Bell, Carolyn Shaw. (1995). What Is Poverty?

¶ … Bell, Carolyn Shaw. (1995). What is Poverty? The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 54(2) 161-173.

Shaw takes the position that the very definition of "poverty level" -- defined in 1965 by Mollie Orshanksy, an economist with the Social Security department -- was originally used "as the percentage of income necessary to buy a nutritious diet" (Bell, 1995, p. 1). Bell goes on later in the article to refer to Orshanksy as "a brilliant economist" whose work set the stage for the government's system of determining the poverty level There were two alternative methods of measuring the poverty level following Orshanksy's attempt -- one was very flexible and variable, asking people to give what they think was the poverty income level juxtaposed with "official statistics" and the second was comparing poverty levels to "current median income" (Bell, p. 1).

Why have a poverty level category in the U.S. Department of Labor? There are many good reasons why a poverty level is important to compute and to attach to individuals' lives. To mention a few: a) in order to be eligible for public housing, a person's poverty level must be known; b) to qualify for low cost health insurance, one has to prove his or her earnings are on or below the poverty level; and c) applying for a loan to attend college requires statistical data showing the person is earning below the poverty level (Bell, p. 1)

There are guidelines for food stamps and Medicaid as well, and if a person is only earning minimum wage, no doubt that person is "below the poverty line," Bell writes. The article keeps coming back to Orshanksy and her innovative approach, which is noteworthy to Bell because at the time Orshanksy devised the food-diet-related approach to the poverty level, there were no other approaches to the poverty level.

Orshanksy simply knew that most families spent about one-third of their earnings on food to put on the table. It was simple, she figured, the poverty level should be about "three times the dollar amount needed to buy a nutritious but low-cost diet" (Bell, p. 1). The reasoning today seems completely out of whack, because what people spend on food -- nutritious or not -- is largely dependent on whether they shop at big box supermarkets, corner groceries, or farmer's markets.

In fact Bell notes that today people don't spend a third of their earnings on food; it's more like 15%, which is one reason why the formula for calculating the poverty level has long since been upgraded (This article was published sixteen years ago). Bell explains, "Orshanksy herself deplored the continued use of her method years after it was invented," Bell explains on page 2.

So what is the determination for the poverty level? Bell's first answer is vague and not helpful at all. Her second definition is a bit more on the mark: poverty is defined in direct relation to "the current median income, which is higher than what half the population receives and lower than what half the population receives" (Bell, p. 2). So in 1992 by defining poverty as half of the median American income would put it at $13,000 for an "elderly couple" since the median for that category is $26,000, Bell continues. Does that make sense?

Looking quickly at other definitions doesn't provide a lot of brainy input; the "wise geek" says "…the poverty line rises or falls every year according to the Consumer Price Index, and other factors" (Wise Geek). The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) claims the "federal poverty measure" is "updated each year by the Census Bureau… although they were originally developed by Mollie Orshanksy of the Social Security Administration" (HHS). Well thankfully Mollie Orshanksy has not been forgotten for her trailblazing work figuring out how to arrive at a fair formula for those under the poverty level who wish to apply for health insurance, college loans, and other benefits.

Manis, Jerome G. (1974). Assessing the Seriousness of Social Problems. Social Problems,

22(1), 1-15.

The author of this 1974 article sets the rules of assessment firmly at the outset. The "Magnitude" of social problems refers to the frequency or extent of those problems, he says; "primacy" alludes to the "casual impact or multiplicity of influences" of social problems; and "scientific criteria" are the "less erratic" and "less ethnocentric" way to determine the seriousness of social problems. In other words, Manis wants the description of a social problem to be objective and fair, and using science is the best way, he infers.

Manis is also -- or "was" in 1974 -- out in this article to show which social problems are the most significant -- and which social problems can be linked to "anomalies" -- that is, some researchers and scholars use definitions of social problems that amount to "anomalies" (false descriptions) that lead to misunderstandings. Manis wants the theories of social problems to match the reality of those social problems, plain and simple.

On page two Manis goes through a litany of descriptions of social problems, and lets readers know that a key shortcoming in terms of the public understanding of social problems is "the inclusion of possibly spurious or 'phantom conditions'" (p. 2). By "spurious" the author is suggesting that some people view smoking marijuana as a "social problem" and some people view long hair on a young male as a "social problem" -- as long as "the public is in opposition" to those problems. He goes on to suggest that counting on the public to correctly define and identify a social problem is a mistake because there are "distortions" and "absurdities" associated with public opinion (p. 3).

Also on page 3, Manis is arriving at the salient point of his essay: since sociologists have continued to rely on "popular values" as the main criteria of social problems, there is a need for responsible scholars to use a more scientific approach to identifying social problems. His "four perspectives" are offered in the sense of clearing up those spurious anomalies; the four perspectives should prove useful in determining real social problems, which he defines as "…those social conditions, identified by scientific inquiry and values as detrimental to the well-being of human societies" (p. 3). The four that should be taken under consideration when determining real social problems are: a) public conceptions; b) the viewpoint of proven professionals; c) "sociological knowledge"; and d) the "norms and values of science" (p. 3).

Manis insists on the use of science (on page 6 he uses "scientific sociology") when determining social problems because using "personal values" as a litmus test for whether or not a certain issue (like using marijuana) is truly a social problem is inserting "values" where science and objective knowledge should rule (p. 6). Manis goes to great narrative lengths to restate his point over and over, which is not unusual when a sociologist tackles a pertinent issue. The redundancy of his essay makes it tedious, but the alert reader can find nuggets within the gray presentation that stand out and are wholly useful.

For example, there are "primary social problems" (those that have "multiple detrimental consequences for society") and there are also "secondary social problems" (those that are harmful and that result from "more influential social problems" and that tend to generate "additional problems" (Manis, p. 9). The third level vis-a-vis Manis' social problem description he calls "tertiary social problems" (also "harmful conditions" that result from primary and secondary social problems. He offers useful examples that are the most pragmatic, worthwhile portions of his essay. For example, the primary social problem is "racism" and in this instance the secondary problems include "slums," "malnutrition," and "desertion"; spinning off from the secondary social problem of slums is "delinquency" and "addiction"; spinning off from "desertion" is "dependency"; and the tertiary social problems that resulted from "malnutrition" are "illness, mental retardation and apathy" (Manis, p. 10). Sociologists and psychologists in 2011 might not agree with everything in this 1974-produced essay, but it is a fascinating starting point for defining social problems today.

Edelman, Murray. (1988). Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

While Manis was discussing the definition of social problems -- and how to approach an understanding of social problems -- Murray delves more into the "construction of conditions" that lead to social problems and lead to the continuing control and power of the media and the government over the personal lives of citizens (Murray, 1988, p. 13). Murray tries to "bring into the open" some of the language and actions that relate to social problems and are often viewed with silence. He makes good points on page 13, asserting that many injustices are not seen as "problems" until years later (to those who are biased against minorities, for example, their bigotry is not a problem but the people who advocate "equal rights legislation" are the problem).

Murray has an interesting way of approach a particular subject in his book. His style is to present contrasts in stark detail, which is effective in making his points. Murray claims that because citizens have "contradictions in their daily lives" it is easier for them to "mask the ineffectiveness of solutions and the benefits some groups derive from the failure" (p. 15). Among those contradictions he brings to light: on the one hand, there (was in 1988) a booming economy that produces a "lavish" amount of consumer goods and provides "impressive opportunities for "cultural gratification" and fun recreational activities; on the other hand, there is "a growing anxiety about war and the survival of the species," a "chronically high level of poverty and unemployment" that hits minorities, young people and women especially hard (p. 15). So, what is his point here? He is saying that politicians benefit from the "contradictions" and ambivalence in the lives of the people because "contradictions in experience encourage contradictions in political action" (p. 15). In other words, politicians benefit from the confusion and conflicted values of the electorate.

Moreover, Murray posits that when there are specific reasons given for the root of a particular social problem, one side will likely agree with the government's assessment of that social problem and the other side will disagree. Hence, "polarization" occurs and the politicians remain aloof from the quarrel. To wit, any "affirmation of an origin for a problem is also an implicit rejection of alternative origins" (Murray, p. 18).

Looking at the United States today in political terms, Murray is absolutely right on the button about the how and why of polarization. Everything that happens at the national level is immediately broken down by ideology and affiliation with political positions and political parties. When President Barack Obama announced that the world's most notorious terrorist, bin Laden, had been killed, within a day or so the conservatives were lauding President George W. Bush for his acknowledged use of torture ("waterboarding"). If Bush hadn't waterboarded certain terrorists that were being held in secret prisons around the world, the right wing asserted, Obama would never have captured bin Laden. Political gadfly Sarah Palin gave loud and prominent praise to President Bush -- along with praise for the Navy SEALS -- and never mentioned Obama's administration, which had actually used clues from the past and forged a policy through high-tech surveillance and intelligence gathering and indeed had found and killed bin Laden within two years of Obama's administration, something Bush hadn't accomplished in 8 years of his administration. The nitpicking, backstabbing, and smears that have been launched at Obama are all just part of the polarization that plagues this country, and is decidedly pointed out by Murray.

On page 35 Murray points out that the "news" shown to citizens on television or in newspapers has little if anything to do with the experiences that make like "joyful, poignant, boring, or worrisome." The "news" rarely has anything to do with workplace issues, family, friends and other matters. The news about "public affairs" is constructed in a way that teaches citizens that 'influence should be exerted in the public realm" albeit the reality shown in news reports (economic issues, military issues, psychological needs and impulses) is designed to "teach people how impotent they are" against the above-mentioned developments (Murray, p. 35). The process encourages ordinary citizens to "accept the inequalities of their experiences," the author asserts (p. 35). This is a far more direct and impactful reading regarding social problems and how the public sees and identifies them than Manis has offered.

Kozol, Jonathan. (1988). Rachel and Her Children: Homeless Families in America. New York:

Crown Publishers.

Kozol's book delves heavily into the pathos of homelessness and the unfairness of stereotypes. The injustice of life for a single mother named Kim, who was forced out of her apartment when the heating system failed in the middle of New York winter -- and the blundering of government hurt her chances to keep her job and her home -- makes a good story for an author to use as a jumping off point in a new chapter on "Stereotypes" (Kozol, 1988, pp. 93-95). Part of the point of this chapter in Kozol's book is to portray the hideous dangers lurking in homeless shelters in New York in the late 1980s. On page 94 Kim describes the Brooklyn Arms as a shelter (hotel) with "no heat and no hot water"; and people are "afraid to go outside" because of the violence and drug-related carnage on the streets. But wait, it gets worse: that facility is "so dangerous" that "welfare workers won't come to your room" and the guards paid to protect residents of the Brooklyn Arms "sell drugs" (Kozol, p. 94). The media does not describe the pathetic realities of the Brooklyn Arms until a fire "incinerates four children," Kozol explains on page 94.

Worse conditions than the Brooklyn Arms can be found at The Allerton, Kim goes on, because residents have to "beg for toilet paper in the lobby." And other homeless hotel / shelters fail to pay back taxes and are owned by criminals, the author continues on page 95. Not paying back taxes in most cases gets the landlord in trouble, and the city has the right to seize that property. But in the case of the Holland, the Bayview, and the Allerton, city officials won't budge towards shutting them down "…But they'll put a woman on the street because she owes $200 to her landlord" (Kozol, p. 95).

Adding to the pain for residents stuck in these awful conditions were the statements by the New York City Council (and the mayor) that when homelessness is made "too comfortable" those who have lost their homes or were on the street "will want to remain homeless" (Kozol, p. 96). Though such statements defy common sense and logic, they are politically motivated but this is where the mean stereotypes enter into the picture. By suggesting that homeless individuals won't try to better themselves if they are given decent, clean, save housing, the city was saying that the poor and homeless are lazy.

Another point of Kozol's chapter is that many of the unfortunate souls in these dreary hotel homeless shelters believe they are to blame, that it is "Some kind of punishment from God," Kim explains. The horrors of living in homeless hotel housing in New York City in the 1980s are endless, according to Kozol's book. One after another, the stories detail the misery that residents of these slummy, disgusting facilities. It becomes a grimly surreal reading after awhile, and Kozol has done such a good job with his descriptive narrative and quotes from homeless people in New York City, one wonders how much better it is today than it was in 1988, twenty-three years ago.

A quick look at the New York City's Department of Homeless Services (DHS) Web site (dated May, 2011) reveals that on May 11 the city dedicated a new "intake" facility with "213% more space than the original intake site" and it houses "more than 200 specialists from the DHS, Human Resources Services and other agencies dealing with children and human health in New York City. Mayor Bloomberg admits that his city has been lacking in the delivery of compassionate care for homeless people: "When I first saw the emergency Assistance Union in 2003, I was appalled, and I said we would make changes" (www.nyc.gov).

Hence, the headline for the press release (dated May 11, 2011): "City Keeps Promise and Creates a New State-of-the-Art Facility to Replace the Dilapidated and Inefficient Emergency Assistance Unit." That having been said, another DHS report reflects the recent survey by 2,800 volunteers that "fanned out" in January, 2011, and counted 2,648 homeless persons living in "unsheltered" conditions (read that, living on the streets of New York City). One also wonders if the deplorable conditions of squalor that Kozol depicted in 1988 remained sickeningly unhealthy until just recently. Meantime, on page 133, Kozol quotes then New York City Council President Andrew Stein, "…homeless is not an act of God. It is an act of man."

Kaufman, Leslie. (2007). Bloomberg Seeks New Way to Decide Who Is Poor. The New York

Times. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from http://www.nytimes.com.

Still on the subject of New York City, the poor, the homeless, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, an article in The New York Times (Kaufman, 2007) points to Bloomberg's decision to "better assess whether tens of millions of dollars" that his city planned at that time to spend on "anti-poverty programs." Bloomberg correctly wanted to be certain that those millions would actually improve the standard of living for those unfortunate folks living on the streets and in abject poverty in other environments.

Those bureaucrats and politicians that are smart and experienced always hope to know the potential outcomes of huge expenditures of taxpayers' funds, lest they are later criticized (and even lose elections) because the spending turned out to be wrong-headed. In the case of Bloomberg in this article, he was apparently not convinced that the "42-year-old federal poverty standard, which is pegged to the annual cost of buying basic groceries," was still germane to the discussion of poverty in America. This harkens back to the first review in this paper, in which Mollie Orshanksy defined the formula for determining the federal poverty level in 1965 by determining how much families spend on food to put on the table.

Meantime, what Bloomberg wanted to do was to take into account not just the money families spend on food, but also what they spend on "necessities including rent, utilities and child care," Kaufman explains (p. 1). What this move by the mayor indicated is that Bloomberg is not shy about trying new angles to solve old social problems. If, when the city uses its new formula (as Kaufman calls it, "a new calculus"), did it determine that there are many more poor people in New York than previously believed? The answer is yes.

And Bloomberg held a press conference in December 2007, to announce that "31 [antipoverty] programs were up and running, and that a dozen more would be started in the next months" (Kaufman, p. 2). Adding to the impression that Bloomberg is a polished and effective politician was his insistence that the poverty level be re-calculated using research from the National Academy of Sciences -- "Dozens of respected poverty researchers in the nation" were asked to contribute to the creation of a new formula for what constitutes a family's dip into poverty level earnings. Having promised during the campaign for his second term (Bloomberg is now in his third term as New York City Mayor) that he would address poverty in his city, clearly Bloomberg is a wizened professional who knows how to curry favor and votes from constituents.

In New York City in 2007, there were 600,000 families living in public housing or receiving "substantial rental assistance," Kaufman explains on page 2. Moreover, New York City provides "Other aid that would be counted toward income" including food stamps, "subsidized child care" along with "cash that is returned to families through the earned income tax credit" and other credits. Families can receive "thousands of dollars a year" in New York City from these tax credits. So the impression a reader draws from Kaufman's article is that even though today there are an estimated 2,648 individuals living on the streets, New York City is willing to step up and search in earnest for solutions to the problems of poverty and homelessness. It would be inspiring to those who truly care about the needy and less fortunate folks in America if more cities would take bold steps to find solutions for these social problems.

Michaels, Walter Benn. (2006). The Trouble With Diversity. Prospect. Retrieved May 12, 2011,

From http://prospect.org/cs/articles?articleld=11864#.

By referencing F. Scott Fitzgerald's epic novel The Great Gatsby -- and introducing Fitzgerald's famous remark ("The rich are different…") and Ernest Hemingway's response ("Yes, they have more money") into his opening narrative -- Michaels grabs the attention of the reader immediately. The discussion as to why rich people are different than others is just a tease for the bigger issues Michaels wants to present -- diversity and racial issues. The author on page 2 brings to attention the fact that when certain universities attempt to enroll more minorities, it becomes not a matter of affirmative action, nor is it a matter that the "preference in admissions could be given, say, to black people because they had previously been discriminated against," Michaels writes. In fact those universities had (and have) a "legitimate interest in having a diverse student body," Michaels explains on page 2 of his essay.

But wait! According to Michaels on page 3 there's a hidden meaning in the concept of "diversity"; that's because the "intellectual left" have stood by while the socioeconomic gap between the rich and the poor grows wider. In place of social change they have used words like "diversity" to smooth out the rough edges on social inequities as though the "problem of poverty would be solved if we just appreciated the poor" (Michaels, p. 3). The author asserts that the phrase "cultural diversity" is a euphemism for economic inequity seen in the African-American experience. This is an interesting and worthwhile area of investigation, because if Michaels is correct, America should "shift" it's focus from "cultural diversity to economic equality" (p. 3).

America must start "managing inequality rather than minimizing it" (by using comfortable phrases like cultural diversity), according to Michaels (p. 4). But the problem here is that conservatives and others who tend to be anti-affirmative action and powerfully opposed to giving African-Americans a break at the university level will see the move to create greater economic equality as "socialism." That word is a red flag for the GOP (which controls the House of Representatives), Tea Partiers, and other conservatives. Those paying attention to the various bitter scrimmages during the legislative and public battle for Obama's healthcare reform were witnesses to vicious smears and falsehoods about the legislation, and the one word that kept appearing though voices, press releases and placards was "socialism." When John McCain was running against Obama in the presidential race in 2008 he used a quick video clip from a conversation Obama had with "Joe the plumber."

Obama said he was for "spreading the wealth around" and though that quote didn't really stick to Obama, as McCain would have liked, it did have some shelf life. Hence, when Michaels talks about financing all school districts on the same level, and when he writes that Americans would rather "get rid of racism than get rid of poverty," he is not endearing himself to the great middle class or the right wing. The country would "much rather celebrate cultural diversity than seek to establish economic equality," he says on page 4, and he may be right, but he needs to be careful mentioning "economic equality" because it has a "socialism" ring to it. Perhaps "economic incentives" or "economic opportunities" would sound better to middle class Americans (of every political persuasion), many of whom have been foreclosed out of their houses, have lost their jobs, and can't afford quality healthcare any more than a person who lives below the "poverty line."