popl ar growing up in Amrica with th misconcption that povrty is
a disas only to b curd by th individuals affctd by it. Th study of sociology,
howvr, tachs us othrwis. Th poor popl in this country ar not poor by choic.
Most of thm hav bn dprivd of many of th opportunitis that th non-poor hav
rcivd. Thr ar many argumnts about how to gt rid of povrty. It is my opinion
that povrty will nvr b compltly rmovd from any country. Our bst hop is to us
all rsourcs to rduc povrty to a minimum lvl.
In ordr to find solutions to povrty in Amrica, w must first dfin what povrty is, who
ar most affctd, and what factors caus it. Th Amrican Hritag Dictionary dfins
povrty as "th stat of bing poor; lacking th mans of providing matrial nds or
comforts. This basic dfinition, howvr, fails to dfin xactly who in a socity is
considrd to b living in povrty. In th Unitd Stats, povrty is concrtly dfind in

dollar figurs by th Social Scurity Administration. By dtrmining th amount of

mony ndd to surviv on food, and thn multiplying that numbr by thr, th Social
Scurity Administration sts th povrty lin. For xampl, if th SSA dcidd that th
amount of mony ndd to sustain a survivabl dit during a yar was $4,000, thn it
would st th povrty lin at $12,000. Thus, any individuals whos incom was lss
than this amount for a yar would b considrd to b living in povrty. Th povrty lin
is ssntial for dtrmining who rcivs wlfar bnfits in this country. Povrty dos
not sm to b an vnly distributd social problm. In Amrica, African Amricans and
Latinos hav, by far, th largst povrty rat. vn mor discriminatory is th status of
womn among thos living in povrty. Many factors such as poor wags for womn and
th incras of singl-woman parntd familis hav causd an incras in th
prcntag of womn among th poor. Also in a high prcntag ar childrn. Th
ldrly, howvr, fill a much smallr prcntag as thy rciv such bnfits as social
scurity.
Many popl bliv that povrty is causd by a prsonal choic. This, howvr, is a
common misconcption. Rathr than somthing that a prson chooss, it sms as if
povrty is mor of a lifstyl that on is born into. Whn a prson is brought into this
world thy ar givn crtain privilgs basd on thir status in socity. A child that is
born to a middl class whit family with two parnts will most likly liv a fairly privilgd
childhood. Th child will rciv adquat financial support from its parnts. Just as
important, this child will b givn ducational opportunitis which most poor childrn ar
not affordd. On th othr hand, a child who is brought into th world as th third child
of a poor, African Amrican, singl mothr, has th cards all stackd against it.

Statistically, this child will b dprivd of th opportunitis that wr givn to th middl

class child. Th hardships of living in a cntralizd urban ara with a low-incom
support systm do nothing but handicap th child. Although this child will still b abl to
attnd public schools, h is still mor likly to b unsuccssful in th ducational
situation du to many of th hardships of th child's lif. Thr is a much smallr chanc
that this child will b abl to continu its ducation byond high school and into collg,
thus nabling him to arn mor mony in th futur. As you can s, povrty is a
continuous cycl that is hard to scap. Povrty strtchs from gnration to
gnration. Bcaus of this fact, it bcoms incrasingly ncssary for Amrican
socity to dvlop solutions to this povrty problm.
Thr ar, in fact, innumrabl factors that lad to th ris and fall of povrty in this
country. In Mdia Imags of th Poor, Charles Murray argus that th poor ar oftn
tims invisibl in our socity. He blivs that a social problm of th magnitud of
povrty must b discussd publicly on an rgular basis. His focus is on th status of
povrty in th mdia. In hr study, he found that btwn 1981 and 1986 an avrag of
32 storis pr yar wr focusd on povrty. For such a wid scal problm in our
socity, this is not ampl covrag. Murray contsts that mor mdia covrag of
povrty in our socity would lad to a bttr undrstanding of th problm by th
gnral public. Thus, a highr lvl of support for fdral wlfar programs could aris
(Murray, 232-233). I hav oftn tims found this to b tru. Whn watching nwscasts
and programs such as Datlin, w rarly s storis discusss largr national issus
lik povrty. Nws on tlvision sms mor focusd on crim, scandals, and sports.
Prhaps, as Murray stats, an incras in mdia covrag of povrty and social wlfar

could aid in th procss.

Prhaps th singl most important factor in th dcras of povrty in our country is th
social wlfar programs. Although it is impossibl to liminat povrty from our socity,
social wlfar programs, if implmntd proprly, could vastly rduc th lvl of
povrty. Currntly, a larg amount of thos undr th povrty lin ar unmployd
prsons and thos prsons who rciv too littl compnsation for thir work. On way
to liminat ths numbrs would b to incras th minimum wag. Far too many
popl in this country ar trying to support childrn on minimum wag. Unfortunatly,
that cannot b succssfully don. In Rights and Wrongs of Wlfar Rform: A Fminist
Approach, Jeffery Sachs stats that many popl trying to gt out of wlfar and ntr
th workforc and stoppd du to "svr problms including low wags, inadquat
child car, and a lack of halth car bnfits (Sachs, 135). Pirc maks a valid
argumnt. Until th privat sctor is abl to provid ampl compnsation and bnfits,
singl parnts will not want to lav th wlfar program. Lack of sufficint day car
also prvnts ths popl from going to work. This situation is in nd of rform. In
fact, wlfar rform lgislation is ndd nation wid to hlp solv th problm of
povrty. vidnc that such rform would hlp can b sn in Bertha Davis study
Wlfar Rform Sanctions and Financial Strain in a Food-Pantry Sampl. Hr study
mntions instancs such as that in Broom County, Nw York, whr wlfar rform
lgislation ld to a 20-25% incras in th numbr of county wlfar rcipints that ar
mployd ovr ach of th nxt fw yars (Davis, 105). This shows that rform of th
social wlfar programs dos indd hlp in th rduction of th povrty lvl.
According to th U.S. Cnsus Burau, th prcnt of Amricans undr th povrty lvl

has stadily droppd from 15.1 prcnt in 1993 to 11.8 prcnt in 1999 (Borjas 1999).
Th attntion paid to th problms of povrty in our socity and rform of th social
wlfar lgislation in many stats ld to this dcras. Continud attntion to ths
issus should only rduc th povrty lvl furthr. Unfortunatly, I bliv that th
govrnmnt is bginning to los public intrst in such programs as thy ar not
discussd as much latly in politics. Whn sarching for information on wlfar rform
and povrty on th intrnt, I ncountrd svral pags which had rcntly bn
rmovd from th srvrs. In my opinion, this shows that social wlfar and povrty ar
not currntly nar th top of lgislators prioritis. Ignoring th problm could lad to a
ris in th lvl onc again.
Unfortunatly, not all popl bliv this way. Many popl say that poor popl ar
poor bcaus thy don't try to work. Thy bliv that many of th poor just tak
advantag of th wlfar systm and look at it as fr mony. On ignorant viw of
som bttr off popl is that I had to work hard for my mony, thy should hav to as
wll. Som popl bliv that social wlfar should b liminatd all togthr. Ths
blifs ar known as blaming th victim. Many of ths popl don't think about th
disadvantags that popl living in povrty hav, particularly with ducational
opportunitis.
It is my blif that th bst way to rduc th lvl of povrty in this nation is to incras
th political support for social wlfar. Many popl blow th povrty lvl just nd a
bit of financial hlp to gt thm startd in th right dirction. In my opinion, wlfar
mony can assist thm with this. Propr wlfar laws that rquir rcipints to sk

mploymnt within a crtain tim priod sm to b most ffctiv in th rduction of

poor popl in this country

Work Cited
Anelauskas, Valdas. Discovering America As It Is. Georgia: Clarity Press, 1999.
Borjas, George J. The Top Ten Symptoms of Immigration. November 1999.
http://www.cis.org/topics/illegalimmigration.html
Davis, Bertha. Poverty in America. What we do About It. New York: An Impact Book,
1991.
Farmbry, Kyle. The War on Poverty: A Retrospective. Lanham: Lexington, 2014. Print.
Isabel V. Sawhill, "Poverty in the United States." The Concise Encyclopedia of
Economics. 1993. Library of Economics and Liberty. 21 October 2015.
Kenyon Thomas L., and Justine Blau. What You Can Do To Help The Homeless. New
York, NY: Simon
& Schuster, 1991
Krikorian, Mark. Controlling Illegal Immigrant: There Are Ways, But Little Will. Investors
Business
Lane, Mark. Social Welfare: Fighting Poverty and Homelessness. 2013 ed. Detroit: Gale
Cengage Learning, 2014. Print. Daily 21 Mar. 2001
http://www.cis.org/topics/illegalimmigration.html
McCauslin, Mark. Update: Homeless. Crestwood House, NY: Crestwood House, 1994.
McMillian, Tracie. "The New Face of Hunger." National Geographic. N.p., n.d. Web. 21
Oct. 2015. <http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/hunger/>.
Murray, Charles. Income Inequality and IQ. Washington, D.C: AEI Press, 1998
Rossi, Peter H. Down And Out in America. Chicago and London: The University of
Chicago Press, 1989.
Seymour-Jones, Carol. Past and Present Homelessness. New York, NY: Heinemann
Educational Books, 1993.
Sachs, Jeffrey. The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. New York:
Penguin, 2005. Print.
Tropman, John E. Does America Hate The Poor? The Other American Dilemma.
Connecticut: Praeger, 1998.