Why Are People Poor?

by Neeraj Mehta 06-24-2009

Why are people poor? I remember being asked this question 10 years ago while training for a program I was volunteering with. Back then, just out of college, I had little to no first-hand knowledge or experiences with poverty in America and felt completely ill-equipped to answer the question. The only poverty I knew was what I saw visiting India, where it seemed poverty was blamed mostly on systemic failure and karma. In America, it seemed like poverty was mostly blamed on the individual and their individual choices and behavior. In India your caste had the power of determining your place in society; in America it seemed your race had similar effects.

Since first being asked that question10 years ago, my own individual belief system about race and poverty has evolved. My work, my education, and the relationships I have formed across race and class have helped me to understand the complexity of the underlying causes and effects of poverty. Yet, at the same time I am surprised at how little the general American population’s belief system has evolved over a much longer period of time.

In America the general belief system about race and poverty continues to be built upon the foundation that poor people are poor simply because of their choices and behavior. A 2007 Pew Research Center poll reported that an overwhelming percentage of Americans believe that people who are poor do not succeed because of their own shortcomings; only 19 percent emphasized the roll of discrimination or other structural and economic forces that go beyond the control of any one individual.

I guess I can understand that since few themes are as powerful in the American psyche as that of individual responsibility. We treasure notions of individual accomplishment, meritocracy, and equal opportunity, believing that these values translate directly into the daily experience of all Americans. This overly individualistic approach to race and poverty fits nicely within our overall individualistic approach to many life issues. In our imperfect world with its many inequities, however, these values inevitably lead to different outcomes for different individuals.

I think the conversation is much more complicated and needs to include issues like our legacy of racism, segregation, housing, education, transportation, and economic forces to name just a few. Each of these areas, I would argue, has also played a significant role in creating and sustaining poverty in America.

A recent report from the Aspen Institute asked two questions of its audience:

1. How is it that a nation legally committed to equal opportunity for all – regardless of race, creed, national origin, or gender – continually reproduces patterns of racial inequality?

2. Why, in the world’s wealthiest country, is there such enduring poverty among people of color?

I would argue it is because we have a belief system that justifies inequity in America.

john a. powell describes it this way:

We have a storyline that allows us to justify the inequality that exists in our country. We tell each other stories about the culture of poverty and the lack of personal and collective responsibility in racially marginalized communites. We talk about segregation from opportunity in terms of choice, of people just wanting to live with their own. We become armchair sociologists, uninterested and unconcerned with the facts and even less aware of institutional arrangements and the work they do in creating and perpetuating poverty in America.

And the most troubling fact for me is the reality that we will never be able to solve the problem of poverty if we are unable to define the problem accurately. We have to find ways to open up dialogue that will allow us to better understand the complexity and interconnectedness surrounding issues of poverty.

Got any ideas on how to make this happen?

Neeraj Mehta has been working with others to uncover beauty and strength in north Minneapolis for the past 10 years. Previously he has worked for Project for Pride in Living and most recently as Program and Strategic Development Director for the Sanctuary Community Development Corporation. Currently, he is working with the community building intermediary Payne-Lake Community Partners, partnering with others to create more engaged and powerful communities in the Twin Cities.

Categories: Poverty, Race

Eric77

It's a good question. Are poor people in America poor because of their "choices and behavior" or because of "discrimination or other structural and economic forces"?

My answer would be "yes".

If you look at the statistics, you won't find many people in poverty in the U.S. who finished high school and did not have children out of wedlock. Choosing not to finish high school and to have children out of wedlock certainly fall into the category of "choices and behavior".

But simply writing off the poor as "people who made bad decisions" isn't what Christ calls us to do. We, as Christians, are called to help people despite the decisions they make in their lives. We are called to show mercy and love. Unfortunately, the belief that everyone should just look out for themselves has been somewhat institutionalized in the American mind. In addition, staying in school and virtues like chastity, over time, lose their appeal when there is no model for this in low-income communities. Over time, the exception becomes the rule and becomes institutionalized.

Christians should work to change the underlying assumption that we're all on our own as well as promote virtuous living and glorifying God in all we do.

progressingpilgrim

I agree.

Having worked in the inner city public schools for a couple of years I have begun to see that the "choices and behavior" category gets blurred with the "structural and economic forces" category. For example, from the suburbs finishing high school is generally a choice. In the inner city I've met good students who had big dreams who had to drop out of school to get a minimum wage job so that food could be on the table. Food now vs. future opportunities. That's economic.

To use the other example of children out of wedlock I point to my own suburban experience. There were several pregnancies in my suburban high school. So what happened to them? Did those girls fall into the cycle of poverty? No. They aborted the baby (if that is kept a secret everyone is happier with that decision than we let on...i.e. look at how we look down on girls in the inner city having kids, would we rather they just abort them?). If they kept the baby then the mom would usually take care of the child so that the mother could finish high school and college first before having to be a mom. My inner city kids don't have that luxury. So they do what a loving mom would do, they drop their lives and they take care of their kids. I didn't even mention the fact that suburban kids can afford birth control whereas poorer kids can't. So let's not judge their sexual activity as something they choose whereas the richer kids don't choose the same. They do, they just have escape routes.

progressingpilgrim

Sorry, I said I agree and then I never defended it. Actually, my post looks like I disagree. I agree with your conclusion that the answer to the complicated question is often yes. I simply wanted to shed some light on how that line can get blurred. I also agree that, as Christians, we are not called to label and ignore a problem. We're called to love and serve everyone.

Eric77

I understand what you mean. Middle class or wealthy people who make bad choices can often live with the consequences or deal with them better because of their money. Poor people don't have those options. People with means have it much easier than people who are poor. But it's much easier to "break the cycle of poverty" if you make good choices. Unfortunately, it's often times much easier to make bad ones, and even encouraged.

ando

I agree. There are always many stories out there of people breaking the cycle of poverty through hard work and perseverence. I see it when parents of my students make sacrifices, or tell their children they can only play video games or watch tv on weekends or after their homework is done. These students tend to be more successful in school, and often there are great scholarships awaiting them as a reward for their and their parents sacrifices.

eaton

First we have to ask if our society is build on a certain portion of people being poor. I think you could see that from the available jobs. If (making these numbers up) jobs for 20% of working age people are minimum wage or thereabouts, and these jobs are necessary for our society to function (store clerks, cleaners, etc.), then our society is designed for about 20% of the people to be poor. If these 20% weren't poor, our society wouldn't function.

That's the point where you have a big divide -- socialist/communist vs. capitalist. The socialist/communist would say "Hey, that's wrong! The store clerk should live no worse than the engineer. Fine, they can have different vocations, but that should have no impact on their finances." Then the capitalist would say "These varying levels of money is how the world works. People will have different amounts of money, period, and some people will necessarily be at the bottom. We're not trying to change that. But we do want to give people the opportunity to move between the levels, based in part on their own efforts and skills (although we also know it's 'who you know', not 'what you know', etc. as well). We also want to put a floor on the bottom, so all people have their basic needs met.

I think a person's view on that question will have a big impact on their thoughts about those who are poor.

Personally (not having given a lot of study to this previously), I definitely don't think personal character is the only reason people are poor or rich. I think "like father like son" has a lot to do with it. There are those exceptional people among us who break molds, have strong personal ambition and drive, and venture to new places in life, whether professional or personal. But I think most people (myself included), tend to follow the status quo. And so if my family were all college educated professionals, that's what I'll probably do as well. And if my family are all in more "humble" professions that pay less, that's what I'll probably do as well. Maybe it's not even so much a fault of society as a reflection of human nature.

Now certainly for African Americans there has been real and explicit discrimination that clamped down their career or social prospects. Fortunately that has changed significantly in recent decades, but certainly the effects of that don't just change on the snap of a finger. But there are, and have been, a lot of poor white people in America as well, so racial discrimination can't be the primary issue in relation to wealth.

markvans

There are always people who are poor based upon poor choices or the choices of their parents. But even here, the Hebrew Jubilee laws remind us that we should be gracious.

But largely, poverty isn't just about lack of resources, it is about a lack of power. The disempowered and dispossessed are poor, not the other way around.

ando

My cousin employs a Hmong family on his farm to help him during strawberry season. The family also rents land from my cousin to grow crops for the farmers' markets. In fact, many of the vendors in our market-rich city are Hmong. As for the Latinos, as has been pointed out on other blogs, they seem to take jobs that nobody else will take. Many work as custodians or in factories, on roofing crews, etc. Neither group makes a lot of money, bu as eaton pointed out, there are also a lot of poor white people in America, so it can't be racial discrimination alone. There is a certain culture of poverty that develops over time, due to a variety of factors including racism, lack of education, the ever-changing workplace, drugs and alcohol, etc.

I've yet to see anyone on a Sojo blog address the issues that people like Juan Williams brings up in his book, Enough. It will challenge many of the pre-conceived notions that certain political persuasions keep hammering on here.

JamesM

"I've yet to see anyone on a Sojo blog address the issues that people like Juan Williams brings up in his book, "

I agree. Time to look for another blog!

ando

Let us know when you have something to add to the discussion. And don't even think about reading something like the book I mentioned, which might cause some cognitive dissonance. Then a real discussion might actually occur

JamesM

I will do what you request as soon as you can quit harping on Sojourners for what they do not publish (as if that really adds to the conversation). Of course why would somebody level such an accusation at you?--- one who has broken all of the molds and sterotypes, you maverick, you!--- Peace Corps, international adoption--- a veritable Mother Theresa.

justintime

I feel James' pain.

It's so frustrating to me when I can't squeeze somebody into a metaphorical box.

JamesM

Sorry you feel the need to squeeze anybody into a "metaphorical box." Have you sought help for that neurosis?

I really couldn't care less about what box one fits into or not. But always harping on whether SOJO writes about one thing or the other is getting a bit old. Maybe finding a blog that writes what he [Ando] likes (i.e. fits into his box) would be a viable alternative to his very frustration.

PASTOR JEFF

Thanks for your vigilance, Ando. It's always good to have an unbiased referee that can throw the flag on all the liberals- who have nothing constructive to say- and one who participates in the game.

ando

pastor jeff, I'm not sure if that was a compliment, or a criticism!

claralongsview

There are more white people on welfare than other ethnicities. White people are poor for many reasons as others, low wages, fewer jobs, inadequate schools and other structural reasons. The things that separates poor whites from poor blacks is that white people have better health outcomes than educated blacks, they have better educational outcomes than poor blacks and in some cases than middle class blacks, the same goes for banking and finance, poor whites have better access to loans, credit and mortagages than blacks with better credit scores. SO whites re poor and suffer alot, yet they are not poor because they are white. While blacks and Latino's outcomes are determined more by skin color.

junglecat

If one wants to find a primary cause of poverty in our country, one need look no further than the War on Poverty. Not that all government programs meant to reduce poverty are bad; just that LBJ's attempts and most other like them have been so ham-handed that they actually ended up extending the viability of the social ills which they were meant to stamp out.

SisterMarie

Neeraj Mehta,

You asked if we have any ideas on how we could make this happen {to better understand the complexity and interconnectedness surrounding issues of poverty}. I will respond by citing some things from my background.

During the depression, my daddy worked at a CCC camp and sent 90% of his earnings home to help my grandparents and my aunts and uncles to survive that period. Then when he married (at age 26), I don't think he and mom ever figured out what casued babies as they had 7 of them over a 20-year span. His wages (minimum wage) was barely enough to put food on the table, but I don't ever remember going hungry. When the surplus food program began during the 1950s, it certainly was appreciated by our family. All of our clothing was used - donated by distant cousins. When I ate my first steak at age 18, I tried cutting it with the edge of my fork because that's the way that we cut the little meat that we shared.

By today's standards, we would be considered to be poor. But our parents always emphasized the value of education, and we knew that if we studied and worked hard that we could change our standard of living. And that, I think, is key to understanding the cycle of poverty and the difficulty that many families face today in extricating themselves from it. There are many cases of 3 generations sharing a single dwelling and no example where older family members have been successful. Sometimes, children in that environment see people in their neighborhood who have nice things that have been obtained illegally and they model that lifestyle.

It's so easy to propose simplistic causes for poverty (War on Poverty, laziness, etc) and to urge those in that condition to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The problem is that in many cases, they have no bootstraps.

paradoxtor

Once again it is not an either/or answer. I must admit that my personal experience is that the overwhelming majority of poor I have worked with are there by there own choices with the expception of the clearly physically or mentally disabled. That said I also recognize that the fortunes of the family into which you are born has a huge influence. That is a fact of life. It is a harder hill to climb, if your family culture is one that has no vision for something better. My evalutation is that it's not so much laziness as lack of vision and just what I would call a lack of gumption. They have no expectation that there will ever be anything better, so why try. Some seem to be able to overcome this, others do not. I agree that poor choices when you have a good support system do not have the same impact as when you do not. In one sense I don't feel I add much to the discussion as I don't see easy answers. I think that blaming the system just helps to reinforce the culture which tells the individual that they are stuck and there is no hope. On the other hand, we are called to be compassionate and to help. I struggle greatly with how to do this within our church. How to help people in a way that really helps. I can either give someone band-aid support that doesn't significantly change their lives or I can choose to support them permanently, but I have not yet seen an overwhelmingly successful way to teach them the vision and gumption along with some skills that enables them to permanently have self success. We have success with a few but not many. It is always built on relationships.

Palosaari

In seminary, I took a class on theology of poverty, and we read Viv Grigg's Companion to the Poor. He looks at the different words for poverty in the Old Testament, and the New, and how the authors of the books meant different kinds of poverty by the words they used. There was some because of one's laziness, some because of an act of God, some because of injustice...But chief among them was that espoused by Jesus- the voluntary, chosen poverty to come closer to God. For he never said "You shall always have the poor with you." He said, "You shall always have the poor *among* you."

neerajmehta

I think the conversation regarding culture of poverty and social structure forces is an important one when it comes to discussing the complexity surrounding issues of poverty.

I agree with those of you who articulate the important of individual choices and behavior and the impact they have on a person’s overall well being. I think the hard part comes when you try to understand the ‘why’ behind a person’s choice and behavior. Every decision that any one of us chooses, “makes sense” based on the belief system that drives that behavior.

The reality is that social structural forces have created pockets of segregation and concentrated poverty in our country, and restricted choice and opportunity for residents of these communities. At the same time behaviors that do not support social mobility can be created. But I would argue is that these choices and behaviors are often reflective of the impediments put in front of people, rather than inherit to the group themselves.

When discussing the root causes of poverty we have to pay attention to how structural and cultural forces interact. My own personal belief is that we too often disregard the important of how social structural forces have created and perpetuated inner city poverty. And while I agree that we have to be willing to love and support individuals as they work towards increasing self-sufficiency and family well-being, we have to at the same time address the social structural forces that perpetuate the situations in the first place.

I have read the book Enough by Juan Williams and understand his viewpoint and his concern for individual responsibility. It’s an important conversation. But one of my other points regarding this article was how we often ended up having one conversation or the other, without creating space to engage a more wholistic conversation that is looking at all sides of the situation. I would recommend the book More than Just Race by William Julius Wilson as someone who recently has attempted to engage a conversation from both sides.

Additionally, I believe the church is probably best equipped to hold this comprehensive conversation as well, but too often falls into a more polar conversation again focusing simply on individual choice or structural forces in isolation.

paradoxtor

Thanks for your additonal comments. In my opinion, they are much more constructive than your blog. I do think there are points of disagree and again in my opinion it is very difficult to objectively prove either side. You say, Every decision that any one of us chooses, “makes sense” based on the belief system that drives that behavior. That seems to me to excuse all behaviour. You say, The reality is that social structural forces have created pockets of segregation and concentrated poverty in our country, and restricted choice and opportunity for residents of these communities. How have they created these pockets? How have they restricted choice and opportunity? You say, But I would argue is that these choices and behaviors are often reflective of the impediments put in front of people, rather than inherit to the group themselves. I would disagree with that but this is one of those where I don't see how you prove one way or the other. You say, But one of my other points regarding this article was how we often ended up having one conversation or the other, without creating space to engage a more wholistic conversation that is looking at all sides of the situation.. I did not see that at all as a point in your blog. I will look at Wilson's book.

ando

I think that Evangelicals for Social Action has done a good job of connecting the two sides of the issue. I have yet to see Sojourners take any view but the one that only structural forces are the source of the problem of poverty. That is probably true in developing countries, but certainly in the United States there are ample opportunities for people to rise above their conditions. I have seen it with some of my students and their families. They make the short-term sacrifices, which has a long tradition across ethnic and cultural groups in this country, in order to achieve long-term gains such as scholarships and better jobs for their children.

That said, thank you for being the first person at Sojo to at least acknowledge Juan Williams. (His is not the only voice from this perspective in the African-American community. Bill Cosby has said much the same thing, and has been criticized by some on the Left.)