ANS -- The Three Biggest Right-Wing Lies About Poverty

Here's a short article by Robert Reich about right wing lies about the economy and jobs.  Simple to understand, so read it.  I've included the comments thus far, for no particular reason. 
Find it here:  http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24228-the-three-biggest-right-wing-lies-about-poverty  
--Kim

The Three Biggest Right-Wing Lies About Poverty

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

14 June 14

 

ather than confront poverty by extending jobless benefits to the long-term unemployed, endorsing a higher minimum wage, or supporting jobs programs, conservative Republicans are taking a different tack.

They're peddling three big lies about poverty. To wit:

Lie #1: Economic growth reduces poverty.

"The best anti-poverty program," wrote Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, in the Wall Street Journal, "is economic growth."

Wrong. Since the late 1970s, the economy has grown 147 percent per capita but almost nothing has trickled down. The typical American worker is earning just about what he or she earned three decades ago, adjusted for inflation.

Meanwhile, the share of Americans in poverty remains around 15 percent. That's even higher than it was in the early 1970s.

How can the economy have grown so much while most people's wages go nowhere and the poor remain poor? Because almost all the gains have gone to the top.

Research by Immanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty shows that forty years ago the richest 1 percent of Americans got 9 percent of total income. Today they get over 20 percent.

It's true that redistributing income to the needy is politically easier in a growing economy than in a stagnant one. One reason so many in today's middle class are reluctant to pay taxes to help the poor is their own incomes are dropping.

But the lesson we should have learned from the past three decades is economic growth by itself doesn't reduce poverty.

Lie #2: Jobs reduce poverty.

Senator Marco Rubio said poverty is best addressed not by raising the minimum wage or giving the poor more assistance but with "reforms that encourage and reward work."

This has been the standard Republican line ever since Ronald Reagan declared that the best social program is a job. A number of Democrats have adopted it as well. But it's wrong.

Surely it's better to be poor and working than to be poor and unemployed. Evidence suggests jobs are crucial not only to economic well-being but also to self-esteem. Long-term unemployment can even shorten life expectancy.

But simply having a job is no bulwark against poverty. In fact, across America the ranks of the working poor have been growing. Around one-fourth of all American workers are now in jobs paying below what a full-time, full-year worker needs in order to live above the federally defined poverty line for a family of four.

Why are more people working but still poor? First of all, more jobs pay lousy wages.

While low-paying industries such as retail and fast food accounted for 22 percent of the jobs lost in the Great Recession, they've generated 44 percent of the jobs added since then, according to a recent report from the National Employment Law Project.

Second, the real value of the minimum wage continues to drop. This has affected female workers more than men because more women are at the minimum wage.

Third, government assistance now typically requires recipients to be working. This hasn't meant fewer poor people. It's just meant more poor people have jobs.

Bill Clinton's welfare reform of 1996 pushed the poor into jobs, but they've been mostly low-wage jobs without ladders into the middle class. The Earned Income Tax Credit, a wage subsidy, has been expanded, but you have to be working in order to qualify.

Work requirements haven't reduced the number or percent of Americans in poverty. They've merely increased the number of working poor ­ a term that should be an oxymoron.

Lie #3: Ambition cures poverty.

Most Republicans, unlike Democrats and independents, believe people are poor mainly because of a lack of effort, according to a Pew Research Center/USA Today survey. It's a standard riff of the right: If the poor were more ambitious they wouldn't be poor.

Obviously, personal responsibility is important. But there's no evidence that people who are poor are less ambitious than anyone else. In fact, many work long hours at backbreaking jobs.

What they really lack is opportunity. It begins with lousy schools.

America is one of only three advanced countries that spends less on the education of poorer children than richer ones, according to a study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Among the 34 O.E.C.D. nations, only in the United States, Israel and Turkey do schools serving poor neighborhoods have fewer teachers and crowd students into larger classrooms than do schools serving more privileged students. In most countries, it's just the reverse: Poor neighborhoods get more teachers per student.

And unlike most OECD countries, America doesn't put better teachers in poorly performing schools,

So why do so many right-wing Republicans tell these three lies? Because they make it almost impossible to focus on what the poor really need – good-paying jobs, adequate safety nets, and excellent schools.

These things cost money. Lies are cheaper.


Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest, "Beyond Outrage," is now out in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause. His new film, "Inequality for All," is available on Netflix, iTunes, DVD, and On Demand.
 

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team
 

+37 # tswhiskers 2014-06-14 07:26
Only in America can a political party get away with telling bold-faced lies and even be re-elected for them. The first 2 lies are (or should be) blatantly obvious. It has been self-evident at least since the crash of 2008 that economic growth produces economic growth for the few at the top who MAY OR MAY NOT pass some of that largesse on to their employees. Lie no. 2 is a lie because of Lie no. 1. Unless we could increase the number of hours in the day so people could work 4/5 jobs a day instead of 2/3 employment by itself will not provide a liveable wage. (Hey! There's a new line for Reps.! The earth has recently been shown to rotate on its own axis every 26 hours.) Lie no. 3 says that ambition alone will solve our economic problems. A wealthy old fart actually said to my face that I surely went out of business because I didn't work hard enough. The fact was that he and others didn't SPEND enough for me to stay in business. The fact is that you need money or access to it to develop an idea or start a business and more money and help to keep it running. Then you need customers who will pay enough to keep you going. Since 2001 it's been very difficult for many businesses to get and keep all 3. Yes, the Reps. are pro-business FOR BIG BUSINESS and to **** with all other businesses.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 

+27 # reiverpacific 2014-06-14 07:58
I'm pretty thick when it comes to economics. I read my daughter's school books on the subject and they seemed to me to be simplistic, broad-brushed and pretty shallow in socio-economic content.
I once asked Dr Richard Wolff (Capitalism Hits the Fan) at a talk he gave in Portland Oregon, if the language of economics is deliberately obscure and he answered "Absolutely", so go figure that into an equation for dictation of terms by a few!
The word "Growth" keeps popping up also but that to me translates, by current standards and lack of creative imagination, especially on the Right, into more extractive plunder of the earth's finite resources, the gradual obliteration of many species and even our own kind.
The term "Inflation" is easily explained but still hard for me to understand: maybe I'm just dim or blocked in some way.
I haven't spent my life pursuing money, rank or a "career" in the accepted sense but have done what I love and used my education and abilities to travel, see, live and experience other cultures and morés.
Ergo, from a simple minded perspective, the Right Wing's limited, blinkered morés are based on a kind of pyramid structure but with weak foundations, where the wider the structure gets, the less it is able to bear the concentrated weight at the top, so it will eventually all come crashing down (as an Architect with a strong structural engineering side, I at least understand THAT)!
Mr Reich also left out Universal Healthcare as an crucial element.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 

+1 # Malcolm 2014-06-14 15:07
Well said, reiverpacific! You've got as good a grasp as anyone else, I'd say.

Yor comment on the pyramid structure is so true (I'm only an unlicensed architect and engineer, but I've a lot of experience in designing and constructing both residential and industrial structures)

Back in the hazy, lazy, hippy days, we had a saying about the fact that growth is a pyramid scheme: "GROW" is a four-letter word.

I think that's even clearer now than it was then. Back then, the limits to growth were a bit more abstract, at least in this country.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 

-26 # Hammy 2014-06-14 08:09
I have ministered in low economic areas and in prisons for many years. It is obvious to anyone familiar to these contexts that the primary cause of poverty in the U.S. is the breakdown of the family and the resulting consequences of single-parentho od.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 

+19 # reiverpacific 2014-06-14 08:45
Quoting Hammy:

I have ministered in low economic areas and in prisons for many years. It is obvious to anyone familiar to these contexts that the primary cause of poverty in the U.S. is the breakdown of the family and the resulting consequences of single-parenthood.

Would this perhaps be -just to link it to the subject matter- because the "Lousy (Minimum or less) wages" Reich mentions in which two parents -and sometimes the teens too- have to work to sustain a family at ongoing inflationary costs, all competing for fewer and fewer jobs as living wage (single-earner) jobs have been sent overseas to Sweatshop economies.
BTW, the Latino-a population where I live have a tendency to pool their resources and keep both a sense of family and community together, at times buying up failed businesses, supporting the tax base and even hiring local help.
But I also know single-parent families who are better, more dedicated parents just by virtue of the struggle, than many of those in classic "Family" structures that the Tea-Thuglicans keep beating the US population over the head with, whilst working to make this impracticable.
In fact I have a friend who is an executive director in an international sports Corporation, who has given his "Corporate" wife (a former student of mine) and daughter every material advantage, has three houses in prime neighborhood, coastal and resort locations -and they are falling apart.
I could go on but it's never just that easy.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 

+10 # hd70642 2014-06-14 09:40
Excuse me but about the breakdown when jobs are shipped over seas ? My family was neither the worst or the greatest but the economy has continued to plummet since the lack luster administration of Gerald Ford who left the economy in worst condition than the current GM vehicles being produced !!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 

+8 # Tigre1 2014-06-14 13:05
Which comes first, Hammy? like the chicken and the egg...and YOU have it backwards.

Another person of the cloth who blithely has no clue. I forgive you, sort of, because you "know not what you do".

But if I were in your line of work I'd either get out of it or work very hard on getting "right" with my God and His Son, especially the words Jesus is reported to have said in the New Testament...
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 

# Kimc 2014-06-14 18:42
Some of the breakdown of the family was deliberately engineered by big corporations in the 1950s. They wanted workers (executives especially) to be completely dedicated to the company, so they made them move away from their extended families so they would be isolated and dependent on the company.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

 
 

+17 # Carol R 2014-06-14 08:12
"And unlike most OECD countries, America doesn't put better teachers in poorly performing schools."

I agree with what Reich says except he is off on the idea that good teachers aren't working in poverty level schools. It is the culture of poverty that prevents kids from learning. Stop beating up on teachers. it is also true that many poverty level schools don't have decent updated materials. I subbed in poverty schools in Chicago and some school physical facilities were in really bad shape with floors having holes, outdated text books and desks that didn't even fit the size of the kids. Class sizes in these schools were way too big.

I seriously doubt that any rich schools in high income neighborhoods have anything that bad. Money does make a difference but what politician really cares about poor people?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 

0 # chasashmore 2014-06-14 18:03
[quote name="Carol R"]"And unlike most OECD countries, America doesn't put better teachers in poorly performing schools."

[Quote from Carrol:] "I agree with what Reich says except he is off on the idea that good teachers aren't working in poverty level schools. It is the culture of poverty that prevents kids from learning. Stop beating up on teachers."[end quote from Carol]

Robert Reich isn't beating up on teachers, nor, I'm sure, would he sent that there are some excellent and dedicated teachers in pour schools. He's simply making a statement of fact. There's NO CONCERTED EFFORT to direct good teachers toward poor schools as there is in many countries. Poor schools suffer from lack of resources and from neglect, and both lack of resources and general neglect affect the overall quality of staff as well. We should be able to see the difference between a statement of fact like that and an attack on teachers. Such hyper sensitivity serves no one.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 

+11 # kalpal 2014-06-14 08:47
But, but, if you don't punish the poor how will they ever become rich? Withholding support from the poor is the RW metodology of forcing the poor to forget about food and shelter and spending their meager funds to earn a PhD.

I have heard all too often ignorant excuses from the right about how schools are bad because teachers insist on earning a living wage rather than living frugally so that the parents of their students pay fewer taxes and even less attention to their progeny.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 

-3 # dick 2014-06-14 08:53
Reich, bless his humane heart, has one foot stuck in a time warp and the other stuck in misguided loyalty to the Party (ies) that made him LabSec. I wish Bob would focus his many skills on Living Wage, tax billionaires, re-structure student loans, and
RADICAL restructuring of education for the poor. Dysfunctional families, dysfunctional communities, uninterested law enforcement, poorly focuses churches, anti-learning culture, etc., create a monuMENTAL challenge for education. We need hundreds, perhaps thousands, of protective CAMPUSES that promote useful learning from 6:00am to 10:00pm. But we must ADMIT that dysfunctional families, communities, other world obsessed churches WILL NOT get the job done. Homework trumps prayer; the Santa Claus in the sky CANNOT really deliver.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 

+14 # jojo5056 2014-06-14 09:15
Here is a sure fix for America's ills. Mandatory that everyone's tax returns be made public. Most folks who make over $200K per year pay zip in taxes.
Question for you all--how is it that most politicians after 1 1/2 terms in office become millionair$ on a $180,000 salary?
The one that really bothers me the most--invest in stocks--max 15% tax on profits and still these investors at the end pay no taxes.
Time to put term limits on all politicians 2 x 4. Clean house in no time :^(
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 

+3 # fredboy 2014-06-14 13:28
You nailed it.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 

+1 # karenvista 2014-06-14 16:57
Quoting jojo5056:

Question for you all--how is it that most politicians after 1 1/2 terms in office become millionair$ on a $180,000 salary?

The one that really bothers me the most--invest in stocks--max 15% tax on profits and still these investors at the end pay no taxes.

Time to put term limits on all politicians 2 x 4. Clean house in no time :^(

I'm not for term limits. It just creates more lobbyists, which is what out-of-work politicians become.

Politicians get their family members or other associated people to trade on the inside information they get from being in government. That's since it recently became illegal for them to do it themselves.

It's just like Goldman Sachs - their execs move back and forth between the government and the bank so they always have inside information and also have the ability to write or influence the laws that pertain to them and protect their frauds and wealth.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 

# Kimc 2014-06-14 18:46
How do you know this? Since the tax returns aren't public now, where do you get your info? I'm not disagreeing with the concept, I just want to know the authority.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

 
 

-1 # robcarter.vn 2014-06-14 16:18
Robert of course you are right in the US context. But, "Lie #1: Economic growth reduces poverty." but it would be true if the growth was not in unemployment caused by fossil fuel eating mchines scking real consumers, and destroying disposable incomes at large.
Lie #2: Jobs reduce poverty. That two would be true if they weren't paid lower than machine alternatives, and if there were enough jobs to make supply demand fair prices from the employer, again machines cost less and complain less.
Lie #3: Ambition cures poverty. "its only true if there is a sufficient employee demand to satiate the available supply of at least the ambitious, but in USA the Automation makes certain there are less jobs each year as a ratio to growth in working aged unemployed. USA only SALVATION IS in the Un-industrial revolution that must come as in 1700's Europe when workers removed their wooden shoes, the clogs (Sabots) and threw them into the machines that stole their jobs. Thus clog-ging the works in the sabot-age or age of the sabot = sabotage clogging automation to re-employ humans.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 

# Kimc 2014-06-14 18:50
You can't just sabotage the current system -- you have to have an alternate system to offer that is different and works. We propose worker-owned, democratically run businesses, where the aim of the business is to produce good jobs with living wages. To do that, you need the business to be profitable, but it doesn't have to have accelerating percentage of profit if it stays away from selling stock.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator