MODULE IV
POVERTY/INEQUALITY
READINGS:
PART III
13, 16, 20, 21, 23
6/13 – 19
Jump to first page
SESSION#4:
POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
Jump to first page
MODULE TOPICS





Why are inequality and poverty of
central importance to social
workers?
Who are the poor?
What are the varying explanations
for poverty?
What can be done to help bring the
poor into the social/economic
mainstream?
What is the relationship between
poverty and inequality, on the one
hand, and political power, on the
other?
Jump to first page
WHY ARE THE STUDY OF POVERTY OF POVERTY AND
INEQUALITY OF CENTRAL IMPORTANCE TO SOCIAL WORKERS AND THE
STUDY OF SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY?



As mentioned in the first module, there are four levels in the study
of social welfare policy: theoretical, political, and institutional, and
applied. In their everyday tasks, social workers are likely to be
focused on the fourth: the application rather than the formulation
of policies. But as also noted, given its historic commitment to
social justice, the profession has also always taken a keen
interest in the political (if not theoretical) dimensions of policy.
The point is that, as we have also seen in earlier modules, it is
political power, especially but not exclusively as mediated
through financial power, that is often of decisive importance in
accounting for policy outcomes..
It follows that the distribution of economic resources---in other
words, the extent of economic inequality---must engage our
attention if we are to grasp why and what type of social welfare
policies are enacted or not enacted and the why struggle for
social justice actually seems to have become more difficult in
recent years. Thus, social workers must be concerned about the
distribution of economic resources, since this factor is crucial in
Jump to first page
ultimately determining the social policy landscape
BANANA REPUBLICS
HELLO,
GRINGO
RACIST US TERM FOR
CENTRAL AMERICAN
COUNTRIES IN WHICH
DEMOCRATIC
INSTITUTIONS ARE
WEAK OR NONEXISTENT AND WEALTHPRODUCING PROPERTY
(“CAPITAL”) IS THE
VIRTUAL MONOPOLY OF
A SMALL RULING
CLASS.
Jump to first page
Who are the Poor?




Most are white
Most are working
Most are women and
children
Most are “in and out” of
poverty
Jump to first page
FACTS ABOUT THE POOR



13.3% OF THE
AMERICAN
PEOPLE ARE
“POOR,” AS
DEFINED BY THE
GOVERNMENT.
THIS TOTALED 35.6
MILLION PEOPLE
IN 1997.
7.3 MILLION
FAMILIES ARE
POOR




1 IN 4 BLACK
CHILDREN ARE
POOR
3 IN 4 ARE
WHITE
1 IN 5
CHILDREN ARE
POOR
1 IN 4 BLACKS
ARE POOR
Jump to first page
POVERTY IN THE US: 1997
(SOURCE: US CENSUS BUREAU)
6%
26%
46%
22%
whites
hispanics
blacks
others
Jump to first page
POVERTY: 1959-1999
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
NUMBER OF
POOR
POVERTY RATE
Linear (NUMBER
OF POOR)
1959
1970
1985
1999
SOURCE: US CENSUS BUREAU
Jump to first page
IMPLICATIONS OF THESE DATA
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
1959
1970
1985
SOURCE: US CENSUS BUREAU
1999
THE “SO-CALLED” TRICKLE DOWN” OR “SUPPLY
SIDE” EFFECTS HAVE HAD LITTLE PRACTICAL
MEANING FOR THE POOR
POVERTY CANNOT BE EFFECTIVELY ADDESSED
THROUGH THE MARKET SYSTEM ALONE. (IF IT
COULD, THEN THE NUMBER OF POOR WOULD
HAVE FALLEN PRECIPTIOUSLY DURING THE
CURRENT “BOOM.”)
POLITICAL INTERVENTION IS REQUIRED IF THERE
IS TO BE GREATER ECONONOMIC EQUALITY.
THE POOR MUST ORGANIZE (OR BE ORGANIZED)
POLITICALLY TO INFLUENCE ECONOMIC OUTCOMES
IF THEY ARETO ACHIEVE A GREATER DEGREE OF EQUALITY
OVER THE SHORT TO MIDDLE TERM
THE CONDITION OF THE POOR WILL PROBABLY
CONTINUE TO STAGNANT.
• THE VERY POOR ESSENTIALLY EXIST OUTSIDE THE
MAINSTREAM OF AMERICAN SOCIETY. THEY ARE
WHAT THE FRENCH CALL “LES EXCLUS,” I.E., THE
“EXCLUDED ONES.”
Jump to first page
BUT!




KEEP IN MIND THAT THE WAY THE
GOVERNMENT CALCULATES NUMBERS OF
POOR IS HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL.
THUS, A FAMILY OF FOUR IS SAID TO BE
POOR IF ITS TOTAL INCOME FALLS BELOW
THE SO-CALLED “POVERTY THRESHOLD”
OF $16.655 PER YEAR.
THE COMPARABLE FIGURE FOR AN
INDIVIDUAL IS APPROXIMATELY $8,500.
THESE “THRESHOLDS” ARE CLEARLY
“IDEOLOGICAL,” IN THE SENSE THAT THEY
DO NOT REFLECT THE REALITIES OF
EVERYDAY LIFE AND INSTEAD, FOR
POLITICAL PURPOSES, MINIMIZE THE
EXTENT OF POVERTY.
Jump to first page
Behold, an (Almost) New Threshold!





In July, 1999, the Census Bureau announced that it had calculated (but not
adopted) a revised poverty threshold; one that was said to more realistically
reflect household expenses. (The current formula---based on a crude tripling of
estimated food expenses---was first fixed in the 1960s, as a yardstick for the
War on Poverty.)
The new standard would add approximately three thousand dollars to the
current yearly budget of a family of four, which would now be considered poor
if its total income were less than $19,500 per year. Even at that level, however,
no allowance would be made for emergencies or health insurance.
Even so, if the experimental measure were adopted, the current poverty rate
would climb from 12.7% to 17%, with some 46m more Americans suddenly
declared “poor.”
The Clinton Administration was less than enthusiastic about the plan. It
announced that “at least a couple more years of work” would be required
before any adoption decision were made. According to the New York Times
(10/18/99), neither Republicans nor Democrats evinced much enthusiasm for
the Bureau’s new calculations, since the new threshold would require that
food stamps and the Head Start program would have to be made available to
many more people.
Meanwhile, independent experts have done their own calculations.
They conclude that the new Census threshold should actually be set
anywhere from two to ten thousand dollars higher. The chances of that
Jump to first page
happening are, however, virtually nil.
WHY ARE THEY POOR?
IMMEDIATE REASONS







Low wage service sector jobs
Erratic employment w/ few benefits
Poor education
Sterile and/or degraded social
environment
Non-unionized
Discrimination on basis of race,
ethnicity, or gender
Little help from government special or
general programs
Jump to first page
WHY ARE THEY POOR?
THE IDEALIST VIEW
(EXEMPLIFIED BY MOST CONTRIBUTORS TO THE NEW INEQUALITY)





THE POOR ARE IN FUNDAMENTAL WAYS DISTINCT FROM THE REST
OF THE POPULATION.
BASICALLY, THEY HAVE FAILED TO ACQUIRE THE ATTITUDES AND
SKILLS NEEDED TO PROSPER IN THE “NEW ECONOMY,” IN WHICH
EDUCATION IS THE INDISPENSABLE KEY TO SUCCESS.
POVERTY IS SOCIETY’S PROBLEM INSOFAR AS WAYS MUST BE
FOUND, WITHIN THE EXISTING SYSTEM, TO FACILITATE THE
POOR’S INTEGRATION INTO MAINSTREAM AMERICAN SOCIETY.
MOST IDEALIST SUGGESTIONS FOR “CURING” POVERTY THUS
FOCUS ON THE NEED TO RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE, PROVIDE THE
POOR WITH EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, OR ENACT SIMILAR
REFORMS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED AT “RAISING UP THE BOTTOM
LAYER.”
NOTE, HOWEVER, THAT SOME ESSENTIALLY IDEALIST ACADEMICS
(E.G., FREEMAN) HAVE SUGGESTED THAT ASSET REDISTRIBUTION
MIGHT ALSO PLAY A ROLE IN REDUCING INEQUALITY, AND THAT
SUCH REFORM MIGHT BE GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE SINCE IT
WOULD PROMOTE PROSPERITY THROUGHOUT SOCIETY.
Jump to first page
WHY ARE THEY POOR?
THE MATERIALIST VIEW (1)





BECAUSE THEY LACK POWER OVER THEIR LIVES
AND COMMUNITIES.
BECAUSE THAT POWER IS HELD BY THOSE LITTLE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE POOR.
BECAUSE POWER ULTIMATELY DERIVES FROM
OWNERSHIP OF PRODUCTIVE RESOURCES, AND
THE POOR LACK SUCH WEALTH.
BECAUSE THE POOR HAVE FEW ALLIES OR
SUPPORTERS AMONG MAINSTREAM POLITICIANS
OR AMERICANS IN GENERAL, WHO INSTEAD SEEK
TO DISASSOCIATE THEMSELVES FROM THE POOR.
BECAUSE THE POOR ARE FRAGMENTED INTO
VARIOUS RACIAL, GENDER, VOCATIONAL, AND
ETHNIC CATEGORIES, MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR
THEM TO RECOGNIZE THEMSELVES TO ACT IN A
CONCERTED WAY ON THEIR OWN BEHALF.
Jump to first page
THE MATERIALIST VIEW (2)
THE CLASS SYSTEM
CONCEPTUALIZING THE POOR AS A SEPARATE GROUP IS MISLEADING:
1. ALTHOUGH THERE IS A “HARD CORE” GROUP OF POOR PEOPLE, WHOSE STATUS
REMAINS CONSTANT, MOST OF THE POOR ROTATE IN AND OUT OF POVERTY. THE
POOR AND NEAR POOR ARE THUS ESSENTIALLY MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN
WORKING CLASS.
2. AS SUCH THEY ARE COMPONENTS OF A WELL-DEVELOPED SOCIAL CLASS
SYSTEM WHICH DISPROPORTIONATELY REWARDS THOSE WHO OWN OR MANAGE
THE CORPORATIONS. COLLECTIVELY, THESE INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES
CONSTITUTE A LARGELY SELF-PERPETUATING RULING CLASS.
3. THE “MIDDLE CLASS” OF RELATIVELY BETTER PAID WORKERS IS INCREASINGLY
SQUEEZED AS ITS SHARE OF NATIONAL WEALTH/INCOME CONTINUES TO DECLINE
AS THE RESULT OF THIS RAPID AND ADVERSE (I.E., TO IT) SHIFT WHICH IN TURN
REFLECTS RAPID TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE AND THE GLOBALIZATION PROCESS.
4. MATERIALISTS THUS DIFFER FROM IDEALISTS IN VIEWING POVERTY AND, MORE
GENERALLY, INEQUALITY AS DERIVING FROM THE VERY LOGIC AND NATURE OF THE
CAPITALIST SYSTEM, RATHER THAN FROM CULTURAL TRAITS DISTINCTIVE TO THE
POOR. MATERIALISTS ARE ALSO SKEPTICAL OF IDEALIST REFORM PROPOSALS
BECAUSE THESE DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE ABILITY AND DETERMINATION OF THE
POWERFUL TO USE THEIR CONTROL OVER INSTITUTIONS TO RESIST CHANGES
POTENTIALLY AT ODDS WITH THEIR POITICAL AND ECONOMIC INTERESTS.
Jump to first page
THE MATERIALIST VIEW: THE CLASS SYSTEM (3)




POOR PEOPLE ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ENTIRE CLASS SYSTEM:
TRENDS AFFECTING THEM ALSO AFFECT ALL OTHER AMERICANS, ALBEIT
IN VARYING WAYS---POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE---DEPENDING ON THEIR OWN
PARTICULAR CLASS POSITIONS. THE TREND TOWARDS GROWING
INEQUALITY IS “STRUCTURAL” IN EXACTLY THIS SENSE: IT RESULTS
FROM UNDERLYING (“STRUCTURAL”) CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING THE
ENTIRE SOCIETY, NOT MERELY ITS POOREST MEMBERS.
FOREMOST AMONG THESE CHARACTERISTICS IS THE GROWING POLITICAL
AND ECONOMIC POWER OF THE CORPORATE-BASED MINORITY (SEE
PREVIOUS TWO SLIDES), WHOSE DOMINANT POSITION IS CONFIRMED AND
STRENGTHEND THROUGH ITS VASTLY DISPROPORTIONATE AND EVER
INCREASING SHARE OF TOTAL NATIONAL INCOME AND WEALTH.
AT THE OTHER END OF THE CLASS SYSTEM THE UNEMPLOYED AND
WORKING POOR ARE VIRTUALLY EXCLUDED FROM POLITICAL AND
ECONOMIC PARTICIPATION.
THE SAME TRENDS AND CHARACTERISITICS ALSO EXPLAIN THE SOCALLED “MIDDLE CLASS CRISIS,” AS MORE PEOPLE ARE FORCED TO WORK
LONGER HOURS EACH YEAR SIMPLY TO MAINTAIN THE SAME STANDARD
OF LIVING. (N.B. MOST COLLEGE STUDENTS COME FROM THIS SEGMENT
OF THE POPULATION, ALTHOUGH STUDENTS AT ELITE COLLEGES ARE
Jump to first page
MORE LIKELY TO BE FROM RULING CLASS FAMILIES.)
THE IMPORTANCE OF GLOBALIZATION
THE MATERIALIST VIEW







THOSE ADHERING TO A MATERIALIST PERSPECTIVE EMPHASIZE
GLOBALIZATION AS THE PRINCIPAL DYNAMIC FACTOR BEHIND THE
RAPID GROWTH IN ECONOMIC INEQUALITY AND THE FAILURE TO
MAKE HEADWAY AGAINST POVERTY.
THEIR PARTICULAR FOCUS HAS BEEN ON THE FOLLOWING
GLOBALIZATION-RELATED DEVELOPMENTS, ALL OF WHICH ARE
SEEN AS HAVING CONTRIBUTED TO GROWING CLASS
POLARIZATION:
DISAPPEARANCE OF MILLIONS OF HIGH-WAGE ( “MIDDLE CLASS”)
BLUE COLLAR JOBS
DESTRUCTION/NEUTRALIZATION OF LARGE SECTIONS OF THE
TRADE UNION MOVEMENT
INCREASE IN LOW-PAYING, FEMALE-DOMINATED SERVICE &
“CONTINGENT” JOBS.
DIMINISHED PROSPECTS FOR “PROGRESSIVE” POLITICAL CHANGE
WIDENING GAP BETWEEN WORKERS & OWNERS/MANAGERS, AS
ILLUSTRATED IN THE FOLLOWING THREE SLIDES….
N.B. THE FOLLOWING FIVE SLIDES (17-21) PROVIDE EMPIRICAL
EVIDENCE + COMPLEMENTARY TEXT PANELS DOCUMENTING THE
CHANGING AMERICAN CLASS STRUCTURE AND THE EXTENT OF
CLASS POLARIZATION.
Jump to first page
THE NEW
CLASS
STRUCTURE
AND
SEGMENTS
SOURCE:
R. PERRUCCI
AND
E. WYSONG
(1999),
THE NEW
CLASS
SOCIETY
(see next slide for
details)
1.SUPER CLASS OF
OWNERS/EMPLOYERS
2.CREDENTIALED
CLASS: MANAGERS
AND
PROFESSIONALS
1+2=
Privileged Class
20% OF POP.
3.COMFORT
CLASS
4.CONTINGENT CLASS:
WAGE EARNERS &
SELF-EMPLOYED
3 + 4 + 5=
NEW WORKING
CLASS
80% OF POP.
5. POOR AND
DESTITUTE
Jump to first page
THE NEW CLASS STRUCTURE: AN EXPLANATORY SUMMARY
I. PRIVILEGED CLASS



OWNERS AND EMPLOYERS: INCOMES @ 6 & 7 FIGURES - 1-2% OF TOTAL
POPULATION. TOGETHER W/ CLASS MANAGERS, OWNERS OF FINANCE
CAPITAL (SEE NEXT SLIDE.)
CREDENTIALED CLASS MANAGERS: MID/UPPER LEVEL MANAGERS-CEOS W/
INCOMES @ 6-7 RANGE -13-15% OF POPULATION.
PROFESSIONALS: HIGHLY EDUCATED AND SKILLED WIDE RANGE OF INCOMES: $75k AND ABOVE - 4 -5% OF POPULATION.
II. NEW WORKING CLASS


COMFORT CLASS: NURSES/SOCIAL WORKERS/TEACHERS/SKILLED
WORKERS, SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. $35-50K INCOME RANGE BUT
LITTLE INVESTMENT CAPITAL. 10% OF POPULATION.
CONTINGENT CLASS - COMPOSED OF THREE MAIN GROUPS:
(1) WAGE EARNERS: CLERICAL/SALES/MANUAL WORKERS - $30K AND
LOWER - 50% OF POPULATION.
(2) SELF-EMPLOYED: MODEST INCOMES/HIGH FAILURE POTENTIAL - 3-4% OF
POPULATION
(3) POOR AND DESTITUTE: ROTATES IN/OUT OF LABOR FORCE IN VARIOUS
UNSKILLED, TEMPORARY JOBS - 10 - 15% OF POPULATION.
Jump to first page
0-50
DISTRIBUTION OF FINANCIAL WEALTH 1992
50.00%
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
46.00%
45.00%
NEXT 19%
TOP 1%
7.00%
BOTTOM 80%
to first page
SOURCE: E.N. WOLF (1996) TOPJump
HEAVY
Share of stock market gains, 1989 – 1997, by wealth class
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Top 1% Next 9% Next 10% Next 20% Middle Bottom
20%
40%
Source: Mishel, L. (1999) The State of Working America
Jump to first page
1977
1999
top 1%
top fifth
middle fifth
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
bottom fifth
Income Distribution 1977-1999
Sources: CBO/Center
for Budget Priorities
Jump to first page
Additional Information on Income Distribution

Let ‘em
eat
oats


Chew
on
this!
In 1977 the richest 1% of Americans
(2.7m) had as many after tax dollars
as the bottom 49m
In 1999 the richest 1% had as many
after tax dollars as the bottom
100m.
In 1999 the richest 1% will have the
same amount of disposable
income as the bottom 100m---that
is, each will have $620 billion to
spend.
Jump to first page
WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT POVERTY AND INEQUALITY?






THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A POLITICAL OR ACADEMIC CONSENSUS ABOUT THE
CAUSES OF AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO POVERTY AND INEQUALITY.
HOWEVER, AMERICAN INDIVIDUALISM TENDS TO BE A CONSISTENT INFLUENCE ON
OPINION RIGHT ACROSS THE SOCIAL SPECTRUM. THUS, INEQUALITY IS GENERALLY
ACCEPTED AS A FACT OF SOCIAL LIFE. MOST PEOPLE SEEM TO THINK THAT THERE
IS INDEED MUCH UNFAIRNESS BUT THAT THERE IS ALSO AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO
“MAKE IT” IF YOU ARE SMART, AMBITIOUS, AND INDUSTRIOUS.
THIS SAME ATTITUDE COLORS OPIONIONS ABOUT POVERTY, WHICH MOST
AMERICANS SEEM TO VIEW AS A PERSONAL FAILING, EVEN WHEN THEY
THEMSELVES ARE POOR.
THIS “PURITANICAL” ATTITUDE, OFTEN ENCOURAGED BY THE MEDIA, DIMINISHES
ONLY WHEN LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE SUDDENLY EXPERIENCE ECONOMIC
DISTRESS FOR REASONS OBVIOUSLY BEYOND THEIR PERSONAL CONTROL OR
RESPONSIBILITY. THE GREAT DEPRESSION (1929-41) WAS THE LAST TIME THIS WAS
THE CASE.
POLITICAL DISCUSSION OF POVERTY HAS FADED IN THE WAKE OF WELFARE
REFORM: MANY MIDDLE CLASS SUBURBAN WHITES INDEED TEND TO SEE POVERTY
IN SIMPLISTIC RACIAL TERMS (E.G.,“WELFARE QUEENS”), AND (MIS)PERCEIVES THE
PROSPERITY OF RECENT YEARS AS HAVING (1) CREATED GREATLY EXPANDED
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND (2) “LIFTED ALL BOATS,” INCLUDING THOSE OF POOR
PEOPLE.
IT IS A MEASURE OF CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL SUCCESS THAT LIBERALS AND
RADICALS FIND IT INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO CHALLENGE THIS DOMINANT
CONSERVATIVE POSITION. THUS….
Jump to first page
POLITICAL PRESCRIPTIONS
I PROPOSE
REALLY RADICAL
SURGERY---LET’S
CUT OUT THE BULLSHIT!




POVERTY WAS THE MAJOR TOPIC OF POLITICAL
DISCUSSION UP UNTIL THE EARLY 1970S, WHEN THE
COUNTRY BEGAN TO MOVE RIGHTWARDS.
THE VIEWS PRESENTED IN THE FOLLOWING
PANELS ROUGHLY SUMMARIZE POSITIONS TAKEN
IN THOSE DAYS BUT MORE RARELY VOICED TODAY.
WE THUS FACE A REMARKABLE PARADOX: ON THE
ONE HAND, GROWING INEQUALITY AND
INTRACTABLE POVERTY; ON THE OTHER,
DISAPPEARANCE OF THESE AS POLITICAL ISSUES. .
THE TASK OF SOCIAL POLICY ANALYSTS HAS
ACCORDINGLY ALSO BEEN RENDERED
PARADOXICAL: NAMELY, NOT SO MUCH TO DISCUSS
POLICY ALTERNATIVES AS TO UNDERSTAND WHY
SUCH ALTERNATIVES ARE NOT BEING DISCUSSED..
Jump to first page
The Conservative Prescription
The Poor:

The market dispenses
a rough justice,

not mercy or
compassion.
For the latter, look
to religion, not
government
or business.


are culturally and perhaps personally illadapted to the demands of a competitive
society. It is their responsibility, as
individuals, to remedy their deficiencies
through cultivation of appropriate talents
and characteristics
in particular lack motivation, discipline, selfreliance, and ambition---that is why the are
unable to escape the so-called “poverty
trap,” which in reality is essentially of their
own making
disproportionately derive from certain ethnic
and racial groups, but adequate steps have
already been taken to secure their legal
equality and equality of opportunity.
best assisted by private charities (“thousand
points of light”) rather than public agencies.
The former understand the indispensability
of providing a handup rather than a handout.
Jump to first page
An Addendum:
The Proposed Republican Tax Cut


Fair shares
for
ALL

(the rich)

Republicans propose a $792
billion tax cut over 10 years
Most of this would benefit those
making over $100k a year
Once phased in, the cuts would
save $32.000 a year for the
richest 1%
This savings would be almost
4Xs more than the total
income of the bottom 20% of
the population.
Jump to first page
The Liberal Prescription
The Poor Are:

I STILL HAVE

THE ANSWERS,
IF ONLY
PEOPLE
WOULD LISTEN!

THESE DEMOCRATICS
JUST NEED A GOOD
SWIFT KICK IN THE
PANTS!

essentially but not exclusively victims of
oppressive social conditions.
both individuals and members of a social
class or racial group: some are “stronger”
and more intelligent than others, some have
been discriminated against more than others,
but all deserve a chance to compete for the
“good life,” as Americans understand that
term.
needn’t be “with us” forever. We can and
should (re)create a social safety net adequate
to protect every American. While there will
always be social and economic differences,
these must be kept within bounds compatible
with a democratic society.
entitled to greater attention than they
currently receive. Indeed, this is true for most
Americans outside the “golden circle” of the
corporate elite.
Jump to first page
The Radical Prescription
The Poor are:

THE CORPORATE
RICH
CONROL
THE COUNTRY

.

best understood as victims of class
oppression. Poverty is a structural problem,
inherent in the capitalist political/economic
system, in which: (a) the few own and control
most of the productive wealth (“capital”) for
their own benefit and regardless of social
consequences (e.g., the impact of
globalization), even though (b) everyone else
is dependent upon access to these same
resources for their economic survival.
thus no different than the so-called “middle
class,” in that virtually all workers, blue and
white collar alike, are victimized in capitalist
society.
able to improve their condition through action--specifically, collaboration with other
oppressed groups, who together must unite to
reestablish democratic government and create
a humane social order.
Jump to first page
Summary and Social Work



Conservatives: Horatio Alger
Liberals: Culture of Poverty
Radicals: Class Oppression
SOCIAL WORK:
“PERSON IN ENVIRONMENT” IS
A CLASSIC SOCIAL WORK
CONCEPT.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN IN THE
PRESENT CONTEXT? WHICH
VIEWPOINT DISCUSSED ABOVE
COMES CLOSEST TO
EXPRESSING SOCIAL WORK
VALUES? WHAT SHOULD
SOCIAL WORKERS DO TO
COMBAT Jump to first page