Why does poverty persist in the United States?

Welcome to the first issue of Within Our Means, a bimonthly newsletter about ending poverty in America. If you would like to receive it in your inbox, please subscribe here:

I have always been interested in how race and class shape our society and my work often focuses on topics such as criminal justice, housing, and the social safety net. But while I like to point out problems, I also think that's only half my job. The other half is to ask: “What now?”

This is what this leaflet will do. Some issues will delve into the specific ways poverty punishes people across the country. Others will look at policies that exacerbate or alleviate poverty. The ultimate goal is to find tangible solutions to improve people's lives. So if you, like me, believe that poverty is an eradicated problem in the United States, consider this newsletter as a way for us to realistically envision what the path toward that future could look like.

America has been through many ups and downs since the civil rights era, but one thing has remained remarkably constant: In 1970, 12.6% of Americans were considered poor; In 2023, that number reached 11.1% – or 36.8 million people. “Graphing the proportion of Americans living in poverty over the past half-century amounts to drawing a line that resembles gently undulating hills,” sociologist Matthew Desmond wrote last year.

It may seem as if the persistence of poverty in the United States tells us something about how difficult the problem is to solve. This is, after all, the richest country in the world. If America can't extricate itself from poverty, then who can? But it does not mean that America cannot do this; He chose not to do so.

However, there is no single answer as to why so many Americans remain stuck in poverty. It is true, for example, that the American welfare system is broken, constantly being undermined, and, in some cases, on the verge of failure. Studies have shown that programs like work requirements don't work, and states have been caught hoarding billions of dollars' worth of welfare money instead of distributing it to the people it's intended for.

But it is also true that an extraordinary amount of money and effort is spent on creating and managing anti-poverty programs, many of which have actually been successful. Social Security, for example, keeps more than 20 million people above the poverty line.

In recent years, America has shown the extent of choice poverty: A short-term expansion of the pandemic-era child tax credit reduced child poverty by more than a third. The enhanced social safety net from COVID relief bills also cut child poverty nearly in half in one year — the largest reduction ever. But once these programs ended, the child poverty rate rose again.

Last year, several homeowners in Lexington, Massachusetts came out to oppose zoning changes that would allow more housing to be built in the affluent Boston suburb. Understandably, people needing new housing were not impressed.

“How do you think it makes me feel when some people say from a point of great privilege that they don't want the type of multifamily housing I live in because it might look ugly or doesn't fit with the essence of this city?” said one young resident, whose family relied on multifamily housing to afford From living in Lexington, to the city legislature. “Are we really setting the barrier of entry to be a million-dollar house to join our community?”

This situation is one answer to the question of what makes the problem of poverty so complex: competing interests. The truth is that many people benefit from having poverty. The economy already pits many groups against each other, making many Americans fear they have a lot to lose if we choose to build a more equitable society.

Homeowners are told that their homes are the key to building wealth, so they reasonably want their property values ​​to continue to rise. On the other hand, any increase in housing costs is a loss for renters. So, while renters may want lawmakers to make room for more housing, homeowners often resist any change that might cause their home prices to stagnate.

This is one of the topics we'll explore in Within Our Means — who stands to gain and who to lose from the policies lawmakers choose to pursue. We will also consider questions about fairness, political viability, and why anti-poverty programs should be viewed as investments rather than handouts. Although we will often look at economic arguments, we will also not shy away from coming to morally motivated conclusions. Sometimes a program that helps the most vulnerable people is still worth paying for even if it doesn't necessarily help the economy grow.

Even where there are diverging interests — such as those between renters and homeowners — change is possible: Lexington ended up approving necessary zoning changes to build more housing, and neighboring towns followed suit.

This was by no means an inevitable or easy outcome. For many decades, Lexington and its neighbors have been symbols of liberal hypocrisy — the kind of place where you might see “Black Lives Matter” and “Refugees Welcome” signs, but fierce opposition to any new housing project that would help desegregate the area. . .

But one lesson from Lexington is that sometimes people need a push. It wasn't just that the townspeople had suddenly had a change of heart – although some residents were clearly disturbed by their history. The state enacted a law requiring jurisdictions served by public transportation to allow the construction of more multifamily housing if they want certain state funding. Whether the city will finish building the housing units that would make the suburb affordable depends on whether residents put their money where their mouth is. But at least now, the door has been opened.

Some of the changes needed to eradicate poverty are small and unattractive bureaucratic tweaks, such as local zoning reforms in Lexington and elsewhere. Others require ambitious rethinking.

The poverty eradication project will be expensive, but it has long been clear that America can afford it. If more than two-thirds of household wealth is concentrated among the top 10%, while the bottom half of households own only 2.5%, no one should be miserable.

“There is nothing new about poverty now,” Martin Luther King Jr. said nearly 60 years ago. But what is new at this stage is that we now have the resources, we now have the skills, and we now have the technologies necessary to get rid of poverty. “The question is whether our nation has the will.”

If you have any thoughts, ideas, or personal experience with anti-poverty programs that you would like to share, I would love to hear from you. You can contact me at abdallah.fayyad@vox.com.

This story appeared in our Media newsletter. Register here.