Many federal agencies involved in economic development provide special programs for areas of great need. These programs are often implemented on the basis of statistical measures of economic hardship. The underlying rationale for such targeting usually is strongly related to the measure of what is commonly referred to as “economic distress.” The use of terms such as distress is meant to signify the starkly different experiences of communites based on high unemployment, low income, high poverty, unstable economies, population outmigation or othe socioeconomic problems. Despite the unanimity of concern, no universally accepted measure of distress has emerged. A new paper published by the Southern Rural Development Center explores the use of different measures of economic health and distress primarily in relationship to rural aras. The discussion examines three different measures and offers advice about the value of each for economic development and social policy research.
In an article in the Sunday, February 19th edition of The Guardian, author Paul Harris described an America few of us thought still existed, and yet according to his research it most certainly does. Speaking of a hollow in Appalachia he writes:
“The flickering television in Candy Lumpkins’s trailer blared out “The Bold and the Beautiful.” It was a fantasy daytime soap vision of American life with little relevance to the reality of this impoverished corner of Kentucky.”
“The Lumpkins live at the definition of the back of beyond, in a hollow at the top of a valley at the end of a long and muddy dirt road. It is strewn with litter. Packs of stray dogs prowl around, barking at strangers. There is no telephone and since their pump broke two weeks ago Candy has collected water from nearby springs. Oblivious to it all, her five-year-old daughter Amy runs barefoot on a wooden porch frozen by a midwinter chill.”
“It is a vision of deep and abiding poverty. Yet the Lumpkins are not alone in their plight. They are just the negative side of the American equation. America does have vast, wealthy suburbs, huge shopping malls and a busy middle class, but it also has vast numbers of poor, struggling to make it in a low-wage economy with minimal government help.”
Harris doesn’t end his story in the hollows of Appalachia, but instead recounts the experience of being poor in many of America’s communities from the rural reaches of the south to major metropolitan areas of the Midwest.
It is embarrassing to have the nation’s dirty little secret aired in public and in the international press. Unlike in the US, in 1997 the UK government confronted directly problems of economic opportunity, social exclusion and poverty through a series of people- and place-specific programs. Following up on the original program announcement, in 1999 the British government set the goal of eliminating child poverty in 20 years. While these efforts aren’t perfect, nonetheless, the British government has identified demonstrable goals and is spending the required resources in an attempt to achieve them.
Today in America it is hard to imagine hearing calls for the complete elimination of child poverty, for we are a nation in denial. Almost 13% of all Americans live in poverty. For children the rate is much higher (16%). The lack of concern about people who fail to make sufficient income to live above the poverty line (which is $19,157 for a family of four) is because in many ways poverty in America is all but invisible. The story of the family in the Appalachian hollow is the exception rather than the rule. Poor people do not want to stand out from the general population. Instead, they make every effort to be like the rest of us by working full-time and attempting to provide for themselves and their families.
What then explains the disconnection between the deserving (invisible) and the so-called “undeserving (visible) poor?” Our view of who the poor are is colored by the sentiment cultivated since the 1980s that people who are poor make little effort to help themselves and that their circumstances are largely self-selected. This belief is reinforced by the way we define poverty based on income. It is easy to abstract from the poverty income level for a family of four ($19,000), and assume that this is a sufficient level of resources to live modestly in America today. This sense of “sufficient” is reinforced by arguments that current government programs actually lift many families above the poverty line. A recent study by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, reported in the New York Times, concludes “that when noncash benefits like food stamps and housing subsidies were considered, as well as tax credits given to low-income workers, the share of Americans living under the poverty line last year was 8.3 percent.”
To suggest that poverty is actually not as significant a problem in the U.S. as it really is, may make people feel better, but it ignores the facts. Of the more than 3,100 counties in the U.S., in only a handful can a family of four cover basic costs on $19,000 year. A more accurate estimate of the cost of living in the nation today is around $36,000. Even in Tunica Mississippi, considered one of if not the poorest place in America, a living wage for a family of four is at least $27,000. Thus, while we may find comfort in believing that we are providing all Americans with an equal opportunity to achieve a decent quality of life, in fact we are deluding ourselves about current reality, plain and simple.
Hurricane Katrina’s devastation (re)exposed all Americans to the face of poverty today in our own country. And yet, even with the image of people suffering on the Gulf Coast still fresh in the minds of the public, meaningful discussion or legislation has yet to emerge about what it will take to bring about equal opportunity for all of the nation’s citizens. John Edwards, former vice presidential candidate, may be the only politician today placing front and center the need to revitalize the meaning of “equal opportunity.” Unfortunately, his message is the exception rather than the rule in Washington today. It is too bad that America’s politicians do not have the courage to make bold statements like those of Tony Blair. We certainly could use them now.
Between the early 1980s and 2001-2003, income inequality increased across the majority of states in the country. While the richest families saw their incomes decline during the stock market busts of 1997 and 2000, by 2001-2003 the growth of income of the wealthiest families had largely recovered.
At the other end of the income distribution, according to the Economic Policy Institute and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the income of the bottom 20 percent of families grew more slowly than the growth of income of the top 20 percent of families. The report provides an important state by state perspective on the continuing trend of increasing income inquality in America.
