Rand Paul (R, KY) doesn’t think we should worry very much
about poverty in America. He had this to
say in a recent hearing.
PAUL: We also need to understand that poverty is not
a state of permanence. When you look at people in the bottom 5th of the
economic ladder — those at the bottom — only 5 percent are there after 16
years. People move up, the American dream does exist…The rich are
getting richer, but the poor are getting richer even faster.
See him spout this nonsense in the following video:
Rand Paul gives the impression that research on poverty
confirms the widespread belief among conservatives that the U.S. is the land of
unlimited opportunity for everyone and that in this great land those who live
in poverty do so for only a short time and that most of the poor go on to enjoy at least a
middle or upper-middle income level later in life. It sounds so good. It sounds as if we don’t have to be that
concerned. And, it seemingly justifies the
widespread belief among conservatives that people who are poor in this great
country are poor solely because of their own life choices. All they had to do is work hard and all would
be well. Thus, according to Paul, there
is no need for government or the rest of us to concern ourselves with poverty
in our country. We can focus on more
important things like providing tax breaks so the rich can get richer.
The problem with Paul’s argument is that it isn’t true. This is from a study entitle Childhood and
Intergenerational Poverty : The Long-Term Consequences of Growing Up Poor by Robert
Lee Wagmiller and Robert M. Adelman at the National Center for Children in
Poverty. The researchers write:
“The American Dream”
is rooted in the idea of upward mobility, the idea that individuals and
families can escape the confines of poverty and disadvantage through hard work
and perseverance.
Social and economic deprivation during childhood and adolescence can
have a lasting effect on individuals, making it difficult for children who grow
up in low-income families to escape poverty when they become adults. 6 Because
the negative effects of deprivation on human development tend to cumulate,
individuals with greater exposure to poverty during childhood are likely to
have more difficulty escaping poverty as adults.
Studies focusing on the intergenerational transmission of poverty find
that while individuals can break out of intergenerational cycles of poverty, they
are less likely to do so than is commonly thought. 17Moreover,
when subsequent generations do escape poverty they are likely to move into the
ranks of the slightly less poor. 18 Poverty
exits depend on numerous factors such as educational and employment
opportunities, the availability of role models, and child and parent
aspirations, 19 as
well as a child’s birth order and when in the child’s life poverty occurs. 20
Researchers also find that the intergenerational correlation between
incomes and earnings vary widely by race. For example, according to Hertz, 17 percent of whites who were born in
the lowest income category between 1942 and 1972 remained there as adults while
42 percent of African-Americans did so.21 Similarly,
in a separate study, Isaacs finds that not only do African-American children
live in families with lower average incomes than whites, but “African-Americans
experience less upward mobility and more downward mobility than whites.” 22 In
general, scholars have found that race matters a great deal in
intergenerational economic mobility.
Here is the truth, Paul although it doesn’t fit your
ideology. An American who is born in
poverty today and spends any significant time in poverty during their childhood
will find it extremely difficult to realize that American dream of being better
off than their parents. That’s why
poverty is a problem we need to address.
It has to do with equal opportunity. Take a look at this table, it tells the whole story.
No comments:
Post a Comment