THE RISK OF EXPERIENCING AT LEAST A YEAR IN POVERTY IS GREATER THAN YOU THINK

According to the most recent Census Bureau’s report, 11.5% of the population resides below the official poverty line. That percentage—11.5%— translates into 37.9 million people and, except for California, exceeds the population in all fifty states and the District of Columbia.

Poverty ain’t no joke, and that’s especially true for non-Whites and kids (< 18). The American Indian, Black, Hispanic, and child poverty rates clock in at 25%, 17.1%, 16.9%, and 15%, respectively. The Black and Hispanic poverty rates are twice as high as the White rate (8.6%) while the American Indian impoverishment rate is 3 times as high as that of Whites.

What accounts for these elevated poverty rates? The most popular explanation attributes poverty to the failure of the poor to consistently adopt the attitudes and behaviors that promote economic success. Poverty, as the late historian Michael Katz observes, is framed as a “problem of persons:”

The idea that poverty is a problem of persons—that it results from moral, cultural, or biological inadequacies—has dominated discussions of poverty for well over two hundred years and given us the enduring idea of the undeserving poor.

The basic idea, of course, is that the United States is replete with opportunities for advancement and that, ultimately, you get what you deserve: If you’re poor, there’s “something” wrong with you—something moral, something cultural, something biological— that’s impeding your economic progress. Likewise, if you’re doing well, that’s supposed to be because you’ve adopted and adhered to the values and behaviors that promotes economic success and keeps you out of poverty.

To reiterate, the dominant explanation of the existence of poverty in the United States focuses sharply and singularly on the poor themselves. They—the poor— are framed as being fundamentally different from the rest of us and in need of “repair” if they are to rise out of the economic pits. “ Historically, “fixing” the poor runs the gamut, including, among things, fighting supposed laziness and “get over” behavior by forcing them to accept whatever jobs might be available; strengthening barriers to the receopt of social welfare benefits; pushing them to remedy what is seen as their deficient skills; and instructing them in grit and grind as an antidote to what is seen as sloth and just straight up funky attitudes and behaviors.

Poverty discourse, then, is lodged within a “them” versus “us” discourse, with “them”— in contrast to “us”— constituting “outsiders” who are largely responsible for their own wretched plight. It’s sort of like a curse on those who, for whatever reason, don’t get their shit together, and the hatred often exhibited toward the poor is undoubtedly influenced by the widespread misperception that the majority of the impoverished are Black and Brown folk residing in the inner city.

All of this would unravel if, in fact, it’s not the case that poverty is only experienced by a group of “outsiders” who are responsible for their own plight. The widespread explanation of poverty—that it’s a “them” versus “us” problem— would be challenged (to say the least) if, in fact, it’s a state that most of us are likely to experience during our lifetimes.

THE RISK OF IMPOVERISHMENT

Research by social scientists Mark Rank and Thomas Hirschl directly and powerfully contradicts the view that, when it comes to the poor, it’s an “us” versus “them” kind of thing. They do this by raising and answering a question that’s rarely present in discourse about poverty and the poor:

“What is the likelihood that an American will experience poverty during their lifetime?"

To answer this question, they use data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID)— a nationally representative sample of households that have been tracked since 1968— to build a series of life tables. Life tables are calculations of the probability that particular events will occur at specific points in time. Medical researchers and demographers, for instance, have long used such tables to estimate, say, the probability that adult will experience a heart attack at different points during her lifetime. Or, the probability, say, that a male will experience prostate cancer during his lifetime. They—life tables— are a way of quantitfying risk.

What Rank and Hirshl do, then, is to use the PSID to quantify the risk that Americans will experience at least one year of poverty at some point during their adulthood.

And among their findings are these:

• Between the ages of 20 and 75, six out of every ten adults (58.5%) will experience at least one year trying to eke out a living below the poverty line.

• Between the ages of 20 and 75, 68% of adults will experience at least one year in which their income is less than 125% of the official poverty line.

• Between the ages of 20 and 75, close to 80% (76%) of adults will experience at least one year in which their income drops below 150% of the poverty line.

In a complimentary analysis, Rank and Hirschl use a life table to build up estimates of the likelihood that Americans will experience at least one year living in the bottom 20 percent and bottom 10 percent of the income distribution, respectively. Think of these estimates this way: They show the likelihood of landing— for one year at least—on the bottom rung of the economic ladder.

Here’s a sampling of their findings:

• Between the ages of 25 and 60, 62% of Americans will spend at least one year dwelling in the bottom 20% of the income distribution.

• Between the ages of 25 and 60, 4 out of every ten Americans—42.1%— will spend at least one year in the bottom 10% of the income distribution.

What’s more, Rank notes that if we enlarge our conception of economic marginality to include a) experiencing poverty, b) receieving assistance from a social safety net program and c) enduring a “spell of unemployment,” then the percentage of persons at risk of getting slammed by economic adversity increases substantially: Between the ages of 25 and 60, 79% of the population experienced one or more of these three events (poverty, social assistance funds, and unmeployment) for at least a year, and “49.8% experienced 3 years or more of such turmoil.”

Just think about that for a moment: Between ages 25 and 60, almost 8 out of every ten adults—80%!— will experience the pain, anxiety, and despondency that accompanies economic turmoil.

This is serious stuff

BEYOND “US” VERSUS “THEM”

Make no mistake about it: Economic vulnerability is a thing and, particularly important, most of us are likely to get a “taste” of it during our lifetime. Sure, some are at greater risk than others, but relatively few are risk-free.

What’s more—and this merits emphasis— as we approach Martin Luther King celebrations, we’d be remiss not to recall him as a human rights advocate who was part of a larger and ongoing abolitionist movement— namely, a movement to completely and immediately abolish poverty.

And if we want to participate in that movement, if we we want to be 2024 abolitionists, then we’d best drop transcend the dualistic thinking that sees poverty as an issue of “us” versus “them.”