What's to be done about poverty?   We see it on TV.   It's discussed in Internet forums.   We read about it in the news.   Books and magazine articles on the subject abound.   Churches, synagogues, and mosques administer to the poor.   Scores of advocacy groups exist to eradicate it.   Yet poverty persists in the U.S. and around the world.   Why?

"Child Poverty in Abundant" by Jonathan Marshall, Economics Editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, and "Wasting America's Future" by Arloc Sherman, Program Associate at the Children's Defense Fund, are two poverty reform writers who present the magnitude of U.S. child poverty, its varied causes, its paradoxical persistence in a rich country, and its unfortunate effects on all Americans.   After analyzing various aspects of poverty, the authors offer solutions to reduce the level of U.S. child poverty.   However, their analyses and solutions are unconvincing, and they fail to deal with a crucial poverty issue - American attitudes.   The war on child poverty will succeed only by using the media to change the prevailing attitudes of Americans towards poverty.

Poverty means living with inadequate amounts of food, clothing, shelter, medicine and medical care.   Its most common measure is per capita disposable income, since it provides the means to buy these basic needs.   Citing a report by Smeeding and Rainwater, Marshall says the child poverty rate, the percent of children under 18 living in families with disposable incomes less than 50% of median income for all persons, was 21% in the U.S. in 1991,⁷⁹   far greater than in any other of 15 Western European countries, Australia, and Canada.   By comparison, the next worse rate was Australia's at a distant 14%.   Other countries compared were still lower, Finland being lowest at 2.5%.⁸⁰   Marshall makes another intercountry comparison by stating that the poorest 20% of the children in these 17 countries had families with higher incomes than those in the U.S., "even though the foreign countries aren't as rich as the U.S." ⁷⁹   However, he presents no evidence to support this claim.

According to Marshall, high child poverty rates and levels in the U.S. are "because the spread between rich and poor is much narrower [in the other developed countries]."⁷⁹   The causes for this income inequality are not fully understood, he admits, but he says the other countries have higher minimum wages, stronger labor unions, and more generous "safety nets", such as family and child income allowances, subsidized child care, and national health care.   These differences contribute in some way to the unfavorable position of the U.S. vis-a-vis the other 17 countries against which the U.S. is compared.   Also, the other countries have lower numbers of families headed by single parents compared to the U.S., another likely cause for the higher U.S. rate.   The subsidies, he contends, make it easier for these single parents, usually mothers, to hold jobs.⁷⁹

With respect to solutions for reducing the high U.S. child poverty, Marshall says welfare reformers prefer to change the behavior of poor parents rather than give more resources to poor children.   Agreeing with Smeeding and Rainwater, he advocates replacing the current federal income tax reduction for children, "which disproportionately helps affluent families in high tax brackets, with a $750-per-child tax credit for all children" ⁷⁹, regardless of family income.   "Such support would enable the single parent to go out and find a job, keep a job, pay for some portion of subsidized child care, and otherwise substitute for the lack of a partner who can share work and child rearing responsibilities."⁸⁰

Sherman, in "Wasting America's Future", confirms Marshall's 21% U.S. poverty rate.   He says that, in addition, more children are falling into "deep poverty",¹⁴⁷ where incomes are only one-half of the poverty income level, although he does not provide any evidence to support this statement.   Sherman confirms Marshall's view by stating that the U.S. government "lifts a far smaller proportion of low-income families out of poverty in comparison to other nations." ¹⁴⁸

One cause of child poverty, according to Sherman, is the U.S. federal government's definition of poverty, which surveys show to be too low by 24% to 29%.¹⁴⁶   Because this definition determines how much supplementary aid is given to the poor, it results in less welfare and more poverty.   The definition was based on what was called the "Economy Food Plan", which was unrealistically low from the start because its sponsor, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, expected it to provide "temporary or emergency use when funds are low."¹⁴⁸   The poverty definition also was based on outdated family spending and homemaking patterns.   It assumes the family "will bake daily, cook all food, never buy fast food or eat out, use dried beans and no canned food, be experts in nutrition, and have a working refrigerator, freezer, and stove, and ample shelf space free from rodents and roaches." ¹⁴⁹   In addition, the definition was not updated for more costly child care and the wardrobe requirements of current office work. ¹⁴⁹ This outdated definition of poverty is corroborated by Duncan Lindsey in his article, "The Welfare of Children."¹⁵¹

Other causes of high child poverty, according to Sherman, are the failure of wages of younger workers without a college education to keep up with inflation, the rising number of families headed by single mothers, the low income levels of single mothers, the failure of absent parents to provide supplementary income, the failure of child support enforcement agencies to ensure that payments are made, and the failure of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and food stamps to keep up with inflation.¹⁴⁷   At the end of his article, Sherman provides an elaborate chart¹⁴⁹ showing the adverse "outcomes" (effects) of child poverty; for example, lack of food, family stress, less learning, crime, poor housing, bad health, and so on.  He does not explain or discuss the chart.

Unfortunately, the hidden assumptions, unsupported conjectures, inaccurate statistics, and incomplete solutions described by Marshall and Sherman are misleading and unconvincing.   The articles can be viewed more as agenda-promoting propaganda rather than cogent, scholarly arguments to improve the lot of the poor.   However, the most serious fault of these authors is not their transparent distortion of the facts or promotion of unworkable remedies, but their omission of American attitudes as a cause of poverty.

First, implied in both authors' arguments is the hidden value axiom that reducing poverty is "good".   They don't discuss and contrast their axioms with other writers who liken the earth and its resources to a lifeboat of limited capacity on the open sea.   Allow too many of the poor into the lifeboat and it swamps, drowning all.   The higher net birth rates of the poor will fill the earth and completely deplete its resources, thus eliminating human and other species.   These advocates would allow the poor to perish so that the rich, who presumably have more ability and motivation (that's why they are rich!) to propagate the earth with better genes to ensure human, plant and animal survival.   By not openly acknowledging their value axioms, and comparing them to those of writers who advocate doing nothing for the poor, both authors demonstrate their bias.

Second, Marshal's chart¹⁴⁹ is based on this definition of poverty: families with disposable incomes of 50% of the median family in each country.   The poor, therefore, are poor relative to the rich in that specific country.   In other words, it is an arbitrary relative measure.   Why is this definition of poverty adequate?   It can be argued that if the poor have "enough" (yet to be defined) food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and medical care, then they don't need help.   Also, one questions the objectivity of the authors who exclude the 38 EU countries with poverty rates higher than those of the U.S.   Why aren't these countries included?   Moreover, why aren't the 135 poorer UN countries on the chart?   Marshall conveniently chops off the chart at the point where the U.S. appears last to support a biased argument.   This transparent subterfuge further impairs the author's objectivity and credibility.

Third, Sherman says the 50-year old definition of poverty is grossly outdated by modern living standards.¹⁴⁹   Maybe so, but then who do we elect to redefine it - an obscure, self-appointed "expert" with his customary high-minded, but visionary views of how the world should be run?   Appointing a wizard to redefine poverty "correctly", i.e., so that the poor get more money, inevitably results in substantial additional welfare costs.   Therefore, the definition is a critical issue that needs to be addressed by the authors.   One could propose alternate relative definitions and measures of poverty with equal validity.   One such measure would be to compare the U.S. with earlier historical levels.   Compared to the numbers of poor in the U.S. a century ago, ignoring the ups and downs of intervening business cycles, the percent poor today is lower than yesterday, and they have far better food, clothing, shelter, medicine and medical care.   The evidence for this comparison is cited by Michael B. Katz throughout his article, "Poverty."¹⁵⁴   Definitions and measures of poverty are constantly shifting with person, time, place, and circumstance.   What seemed to be an adequate definition yesterday no longer suffices today.   The authors conveniently ignore the difficulty of defining poverty adequately - money.   Alternate definitions of poverty levels must be associated with welfare costs to make practical sense to policymakers.

With respect to the root causes of child poverty cited by Marshall and Sherman, they are mostly speculative, since one obviously cannot conduct laboratory experiments on the subjects.   However, why do Marshall and Sherman ignore immigration patterns in their enumeration of causes?   It is a fact that the U.S. absorbs many more poor immigrants relative to its total population than any other country.   How many of the poor wait years for visas or risk life and limb to enter Finland?   These poor immigrants increase the average U.S. child poverty levels and income inequality compared to other developed countries.   Why don't the authors discuss the effects of immigration on income and poverty statistics?   Answer: Because such a discussion would not promote the authors' agendas.

Another important aspect of child poverty solutions that Marshall and Sherman prefer to ignore are the costs associated with welfare. Someone must pay.   Who will that be?   Shall we soak the rich, or let the middle class support the poor, as in the past?   What are the associated costs of proposed solutions?   An estimate of the cost-benefit ratios of various poverty reducing plans and policies is germane to convincing taxpaying citizens to bear it, but the authors neglect costs entirely.   Also, why haven't the authors reviewed the reasons for current complains in some EU countries and Canada about the high costs of welfare programs?   The authors ignore costs and complaints because their inclusion would detract from their agendas.

With respect to the effects of high child poverty, we are in the realm of speculation.   Marshall ignores "outcomes", but Sherman provides a full-page outcomes chart¹⁴⁹.   However, the chart is confusing.   Since "poverty" usually is defined as inadequate food, clothing, shelter and medicine, it is circular reasoning to show that poverty produces inadequate food, clothing, shelter and medicine.   Sherman's article also needs more critical editing. His assertion in the middle of his discourse that "poor children do not fit stereotypes"¹⁴⁸ is interesting, but irrelevant to the discussion about causes, effects, and solutions, and would have been better placed in the introduction to show the pervasiveness of child poverty.

In addition to the above faults, Marshall and Sherman ignore a basic reason for the current levels of child poverty: the unwillingness of most Americans to transfer more of their incomes to the poor.   How many Americans are willing to forego the kinds of luxuries to which they have become accustomed to help the poor?   Not many.   Americans are noted for their "conspicuous consumption" ^Veblen.   Another prevalent American attitude is that in the "land of equal opportunity" and "land of plenty", people are poor because they are too lazy to make themselves a better life and won't do so even if given more money; therefore, helping them is useless.   By ignoring attitudes, Marshall and Sherman omit an important cause of U.S. child poverty.

To get more money to poor American children, welfare reformists must spend more time and money using the media to change American attitudes toward child poverty instead of writing about it in obscure academic journals.   This switch in emphasis would reduce the reluctance of Americans to pay more to reduce child poverty levels.   Attitudes change slowly, but the ability and success of Madison Avenue to change American buying and voting attitudes and behavior is ample evidence that it can be done.

There is hope for poor children in the U.S.:   In 1996, after Marshall and Sherman wrote their 1993 articles, TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) replaced AFDC (Aid For Dependent Children).   This new welfare program provides income assistance for poor families, but it is limited to four years for each adult recipient, during which time the recipients must participate in work training and then get into the work force.   Over a period of six years under TANF, U.S. child poverty levels fell from 21% to 18%, (Census Bureau) and welfare administrative costs were reduced appreciably.   Therefore, TANF appears to be working and its success has demonstrated to some Americans that welfare can improve the lot of the poor at reduced costs.   However, Americans continue to be suspicious of welfare programs and covetous of their income.   Therefore, we must spend more time and money keeping the poverty problem uppermost in American minds, pricking their "conspicuous consumption" attitudes, and reminding them that the poor are not necessarily poor from laziness, but rather from the attitudes of those around them who have plenty.   Furthermore, it is necessary to remind taxpayers through the mass media that reducing child poverty results in less dangerous and costly criminality, and more productive workers and citizens; in other words, the rich amply benefit by helping the poor. The mass media is the most effective means of changing citizens' attitudes about poverty, and through them, the attitudes of American policy and law makers who fund welfare projects.

In the early part of the 20th century, much time, effort, and money were spent reducing child poverty in the U.S. by restricting child labor, improving food and drug safety, establishing medical clinics and inoculation centers, mandating compulsory school attendance, providing free school lunches, increasing minimum wages, and more.   Today, the fight to reduce child poverty must be extended from the legal level to the attitudinal level. It will succeed only by elaborate campaigns to change American attitudes, a task for which Americans are admirably suited.   Poverty writers will help these campaigns by writing convincingly for the general public in newspapers, TV, radio and the WWW without hidden agendas, distorted facts, unproven conjectures, and faulty reasoning.   Changing American attitudes through the media is the way to win the war on child poverty.