Getting Poverty Wrong

City Journal: Getting Poverty Wrong

…Yet both candidates are largely missing the point. While they insist that strengthening labor unions or protecting homeowners from foreclosures will alleviate the hardships of the poor, the latest data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census remind us that the breakdown of the traditional two-parent, married family is a far greater contributor to poverty in America than many of the supposed shortcomings of our economy. It’s hard to imagine that America will make much more headway on reducing persistent poverty until it halts this long-term trend. …

The Census Bureau’s study on the living arrangements of American children appeared in mid-February. The data show that the number of children now living in two-parent families has dipped just below the 70 percent mark for the first time since the Census began collecting data on family formation nearly 130 years ago. After peaking in the 1950s—when about 87 percent of all children lived with two parents—the traditional family went through a rapid decline beginning in the 1970s and has continued to shrink over the last three decades, though the rate of decline has slowed somewhat. As part of this sweeping change, the percentage of children living with married parents has fallen more rapidly, down more than two full percentage points, to 66.6 percent of all kids, in the last 10 years alone. Consistent with these decreases has been a sharp rise in the number of children living with single parents and with unmarried parents.

The economic impact of this breakdown has been profound. Researchers estimate that the entire rise in poverty in America since the late 1970s can be attributed to “changes in family formation,” a euphemism for the decline of families headed by two married parents. The latest Census data illustrate the problem. Only one out of ten American kids living in two-married-parent families is in poverty—and about one-third of these families are recent immigrants whose poverty is temporary. By contrast, 37 percent of children living with single mothers are impoverished.

Marriage seems to be the defining characteristic of economically successful families. With out-of-wedlock birth rates in America soaring, so that many traditional families aren’t so much breaking up as never getting started, the percentage of children living with cohabiting parents is growing. Yet these kids are three times more likely to be in poverty than the children of married parents. The data actually demonstrate that poverty rates for families headed by two unmarried parents more closely resemble the poverty rates of single-parent families than those of two-married-parent ones….

…Something about the marriage certificate—a sense of long-term commitment, family stability, perhaps—makes an economic difference. Research shows that married workers exhibit more job stability and make greater wage gains than cohabiting parents, a sort of “marriage wage premium,” as some economists dub it. …

…Nearly nine in ten Asian children, for instance, live with two parents, as do 78 percent of white kids. By contrast, 68 percent of Hispanic children and only 38 percent of black children in America reside in two-parent families. A black child living with a single mother is nearly three times more likely to live in poverty than a black child living with two parents, the Census data show, yet 50 percent more black children are living with single mothers than in two-parent married families.

Given that a significant body of research now shows that children raised in two-parent, married families do better in school, are less likely to wind up in jail, and are less likely to end up on welfare, the startling racial divide in marriage tells us that a new generation of children, especially blacks, are growing up destined to struggle academically, in the job market, and in forming their own families. …

…Even Republican presidential nominee John McCain—whose economic agenda focuses on pro-growth policies, like corporate tax cuts—has little to say about the family, though the children of many fractured poor families will be in no position to take advantage of such tax cuts.

Related: See my earlier post that shows the impact of family formation on the poverty rate.


Comments

3 responses to “Getting Poverty Wrong”

  1. The failure on the part of government to ensure that all families have sufficient income to meet their basic human needs has caused holes in the financial safety net to steadily worsen over the years. Our government’s failure to prioritize the needs of the poorest of the poor is causing increased hardships among those least suited to survive them.
    Simultaneously, other challenges facing many of these same families are growing worse as a result of insufficient support for basic child welfare, mental health and substance abuse programs. These issues are bound together. It is virtually impossible to resolve many of the behavioral health issues families are facing when they must focus all of their energy on simply surviving.
    We must place a greater priority on financial resources for the poorest of the poor. We must provide sufficient benefits through our safety net programs to meet all basic needs for these families. This is already a crisis for the people affected by these issues.
    We call upon our state and federal elected representatives to not turn away from these serious problems.
    We must take immediate action!
    Please contact your federal and state elected officials to urge them to address these issues!
    http://dontturnawayoh.blogspot.com/

  2. I agree with many of your concerns but we are in chicken or the egg issue here. You’re saying we need more aid for families but if would had a stronger ethic for strong families many of the problems you mentioned would be lessened and less aid would be needed.
    We can’t go on endlessly redistributing income to a growing population of people that won’t adopt behaviors and lifestyles consistent with economic security. That simply rewards the wrong behaviors. The challenge is how to nurture the human and spiritual capital people need to make it economically. That isn’t going to come primarily from government and it starts with families.

  3. VanSkaamper Avatar
    VanSkaamper

    It’s not the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that anyone has sufficient income. That’s a well-intentioned but misguided sentiment that is only going to make all of our problems worse, not better.
    The kind of concern and helping hand advocated by the anonymous post is best handled by local NGO’s that are empowered to do more than simply subsidize aberrant, and self destructive choices and behaviors.
    I agree with Michael. It’s not like we haven’t already spent literally trillions of dollars proving that giving people money and stamps for basic needs doesn’t solve the poverty problem. We’ve only made the situation worse by creating an entrenched poverty culture…and we seem unwilling to acknowledge the mistake and learn from it.
    Unless and until this country rediscovers, affirms, and works with the poor to inculcate the cultural values that lead to personal prosperity and self-reliance, we’re just spinning our wheels, fooling ourselves, and hurting the people we claim that we’re trying to help.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading