Interesting reflections, Peter. That graphic does leave an impression. On the idea of the “poor will always be with you,” there was another, secular version of this offered by “functionalist” social scientists—most notably by Herbert Gans in a famous 1971 essay, “The Uses of Poverty.” Gans tried to explain why poverty was so persistent by identifying the functions that the poor serve in a society. This was sort of a more sophisticated version of the old “every society needs ditch diggers” argument (and to be fair the functionalists were trying to explain an observed fact of persistent poverty, not defend it). And while I don’t find this functionalist explanation all that convincing, ultimately, it does seem to reinforce in an odd way the point you make here that the focus on reducing inequality might detract from attention to reducing poverty. If we accept the premise that the lowest strata of any society serves important functions, that doesn’t mean the lowest strata has to be poor in some absolute sense. Ditch diggers can be paid a living wage, after all, as many a socialist utopian novel has shown. (Again, this is not my argument, nor yours, just another angle on the discussion.) In the end, though, the question is (as you hint at the end) how do we measure when a standard of living reaches the threshold of “not poor” if we don’t measure that relative to the standard of living of the others in a given society (or a planet)?
Thank you Pete and the first commenter for reminding me that, while society may always have a high and a low, the low doesn’t have to be poverty. It’s an important distinction to remember - that a functioning society must be able to support the minimum needs of ALL of its people.
Thank you both for your comments. I’m glad you found some glimmer of insight in what I tried to write. I absolutely agree, though there may always be some who have far less than others, there is no reason they can’t have more freedom, more choices, than what in the US today, at least, their low incomes affords them. Amartya Sen, the Nobel laureate economist, has to my mind the most promising take on economic development and reducingpoverty, and one that enables better comparisons across societies. To those who would say the poor in the US are much better off than the poor in other nations, he points out (the review of the Nottingham study made a similar point) that, for example, black men (not just poor black men) in the U.S. have shorter life expectancy than much poorer men in China and Kerala, India, and urban black men in the U.S. have lower life expectancies than men in Bangladesh and several other developing countries as well. (Sen, Development as Freedom (1998), at 22-23.) He argues the proper measure for development, and to my mind, the proper way to view poverty, is the increase or decrease in the real freedom people enjoy – their ability to make choices in their lives – rather than per capita income.
Part of what I found interesting in the graphic from the Clive Crook article and the review of the Nottingham study is that they indicate that the degree of inequality, on its own, distinct from poverty levels, makes an important difference, too. Too often we hear arguments (mostly from conservatives) that go something like “well, even the poorest in the U.S. are wealthy compared to people in other countries. They have TVs, even cell phones.” (Horrors!). This argument is usually used to argue against both calls to reduce poverty (really, the poor are richer than you think) and to reduce inequality (sure, the rich are getting richer, but the poor aren’t so bad off). The Nottingham study raises the likelihood that, even if we assume for argument’s sake that the poor in a wealthy nation like the US are fairly well off, a high degree of inequality in itself leads to significant harm, and that reducing inequality may pay dividends in better outcomes across the board in education, health and other areas.
One example about inequality I can’t resist adding. In high cost areas (e.g., Los Angeles or New York City), there’s no doubt that, as one person we interviewed last summer observed, “the super-rich distort everything for everyone else.” Just ask anyone who’s tried to buy a house in Southern California. That’s what is behind the quote from the public interest lawyer about rents outstripping even living wages. In a real sense, rising incomes at the top really do affect the choices and options for middle and lower income people, not just in expensive cities, but across the nation (look at college and private school tuitions, for one).
Pete, I was the unintentionally anonymous author of the first comment. Didn’t realize I had to put my name in the comment itself for it to show up….
Anyway, you are exactly right to point to Sen’s understanding as an extremely wise approach to this. I had forgotten about that book, even though it is one I didn’t want to forget. It brilliantly demonstrates how having “freedom” or “choice” depends on structural factors, so champions of freedom (of which there are plenty in our country) need to first be champions of development.
Late to this discussion, but thank you for sending me to this insightful post. Your last point about rising incomes at the top affecting choices for the middle and lower income households is very astute. And in a materially-wealthy country such as the U.S., greater inequality exacerbates the perception that there is “not enough”—it feeds the desire for more. It makes me wonder what the point of an economic system is. It is a means to an ends, but what ends?
COMMENTS
BY Michael Moody
ON January 17, 2008 12:14 AM
Interesting reflections, Peter. That graphic does leave an impression. On the idea of the “poor will always be with you,” there was another, secular version of this offered by “functionalist” social scientists—most notably by Herbert Gans in a famous 1971 essay, “The Uses of Poverty.” Gans tried to explain why poverty was so persistent by identifying the functions that the poor serve in a society. This was sort of a more sophisticated version of the old “every society needs ditch diggers” argument (and to be fair the functionalists were trying to explain an observed fact of persistent poverty, not defend it). And while I don’t find this functionalist explanation all that convincing, ultimately, it does seem to reinforce in an odd way the point you make here that the focus on reducing inequality might detract from attention to reducing poverty. If we accept the premise that the lowest strata of any society serves important functions, that doesn’t mean the lowest strata has to be poor in some absolute sense. Ditch diggers can be paid a living wage, after all, as many a socialist utopian novel has shown. (Again, this is not my argument, nor yours, just another angle on the discussion.) In the end, though, the question is (as you hint at the end) how do we measure when a standard of living reaches the threshold of “not poor” if we don’t measure that relative to the standard of living of the others in a given society (or a planet)?
BY Amy Sausser
ON January 22, 2008 12:33 PM
Thank you Pete and the first commenter for reminding me that, while society may always have a high and a low, the low doesn’t have to be poverty. It’s an important distinction to remember - that a functioning society must be able to support the minimum needs of ALL of its people.
Amy Sausser
BY Pete Manzo
ON January 22, 2008 11:41 PM
Amy and Anonymous,
Thank you both for your comments. I’m glad you found some glimmer of insight in what I tried to write. I absolutely agree, though there may always be some who have far less than others, there is no reason they can’t have more freedom, more choices, than what in the US today, at least, their low incomes affords them. Amartya Sen, the Nobel laureate economist, has to my mind the most promising take on economic development and reducingpoverty, and one that enables better comparisons across societies. To those who would say the poor in the US are much better off than the poor in other nations, he points out (the review of the Nottingham study made a similar point) that, for example, black men (not just poor black men) in the U.S. have shorter life expectancy than much poorer men in China and Kerala, India, and urban black men in the U.S. have lower life expectancies than men in Bangladesh and several other developing countries as well. (Sen, Development as Freedom (1998), at 22-23.) He argues the proper measure for development, and to my mind, the proper way to view poverty, is the increase or decrease in the real freedom people enjoy – their ability to make choices in their lives – rather than per capita income.
Part of what I found interesting in the graphic from the Clive Crook article and the review of the Nottingham study is that they indicate that the degree of inequality, on its own, distinct from poverty levels, makes an important difference, too. Too often we hear arguments (mostly from conservatives) that go something like “well, even the poorest in the U.S. are wealthy compared to people in other countries. They have TVs, even cell phones.” (Horrors!). This argument is usually used to argue against both calls to reduce poverty (really, the poor are richer than you think) and to reduce inequality (sure, the rich are getting richer, but the poor aren’t so bad off). The Nottingham study raises the likelihood that, even if we assume for argument’s sake that the poor in a wealthy nation like the US are fairly well off, a high degree of inequality in itself leads to significant harm, and that reducing inequality may pay dividends in better outcomes across the board in education, health and other areas.
One example about inequality I can’t resist adding. In high cost areas (e.g., Los Angeles or New York City), there’s no doubt that, as one person we interviewed last summer observed, “the super-rich distort everything for everyone else.” Just ask anyone who’s tried to buy a house in Southern California. That’s what is behind the quote from the public interest lawyer about rents outstripping even living wages. In a real sense, rising incomes at the top really do affect the choices and options for middle and lower income people, not just in expensive cities, but across the nation (look at college and private school tuitions, for one).
Thanks again for your comments!
BY Michael Moody
ON January 25, 2008 02:22 PM
Pete, I was the unintentionally anonymous author of the first comment. Didn’t realize I had to put my name in the comment itself for it to show up….
Anyway, you are exactly right to point to Sen’s understanding as an extremely wise approach to this. I had forgotten about that book, even though it is one I didn’t want to forget. It brilliantly demonstrates how having “freedom” or “choice” depends on structural factors, so champions of freedom (of which there are plenty in our country) need to first be champions of development.
-Michael Moody
BY Kim Tso
ON October 21, 2010 05:47 PM
Pete,
Late to this discussion, but thank you for sending me to this insightful post. Your last point about rising incomes at the top affecting choices for the middle and lower income households is very astute. And in a materially-wealthy country such as the U.S., greater inequality exacerbates the perception that there is “not enough”—it feeds the desire for more. It makes me wonder what the point of an economic system is. It is a means to an ends, but what ends?
Kim