The Associated Press fans out across the country to put faces on the poverty numbers released last week. Needless to say, this is what every news organization should be doing with this story, and the AP does a great job with this one.
The recession began nearly four years—and there’s no indication that the ranks of the poor will be shrinking anytime soon. More than 15 percent of the country now is officially in poverty. Worse, 22 percent of kids are poor.
The AP reports on seven people in six states, showing us a range of circumstances for how people end up impoverished. There’s the disabled, the unemployed, the disintegrated families. But at least two of the anecdotes show parents in poverty in no small part to their struggle to balance work and day care for their kids.
Here’s a 22-year-old woman in West Virginia:
Wells started working as a waitress at 17 and continued when she got pregnant last year. She worked until the day she delivered 10-month-old son Logan, she says, and came back a week later. But finding child care was a challenge, and about three months ago, after one too many missed shifts, she was fired.
In no time, she was homeless. The subsidized apartment in Kingwood, W.Va., that had cost her only $36 a month came with a catch: She had to have a job. Without one — and with no way to pay her utilities — she was evicted.
Note that Wells was already on welfare while she was working. She was probably getting an earned-income tax credit too. A big reason for that: The minimum wage is so low. You try making it on seven or eight or nine bucks an hour with a baby.
Here in Seattle, the minimum wage is relatively high, at $8.67 an hour, but the median cost for full-time day care for one baby is $1,259 a month. Gross income for a minimum wage earner here is about $1,445 a month (assuming 2,000 hours a year).
Another woman the AP profiles had four kids, two jobs, and a husband three years ago in Florida. That state’s economy collapsed and she lost her jobs and her husband but still has the four kids. They ended up in a homeless shelter in Alabama and now are in the projects:
Brown has been able to save about $100 and she’s still looking for work. But finding a job is difficult because she has to balance potential work schedules against her children’s schedules and the high cost of day care.
Smaller financial bumps an be devastating to the working poor too, as the AP shows here:
She needs to answer for speeding tickets she couldn’t afford to pay. That resulted in a suspended license, further limiting her ability to look for work.
But babies are huge financial hurdles. I’m particularly sensitive to this since I’ve got twin toddlers in expensive Seattle, but does anybody even talk about day care as a structural hurdle for the economy anymore?
Sounds like you are making a rather strong argument for people getting married when they have children and stating together afterwards .... you know the passe nuclear family. How downright right wing of you.
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Mon 19 Sep 2011 at 03:17 PM
Thanks for pointing this out, Ryan. And twins? Congrats!
Congratulations also on having enough money to have kids. And in journalism! Quite an accomplishment.
Got a friend about to have his second child (married up; she makes enough) and the two of them are going crazy trying to get child care so he can stay on the job (in journalism, natch).
Trouble is, for what they can afford to pay, they can't find anyone reliable. One suspects that's because the person providing the child care has the same problem that 22 year old former waitress has--trouble living on her income and (ironically) trouble finding someone to take care of her own kids while she watches someone else's.
What to do? The more we pay the daycare providers, the better it is for them--but the harder it is for "middle class" people to afford it.
I remember as a kid, the solution in my neighborhood was for the neighbors to watch the kids. Grandma lived next door. School nurse lived on the other side, and across the street a lady who had raised her own already and had occasional grandkid duty.
Her hubby drove a truck for Schaefer beer. Made enough at that to retire to Florida in the early 1980s.
Come to think of it, all the moms on the block stayed home too, at least until their youngest got to about third grade. One was married to a gym teacher, one to a travel agent and my own dad was a body & fender guy. Those were all home-owner's jobs in the '60s and '70s. Today, it takes two of them--or five in my former home town--to earn the income required to pay a typical mortgage.
(We lived in Fairfield, Connecticut. Some people say it's more expensive now than Seattle, though back then no one much thought like that).
What happened next: regular jobs for regular people started paying less and less. Today a body and fender repair tech makes, in constant dollars, about half what my dad made circa 1976. Phys ed teachers held up a bit better--but not much. Travel agents are all but extinct.
While this was happening, the cost of housing shot up--in large part because millions of wage earners desperate to improve their income poured into the real estate business, bidding up the price of houses. This linkage between the wage erosion of the past 30+ years and the real estate booms and busts of the late 1980s and mid 2000s also deserves more attention.
And now we have a phenomenon: forward-looking, intelligent people defer having children awaiting improvements to their financial situation, while people who do not look very far ahead often have multiple kids, dooming their families to poverty and putting more pressure on the social safety net even while the same ideologues whose increasing wealth derives from paying workers less seek to dismantle it.
#2 Posted by edward ericson jr., CJR on Tue 20 Sep 2011 at 11:00 AM
Yes, Elizabeth Warren goes into how times have changed financially for middle class people in "The Two-Income Trap". It's not the same world our parents inhabited.
#3 Posted by Ron R, CJR on Tue 20 Sep 2011 at 02:23 PM
@Mike:
It's so cute how you assume that a man is the easy solution to the challenges of single motherhood-instead of being the all-too-frequent cause of it.
#4 Posted by Jenna, CJR on Thu 22 Sep 2011 at 10:46 AM
@ Jenna
Not the “easy solution, but certainly the best for all involved. Women should take more care with who they let in their beds.
But I suppose you are of the mindset that thinks government should take care of people when they make poor decisions.
#5 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 22 Sep 2011 at 11:22 AM
@Mike:
You know nothing of why these women are not married, yet you're ready to say staying married would be the best for all involved.
What if these women were in relationships with men who became abusive, or substance abusers?
Oh, wait - you'd still blame them because they didn't take enough care about "who they let in their beds."
What a delicious fantasy world you must live in. As if there's a website you go to to find out if a sexual partner is going to run off on you.
I've said precisely nothing about what the government should or should not do to help these women, but you're clearly pleased with their fate - since you've judged that they and their children deserve poverty and homelessness.
All 46+million people like them.
Most of them won't have health care, either. But who cares. We should let them die. Or hope some charity will help them like that fool Paul seems to think.
I mean there's a "culture of life" until the kids are born - but then, y'know - screw it. You've clearly got better things to worry about.
#6 Posted by Jenna, CJR on Thu 22 Sep 2011 at 03:44 PM
@Jenna
You know nothing of why these women are not married, yet you're ready to say staying married would be the best for all involved.
Yep
What if these women were in relationships with men who became abusive, or substance abusers?
Well, they should be more discriminating in their choice of partners.
Oh, wait - you'd still blame them because they didn't take enough care about "who they let in their beds."
Precisely.
What a delicious fantasy world you must live in. As if there's a website you go to to find out if a sexual partner is going to run off on you.
Its not a fantasy world … positive outcomes are made with good decisions. It aint magic.
I've said precisely nothing about what the government should or should not do to help these women, but you're clearly pleased with their fate - since you've judged that they and their children deserve poverty and homelessness.
I’m not please and am decidedly displeased for two reasons: the personal tragedy and the fact that I will have to flip the bill. No one “deserves” this fate, but it can be avoided. Bad luck isn’t an excuse I care to hear about.
Most of them won't have health care, either. But who cares. We should let them die. Or hope some charity will help them like that fool Paul seems to think.
They wont have “health care” or they wont have insurance. There is a difference between the two you realize.
I mean there's a "culture of life" until the kids are born - but then, y'know - screw it. You've clearly got better things to worry about.
I have my own to take care of without being saddled with cleaning up for the poor decisions of others. Just because the "culture of life" abhors murdering the unborn doesn’t mean they endorse paying the bill later.
#7 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 22 Sep 2011 at 04:08 PM
It is impossible to be involuntarily poor in this country.
Medicaid, food stamps, SSI, Section 8, S/CHIP, disability, etc.
"Poor" in this country means that the government gives you the ability to buy steak and Ho Ho's and lobster with tax money, the ability to take your kids to the doctor on the taxpayer's nickel, the ability to get spending money (for you and your kids) by milking the SSI/disability racket, etc.
When the biggest medical problems facing the "poor" in America are obesity and substance abuse, it is clear that being "poor" here bears no resemblance to being truly poor.
If you can't qualify for welfare because you can't care for your kid... Then turn the kid over to social services where somebody else will care for him or her, and then get sterilized before you move into your next section 8 trailer.
There. Problem solved. See how easy?
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 22 Sep 2011 at 05:05 PM
"Just because the "culture of life" abhors murdering the unborn doesn’t mean they endorse paying the bill later."
A better summation of conservative hypocrisy would be hard to find.
Thanks for fessing up.
#9 Posted by Craig, CJR on Thu 22 Sep 2011 at 05:28 PM
There is no hypocrisy in forbidding the murder of unborn babies and also requiring parents to support their own children. Indeed, both positions nurture children - they are utterly consistent.
Criminalizing theft doesn't mean endorsing paying thieves.
Criminalizing fraud doesn't mean endorsing paying fraudsters.
And criminalizing abortion doesn't mean endorsing subsidizing parents who neglect their children.
Commie/liberals aren't worried about the children. They're worried about the Baby Mama's infesting the trailer parks and projects.
Conservatives are worried about children. You make kids, you support them. You can't do that? Then turn them over to the state, so they get supported. And then get sterilized. Make more kids and get prosecuted for neglect.
Support the irresponsible people who make children they can't support? NO WAY.
Paying people to make babies, and then paying them to neglect their own children accomplishes what particular social good?
HUH?
The true hypocrisy is that we live in country where killing an unborn baby eight months into a pregnancy is perfectly legal, but destroying a bird egg (and not an egg of an endangered or threatened species) is a federal felony.
That's just the reality here.
#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 22 Sep 2011 at 06:29 PM
I see padikiller is still as dense as ever and living in his parents' basement, thereby avoiding poverty. Ever try to live on food stamps? Here's the perfect example of government monitoring every dime of the impoverished and spending 40 bucks an hour to do it. Of course we know, those of us who deal in facts, that welfare is 5 years and you're out these days. And one * for throwing in the obligatory baby killer/ endangered species meme. Hey, homo sapiens aren't endangered, but their home is. Just try to live without that baby intact. That's coming up.The right-wingers are all for life as long as it's before birth and after death. The expanse in between isn't their territory.
#11 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Thu 22 Sep 2011 at 09:42 PM