

In 2007 more than 37 million people or 12.5%
of the population fell below the official
poverty thresholds “poverty line.” in 2007 the
line was set at an income of $20,650 for a
family of four. Critics regard poverty criteria
to be quite conservative and believe
measures should be set 25% higher.
Metropolitan areas and principal cities within
them contain more poor people than non
Metropolitan areas.


Highest concentration of poverty is found
within central cities: 16.5% of central city
populations were poor 2007, in contrast to
11.9% poverty level for metropolitan
populations, and slightly higher than 15.4% of
non-metropolitan population who were poor
Explaining poverty –a strict culturalist asks,
“what is wrong with the poor? A structurelist
asks, “what is wrong with the distribution of
opportunities and rewards in society?”

If opportunity structure is assumed to work
fairly well but attitudes and behavior of the
poor obstacles to better life, then minimal
programs can be directed at helping poor
people redeem themselves; however,
focusing on economic changes eliminating
blue-collar jobs, consequences of racism for
minorities, concentration of wealth are
critiques of existing social/economic order

Cultural adaptations of poor to economic
disappointment of defeat, which were
response initially to broader features of
economy, became a system of values and
attitudes or people pass on to their children –
a cultural poverty. Once emerged social
orders characteristic of these areas becomes
self generating and self-perpetuating. Ideal
type for “culture of poverty” includes:







Strongly fatalistic beliefs
Weak ego development
Strong Present– time orientation
Little ability to defer gratification or plan for
future
Preoccupation with machismo
Knowledge only of one’s own neighborhood
of one’s own way of life
Lack of class consciousness

Since poverty is “internally cause – carried
around inside of people” improving
circumstances of poor is unlikely to have any
appreciable impact of their behavior, at least
not in the short term. “It is possible to
eliminate the poverty of such a family, but
only at great expense, since capacity of
radically improvident to waste money is
almost unlimited”

Valentine (1968) argued that the COP thesis
was “little more than a middle-class
intellectual rationale for blaming poverty on
the poor and avoiding recognition of the
need for radical change in our society” Ryan
(1971) argued that the COP thesis
represented “blaming the victim” was the
excuse of a society that had failed to provide
adequately for all of its members(281);

Former industrial workers whose plants have
closed, people working for wages not
allowing them to rise above poverty status,
those living in regions where robust
economic activity, such as mining or
agriculture flourished, or products have
become uncompetitive, those who bear the
burden of prejudice and discrimination and
past and present forms.

All have one thing in common: what they
have done to become poor far less important
in determining size of poverty population and
changes in structure the economy; individual
cultural or attitudinal adjustment made to
cope with poverty is not important in
understanding dimensions of poverty;
poverty is not something that poor do to
themselves, nor something that they
individually can do much about;

Major factor is restructuring of metropolitan
economies and shifts in kinds of jobs
available in changing US economy; loss of
central city manufacturing jobs to suburbs,
redistribution of industry away from older
industrial cities toward southern and western
regions of the country, employers seeking
cheaper labor overseas markets, changes in
occupational structure brought about by
technology;

Between January 2000 5 December 2007, 3.6
million US workers who had worked job for at
least three years were displaced because a
company closed or moved or position was
eliminated: figure for all displaced workers,
including those who had been on job for less
than three years, was 8.3 million(283).
City centers have become centers of finance,
marketing, and corporate management offer
image on economic environment; workers
are recruited for jobs at top and bottom of
wage system; white-collar positions with
attractive salaries not available to urban
poor;

Too low a standard? – Liberal critics say
government count of poor is undercounted.
Emphasizing basic poverty standard hasn’t
been updated in real (inflation – adjusted)
terms since 1963.in 1963 for person poverty
line was 50% of median family income. By
2001, and had fallen to 34%. Poor had fallen
further behind American living standards;
Poverty thresholds developed in 1963, women
were more likely be married, at – home moms;
today a lot of poor people live in single-parent
homes, needing childcare and work expenses;
 Too high a standard? – Conservatives argue that
government over counts the poor. Official
poverty count doesn’t take all income into
account and ignores completely household
assets. Census Bureau relies on personal survey
responses that may conceal some income (ie.
informal economy)


Major deficiency from conservative
perspective is govt counts only a families cash
income. Yet all families receive some “inkind” income. Ex- food stamps, Medicaid,
Medicare, subsidized housing. The
government provides these goods directly;
in-kind transfers subsidy for cash income

Taeuber and Taeuber (1965) use a segregation
measure, index of dissimilarity measure
degree of black-white racial segregation in
207 largest cities in US; index yields a score of
100 for a perfectly segregated population;
score of 80 would indicate 80% of either
white or black residents would have to move
strategically from their present neighborhood
in order to achieve perfect integration;

In 1960 mean score for 200 cities studied was
86.7, indicating high degree of racial
segregation: a score of 60 or more is
considered “extreme”. Scores range from a
low of 60.4 for San Jose to a high of 98.1 for
Fort Lauderdale. Analysis of data for 28 cities
with black populations of more than 100,000
revealed a range from a low of 59 for Oakland
to a high of 92 for Chicago.


2000 census results indicate black-white
segregation averaging 65.2 across all US
metropolitan areas. Having declined by 5.8%
between 1980 and 1990, segregation declined at
a lower rate of 4.6% between 1990 and 2000;
Latinos were increasingly isolated from 1980 to
2000; Los Angeles in 1980 Latinos were located
in neighborhoods that were 50% Latino; by
2000, 63% of their neighbors were Latino;
comparable figures for Dallas were 24% in 1980
and 45% in 2000. Blacks continue to live “in
metropolises with highest level segregation”

Higher segregation associated with greater
exposure start to air pollutants known to
increase risk of cancer; racial segregation of
urban blacks associated with higher rates of
victimization homicide. Public elementary
enrollments in 2000 revealed nearly half of white
students attended schools over 90% white, and
a third at schools that were 95% white. 40% of
black and Latino elementary school students
were attending schools with 90% minority;

In 2000 average black student had much lower
share of white students in their schools that was
case in 1990 due to declining proportion of white
student enrollment in public schools and
increasing proportion of black, Latino, and
Asian. Educational segregation stems from
residential segregation educational bias
penalized minority students not likely to be
corrected until residential segregation levels are
altered (288).


Last major civil rights law passed in 1960s;
Housing as problem leading to violence in
mid 1960s;
Conclusion supported by data- 1960 census
population and housing; Average segregation
of Blacks from Whites in largest cities was
stable over time: 86.2 in 1960; 85.2 in 1940
and 87.3 in 1960;
Segregation
Index
1940
85.2
1950
87.3
1960
86.2
1970
85.5
(North)
75.3
(South)
1980
80.1
(North)
68.3
(South)
1990
77.8
(North)
66.5
(South)
Segregation numbers would be higher if act wasn’t
passed; Original act was gutted of most of its
enforcement provisions by compromise
amendments; Eliminated HUDs ability to
investigate allegations of discrimination;
 1988 law- revised law more stringent enforcement
provisions; Extended time for filing complaints,
protected those with disabilities, increased HUDs
powers;
 1998 10th anniversary of an effective Fair Housing
Act and 30th anniversary of a symbolic one;



Segregation higher African-Amers than any
other group; 65% greater than Asians,35%
greater than Hispanics; For example, Chicago
segregation of Asians and Hispanics similar,
about one-half level of that of African-Amers;
Segregation by race higher than any other
characteristic: higher than European
immigrants, employed vs unemployed, single vs
married couple families, high school verse nonhigh school,


Yinger (1977) estimates that discrimination
costs blacks households a “tax’ of $4000
on average, every time they search for a
house to buy;
Not taking part in home ownership,
current generation of Blacks missed out on
$82 billion- $52 billion through lack of
housing appreciation, $10.5 billion paying
higher mortgage rates, $13.5 billion from
denial of mortgages; Oliver and Shapiro
(1995)